Some thoughts on Predestination

[Mark Quayle]

To quote from a b-grade science fiction movie, "There can be only one". Just as there is only one Word. But that's a little ontological I fear, not really what you're thinking in your posts.


I am serious, there is in fact one eternal decree, that is why it is called "God's eternal decree" rather than God's eternal decrees.

In my reading I have found this to be the case - In Calvinist theology, the belief in one eternal decree is rooted in the teachings of John Calvin and is expounded upon in his work "Institutes of the Christian Religion." Calvin argued that God's sovereignty and control over all things, including salvation and damnation, is a central tenet of the Christian faith and that this sovereignty is expressed through the doctrine of predestination. This belief was further developed by later Calvinist theologians such as Theodore Beza, who wrote "The Christian Faith,” and Jonathan Edwards, who wrote "A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections." These works helped to establish the doctrine of predestination as a cornerstone of Calvinist theology and the idea that there is only one eternal decree remains a central aspect of Reformed theology to this day.

Visit This web page, it is about the eternal decree..

The article seems to me to contradict itself. In its discussion of the "two wills of God", it says, quite rightly, "God’s Directive Will, is that will whereby He directs or causes whatever comes to pass." Then, discussing God's Permissive Will, it says, "But God does not cause anyone to sin." As such, I can't say that the article is representative of Calvinism.

 

[Clare73]

You may be right. @Clare73 is wise enough to read the web page I suggested. She will know what to do with it. I am confident of that.

Speaking of which, I'm sure you would be disappointed if I did not vary a bit, so. . . not to disappoint:

I agree with every word. . .down to the section, "God's Decree is Initiated by His Will," which presents a "permissive" will of God.

I see nothing of a "permissive" will of God in the Bible (Ex 5:21, 9:16, 1 Sa 18:10, 2 Sa 24:1, 10, 1 Kgs 22:23, Job 12:16, Eze 14:9, Da 4:35).
I see only the revealed will of God, which man is commanded to obey and which he disobeys,
and the secret will of God, which God has decided it is best for us not to know (Dt 29:29), and which is always done (Isa 46:10-11).
I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen (Ex 4:11b, Dt 32:39, 1 Sa 2:7, 1 Kgs 11:14, 23, 12:15, 24, Job 1:12, Isa 45:7, 53:10, 54:16, Jer 44:27-28, Lam 3:37-38, Amos 3:6, Zec 11:16, Mt 10:29, Jn 9:2-3, Rev 17:17).
I see it as a ridiculous notion of man to attribute such weakness to God.

I see in the Bible only a God who ordains or decrees (not permits) everything (Lam 3:37), down to the last detail (Ps 50:11, Ps 139:16,
Ps 147:4, Mt 10:30).
It is men, not the Bible, who present God as simply knowing in advance what men are going to do,
which is a misunderstanding of divine foreknowledge, which in its Scriptural usage refers to God foreknowing what he is going to do ("Known to the Lord for ages is his work," Ac 15:18), and foreknowing it because he is the one who decreed that he shall do it.
The Bible presents God as causing men to do what he wills them to do (Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, 14:17, 23:27, Dt 2:25, 30, Jos 11:20, 2 Sa 24:1,
1 Kgs 22:23, 1 Chr 5:26, Ezr 1:1, 5, Pr 21:1, Eze 14:9, Da 1:9, Jn 6:37, Ac 2:23, 4:28, 13:48, 2 Co 8:16, Rev 17:17),
not unwillingly granting what he does not wish to happen.

What we call God's "permissive" will is what the Bible calls God's secret will (Dt 29:29).
The difference is that God's secret will, rather than unwillingly granting what he does not wish to happen, is the sole determiner of all that happens (Isa 8:10, 14:24, 46:10); man determines nothing (Da 4:35, Ps 33:9-10, Pr 16:9, 19:21, 20:24).
The relationship between the secret will of God and the revealed will of God is shown in Ex 7:1-3.
In v.2, God states his revealed will for Pharaoh, "Let Israel go."
Then in v.3, God states his secret will for Pharoah, "But I will harden his heart (Ex 4:21). . .(so) that he will not listen to you."
Because God is sovereign, he can ordain in his secret will (Ex 9:12, Jdg 9:23,1 Sa 18:10, 1 Kgs 22:23, Eze 14:9, Mt 18:7, Mk 14:21,
Jn 13:27, Ac 2:23, 4:28 ) that which is contrary to his revealed will (Ex 9:13, Eze 18:32, Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30, 1Ti 2:4, 4:10, 2 Pe 3:9).
And because God is sovereign, he can in his secret will both ordain the fall of man (which is the cause of all sin) and yet not be the author of sin (Jas 1:13).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Speaking of which, I'm sure you would be disappointed if I did not vary a bit

Of course

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen (Ex 4:11b, Dt 32:39, 1 Sa 2:7, 1 Kgs 11:14, 23, 12:15, 24, Job 1:12, Isa 45:7, 53:10, 54:16, Jer 44:27-28, Lam 3:37-38, Amos 3:6, Zec 11:16, Mt 10:29, Jn 9:2-3, Rev 17:17).
I see it as a ridiculous notion of man to attribute such weakness to God.

Amen Sister!!! Preach it!!!!

And I can't improve on the rest of what you said, either.

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3.1) —my emphasis, (MQ)

God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (WCF 5.1)

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (WCF 5.2)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Amen Sister!!! Preach it!!!!

how do you deal with this then?

• 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
• Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
• Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

how do you deal with this then?

• 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
• Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
• Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

What is the question? Did not the Lord ordain every bit of that?

I give you another scenario, where Moses talks God out of destroying the children of Israel. Did not God raise Moses up for that very purpose (among other purposes)?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What is the question? Did not the Lord ordain every bit of that?

you gave a cheer to this: "I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen"

and

• 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
• Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
• Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

looks problematic for that statement. Repentance implies regret, sorrow over a course of action, and postfactory unwillingness.

One hesitates to attribute to God any of those things, but the statement equally attributes to God something that one ought to hesitate to attribute to God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

you gave a cheer to this: "I see nothing in the Bible of a God who unwillingly grants what he does not wish to happen"

and

• 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
• Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.
• Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

looks problematic for that statement. Repentance implies regret, sorrow over a course of action, and postfactory unwillingness.

One hesitates to attribute to God any of those things, but the statement equally attributes to God something that one ought to hesitate to attribute to God.

What I'm about to say might contribute to "Christian indigestion" as one of my uncles puts it. Please, (Xeno and any other reader), understand me when I say I am 'Sola Scriptura' with the best of them, but I am not superstitiously so. I believe that all Scripture makes sense. I come to what I have by many of Scriptures' statements and themes. When I run into passages like Xeno has quoted here, they no more demonstrate to me a lack of immutability on God's part than they demonstrate a lack of mercy. I believe they are written and delivered to us to accommodate our temporal human thinking. When God says, in one place (Numbers 23:19), that he is not like man, that he should change his mind, and in another place (Jonah 3:10), that he changed his mind, the two are both true. And it is not as though I could not justify, or "explain away", the apparent contradictions —I could, but there is a principle that is common in Scripture that I mean to describe here.

There are many places where Scripture itself anthropomorphizes God, in different ways —even, in fact, behaving as man would, sometimes angry, sometimes tender. It is not as though God did not know, and did not even cause what happens, sometimes by direct action, sometimes through secondary causes; he is not schizophrenic. I say that God, as first cause, is not subject to anything from outside himself; yet we know that "the effectual, fervent, prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). We saw God preparing to destroy the children of Israel, if not for Moses talking him out of it (Psalm 106:23).

Here we see him responding/reacting to what apparently impinges upon him from outside himself. But understand, this is not so 'from outside himself' as we might think! The Lord chose Moses for that very purpose! And he drives us to pray. I'm guessing the people of Ninevah would not have repented, had Jonah not rebelled and gone through all that he went through, and grisly and repugnant in manner and appearance, hatefully delivered his message.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle

The original post in this thread is relevant to our discission in "Is Calvinism Heresy?"

The video in the OP is useful but not wholly accurate.

The 100 invitations explanation given for Calvinism in it is not what I would say. I would say

For some forms of Calvinism, God sends 100 invitations and 20 of them are special, as the video describes, but God intends the 80 not to respond and their "limited freedom-of-will" is not able, by God's design, to respond.​

So what is the problem with God intending that 80 of them not respond? After all, God is not stupid. If, in the Catholic POV, he gives some a special invitation, and leaves the rest only "invited", and God is not stupid or ignorant, what is really the difference between the POV described in the video and Calvinism? Semantics.

 

[Mark Quayle]

One hesitates to attribute to God any of those things, but the statement equally attributes to God something that one ought to hesitate to attribute to God.

"Nothing happens in a vacuum". One should more than hesitate to make claims concerning God that he doesn't himself hesitate to claim. We should not be careless in what we say about him. Besides considering the Anthropomorphic way God presents himself at times, I read many versions of Scripture; for example, in the story of Nineveh, where one version says that God "changed his mind", another says, that God "relented". I see no need to bring in the self-deterministic view of 'freewill'.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So what is the problem with God intending that 80 of them not respond? After all, God is not stupid. If, in the Catholic POV, he gives some a special invitation, and leaves the rest only "invited", and God is not stupid or ignorant, what is really the difference between the POV described in the video and Calvinism? Semantics.

There is a kind of malice in deliberately and determinedly both extending an invitation and arranging matters - either externally or internally - so that the recipient cannot accept. But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is a kind of malice in deliberately and determinedly both extending an invitation and arranging matters - either externally or internally - so that the recipient cannot accept. But much more significant is that the scriptures contradict the idea of an invitation extended that is desired to fail.

I expect you mean, "designed" to fail. It does not fail, but accomplishes everything for which it was sent. The rebellious turn away from God, on purpose, when confronted with him, just as Romans 1 shows, even in the "non-Gospel" ways. Thus they bring any malice on themselves. "Jacob have I love, Esau have I hated." And it is only our temporal point of view that would point out that if they are predestined to the LOF that God is wrong to do so "before they were born or had done anything good or bad" (good ole Romans 9 again). Not so. God does not see time the way we do.

The way you are structuring this is understandable —I am a temporal human too— but the POV is faulty.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I expect you mean, "designed" to fail.

Nope, desired to fail, that is what I mean.

The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Savior, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." This verse highlights the compassion and mercy of God, who desires not only to save humanity but also to bring them into a deeper understanding of the truth. And while God desires all to be saved, ultimately each person has the free will to choose whether to accept or reject God's offer of salvation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The way you are structuring this is understandable —I am a temporal human too— but the POV is faulty.

Alas, you would say that, it is almost as if you believe you can have a POV other than a creaturely one. And do not posit that scripture reveals God's POV on this matter and your view, expressed in your post is the God's eye POV. Remember ....

The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." This verse highlights the compassion and mercy of God, who desires not only to save humanity but also to bring them into a deeper understanding of the truth.

 

[Clare73]

Nope, desired to fail, that is what I mean.

The Bible verse commonly cited as expressing God's desire for all people to be saved is 1 Timothy 2:4, which states, "God our Savior, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." P

And yet he chooses only some (1 Pe 1:2), God's elect, as in the recipients of Peter's letter in Pontus, Galaia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

Did they who were unregenerate,
not accepting the things of God because they were foolishness to them and they could not understand them (1 Co 2:14),
blind, unable to see the kingdom of God apart from the rebirth (Jn 3:3-8),
hostile, insubordinant and unacceptable to God (Ro 8:7-8)
choose God. . .or did God choose them?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And yet he chooses only some (1 Pe 1:2), God's elect, as in the recipients of Peter's letter in Pontus, Galaia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

And "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I want to know what God desires the verse above tells me. Regarding humanity the verse above tells me what God desires, no deductions needed.

 

[Clare73]

And "God our Saviour, desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

When I want to know what God desires the verse above tells me. Regarding humanity the verse above tells me what God desires, no deductions needed.

Cannot the same be said for his choosing only some. . .1 Pe 1:2 tells me what he chooses; i.e., only the elect, no deductions needed?

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Cannot the same be said for his choosing only some. . .1 Pe 1:2 tells me what he chooses; i.e., only the elect, no deductions needed?

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

One is about desire, that which God says he wants. God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. The other is about the elect. Election is a different topic. One that is closer to this thread's original post. And I have discussed election in earlier posts in other threads.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), election refers to the divine choice of those whom God has predestined to eternal beatitude (CCC 599 and following). The Catechism teaches that this election is an expression of God's unconditional love for humanity and that it is not based on any merit or foreseen faith on the part of the person chosen.

The Catholic Church teaches that God's election is an expression of his unconditional love and that it is a mystery that transcends human understanding. All people are invited to participate in God's election through faith and obedience to his commands.

---

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. CHRIST'S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION​

​

"Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God"​

​

599 Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394​

​

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396​

​

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"​

​

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401​

​

"For our sake God made him to be sin"​

​

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers... with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404​

​

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".407​

​

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love​

​

604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409​

​

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's not either/or, it's both/and.

I want to tell you a short story, a summary, so to speak, of a much longer story.

The Lord of the Rings was written by a Catholic, it reflects both unconsciously and consciously his Catholic beliefs. In it there is a ring, it is beautiful, unadorned, plain gold, with some writing that is visible only when the ring is warmed by a fire or other source of heat as hot as a fire. The writing does not matter for my purposes here. What matters is that the ring gives the power to dominate and control the will of others. To mould them and make them fit whatever pattern the wearer of the ring desires, some can resist it, most cannot. The ring is a creation and as such has limitations. It is not almighty, just very mighty. On the finger of a good person the ring would make others good but it would do so according to the will of its wearer. Those dominated by it would be unaware of its influence, though at some level they may have a feeling that something was amiss, something not quite as God intended.

As the story progresses it becomes obvious that the ring is itself a power, its wearer is influenced by it, drawn into the idea of dominating for good if the wearer is good or for evil if the wearer is evil and intends evil. It is very subtle, at first.

The author slowly and inevitably shows that dominating is in itself evil. Wholly evil, even if it is for what the wearer sees as good. The evil arises from the desire to dominate what God has made free. To control the will of those whom God made free. The evil of the ring is total, it is so fundamentally evil that it is accursed. Though those who use it never suspect it. It is evil because it seeks to undo what God did. To order the world by domination and control when God intended it to be ordered by freedom.

That is sufficient for now. Maybe it is too obscure to be useful.

---

For thou canst shew thy great strength at all times when thou wilt; and who may withstand the power of thine arm? For the whole world before thee is as a little grain of the balance, yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth down upon the earth. But thou hast mercy upon all; for thou canst do all things, and winkest at the sins of men, because they should amend. For thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it. And how could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls. For thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things. Therefore chastenest thou them by little and little that offend, and warnest them by putting them in remembrance wherein they have offended, that leaving their wickedness they may believe on thee, O Lord.
Wisdom 11:21-12:2

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

One is about desire, that which God says he wants. God desires all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. The other is about the elect. Election is a different topic. One that is closer to this thread's original post. And I have discussed election in earlier posts in other threads.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), election refers to the divine choice of those whom God has predestined to eternal beatitude (CCC 599 and following). The Catechism teaches that this election is an expression of God's unconditional love for humanity and that it is not based on any merit or foreseen faith on the part of the person chosen.

Contradiction of terms? "unconditional love for all humanity" and "election of only some."

The Catholic Church teaches that God's election is an expression of his unconditional love and that it is a mystery that transcends human understanding.

Keeping in mind that is not a NT usage of "mystery," where it is not about transcending human understanding, but simply about "secret;" i.e., something never before revealed; e.g., God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9), changes that will take place at the resurrection (1 Co 15:51), etc.

All people are invited to participate in God's election through faith and obedience to his commands.

Contradiction of terms? "invitation to participate" and "election."
Did Jacob "participate" in his election before he was even born (Ro 9:11-12)?

Faith is because of election, not the cause of election.