Some thoughts on Predestination

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Catholic teaching on predestination holds that God has predestined certain individuals for salvation, but this does not negate the freedom of human choice or the importance of individual efforts to attain salvation. The Thomist view, influenced by the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, emphasizes the role of God's foreknowledge in predestination, while the Molinist view, influenced by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, emphasizes the compatibility of predestination with human freedom. Both perspectives acknowledge the mystery present in the concept of predestination, as the ways in which God's eternal plan interacts with human free will is ultimately beyond human understanding.

Catholic church teaching is that it is a mystery. One may take a Thomist view or a Molinist view or some other non-heretical view and be a Catholic in good standing and one may eschew both views and be content with the mystery without needing to explain it, Catholics are free to wait for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth and hence need not have a definitive answer for everything.

 

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
One may take a Thomist view or a Molinist view or some other non-heretical view and be a Catholic in good standing and one may eschew both views and be content with the mystery without needing to explain it,
Christians discuss this topic a lot and are not constrained in how to think about it but in general we can agree with Catholics that God knows everything and yet God also enables free will as this is His own sovereign choice that mankind should have free will.

It is free will that makes this whole thing its own problem without pinning the blame for sin on God. No one can say that God made him take God's name in vain, and no one can say that God left them with no other viable choice but to take God's name in vain. And while it is true that I and about 22 million of my friends hold this view - it is also true that many other Christians hold that view as well.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Catholic teaching on predestination holds that God has predestined certain individuals for salvation, but this does not negate the freedom of human choice or the importance of individual efforts to attain salvation.

Agreed. . .man's existing free will is not diminished, he freely and willingly chooses what he prefers; i.e., the gospel.

The Thomist view, influenced by the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, emphasizes the role of God's foreknowledge in predestination, while the Molinist view, influenced by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, emphasizes the compatibility of predestination with human freedom. Both perspectives acknowledge the mystery present in the concept of predestination,

However, the NT usage of "mystery" does not mean "beyond human understanding," but rather "secret, never before revealed," as in

the incarnation (1Ti 3:16),
the death of Christ (1Co 2:1,7).
the gospel (Ro 16:25),
God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
the inclusion of both Gentiles and Jews in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the plan of God by which both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1Co 15:51),

None of the NT mysteries above are "beyond human understanding."
as the ways in which God's eternal plan interacts with human free will is ultimately beyond human understanding.

Where is the. . . "mystery". . .of God "interacting with human free will". . .that is "beyond human understanding" . . .in God working in the heart/disposition, giving one to prefer the gospel, which one then freely and willingly chooses. . .all according to God's predestination
(Ro 8:29-30) of him?

Catholic church teaching is that it is a mystery. One may take a Thomist view or a Molinist view or some other non-heretical view and be a Catholic in good standing and one may eschew both views and be content with the mystery without needing to explain it, Catholics are free to wait for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth and hence need not have a definitive answer for everything.

What's to wait for?

Is Scripture not already replete with the Holy Spirit's revealing the truth of God working in the heart/disposition; i.e., "interacting with human free will" to accomplish his purposes, as in Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20, 1 Sa 10:9, Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:5, Ezra 7:27, Neh 2:12, Neh 7:5, Ps 105:25, Ps 106:46, Pr 21:1, Eze 36:27, Da 1:9, 2Co 8:16, Php 2:13, Rev 17:17?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Hello, Claire. Please don't take the following as a reprimand or anything like that. Maybe it can be seen as logically complementary or fitting-to your wording, or as just further definition —I don't know.

I completely agree with and applaud the idea you support here, that there is reason that pursuit of understanding of these things should not be abandoned, by just calling it "mystery", BUT:

However, the NT usage of "mystery" does not mean "beyond human understanding," but rather "secret, never before revealed," as in

the incarnation (1Ti 3:16),
the death of Christ (1Co 2:1,7).
the gospel (Ro 16:25),
God's purpose to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:9),
the inclusion of both Gentiles and Jews in the NT church (Eph 3:3-6),
the plan of God by which both Jew and Gentile will be included in his kingdom (Ro 11:25),
the change that will take place at the resurrection (1Co 15:51),

None of the NT mysteries above are "beyond human understanding."
They are beyond human understanding in the sense that we can't even nearly —I'd even, perhaps hyperbolically, say, "we can't even begin to"— plumb the depths of God's point of view of these things (i.e. "the facts"). (I note here, that while it is rightly said that, 'All truth is God's truth', I think it is even more important to know that 'God's truth is all truth.' i.e. there is no other truth. What he 'sees' is the only unmoving reference.)
Where is the. . . "mystery". . .of God "interacting with human free will". . .that is "beyond human understanding" . . .in God working in the heart/disposition, giving one to prefer the gospel, which one then freely and willingly chooses. . .all according to God's predestination
(Ro 8:29-30) of him?
I completely agree with the use of the term, "willingly" here, but I find myself objecting to the term, "freely", here —not because it is wrong, but because it begs definition. To merely define it or limit it with, "all according to God's predestination", too easily allows those who espouse 'libertarian freewill' to sidestep the idea that God predestines all things. I would prefer something similar to, "all as a result of God's predestination". I find myself increasingly unhappy, lately, with the prevailing notion (and its posits and implications) that anything can happen apart from God's purposeful causation. All Glory goes to God, even for what Christians find hard to digest.

I admit it could just be "me". I'm having a hard time accepting terminology that doesn't immediately counter the notions of arminianistic* and particularly pelagianistic* theology. Maybe the fact that I find myself reacting so, is largely because of a gut response to suggestions of late, that I don't really believe in the Calvinistic/Reformed-sounding beliefs I claim.

But I'm not asking you to change the description you have used so well for years. I just feel the need to define it— to be sure nobody takes it to say what it does not say.
What's to wait for?

Is Scripture not already replete with the Holy Spirit's revealing the truth of God working in the heart/disposition; i.e., "interacting with human free will" to accomplish his purposes, as in Ge 20:6, Ex 3:21, Dt 2:25, Dt 2:30, Jos 11:20, 1 Sa 10:9, Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:5, Ezra 7:27, Neh 2:12, Neh 7:5, Ps 105:25, Ps 106:46, Pr 21:1, Eze 36:27, Da 1:9, 2Co 8:16, Php 2:13, Rev 17:17?
There's always more to learn.

*pardon the unnecessary-sounding suffix. I want to be sure that those who use some of the same things that Arminian and Pelagian theologies are know for, understand that I am talking about THEM, too.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello, Claire. Please don't take the following as a reprimand or anything like that. Maybe it can be seen as logically complementary or fitting-to your wording, or as just further definition —I don't know.

I completely agree with and applaud the idea you support here, that there is reason that pursuit of understanding of these things should not be abandoned, by just calling it "mystery",

I think I was thinking of "they being incomprehensbile, they can't be handled properly and should not be used in exposition."

BUT:
They are beyond human understanding in the sense that we can't even nearly —I'd even, perhaps hyperbolically, say, "we can't even begin to"— plumb the depths of God's point of view of these things (i.e. "the facts"). (I note here, that while it is rightly said that, 'All truth is God's truth', I think it is even more important to know that 'God's truth is all truth.' i.e. there is no other truth. What he 'sees' is the only unmoving reference.)
I completely agree with the use of the term, "willingly" here, but I find myself objecting to the term, "freely", here —not because it is wrong, but because it begs definition.

Beg no longer. . .here comes the food cart!

1) "Freely" is used to mean "without external force or constraint."

2) And by "mystery not meaning incomprehensible," I mean that the simple fact of it is incomprehensible, as in "God has no beginning."
My mind can't even process the fact of "no beginning," whereas I can at least begin to process God's point of view in the NT mysteries.

Love your accuracy and the way you pay attention, so feel free to clear up anything to me.
At least you're thinking about it.

Carry on!

To merely define it or limit it with, "all according to God's predestination", too easily allows those who espouse 'libertarian freewill' to sidestep the idea that God predestines all things. I would prefer something similar to, "all as a result of God's predestination". I find myself increasingly unhappy, lately, with the prevailing notion (and its posits and implications) that anything can happen apart from God's purposeful causation. All Glory goes to God, even for what Christians find hard to digest.

I admit it could just be "me". I'm having a hard time accepting terminology that doesn't immediately counter the notions of arminianistic* and particularly pelagianistic* theology. Maybe the fact that I find myself reacting so, is largely because of a gut response to suggestions of late, that I don't really believe in the Calvinistic/Reformed-sounding beliefs I claim.

I have no problem with accuracy for the sake of preventing errors, particularly in the understanding of Scripture.
I'm not as alert to them in terms of various Biblical theologies, except maybe the Trinity.

So have no hesitation to make me aware when I am inaccurate. . .assuming I will remember it.

But I'm not asking you to change the description you have used so well for years. I just feel the need to define it— to be sure nobody takes it to say what it does not say.

There's always more to learn.

*pardon the unnecessary-sounding suffix. I want to be sure that those who use some of the same things that Arminian and Pelagian theologies are know for, understand that I am talking about THEM, too.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I think I was thinking of "they being incomprehensbile, they can't be handled properly and should not be used in exposition."
True that!
Beg no longer. . .here comes the food cart!

1) "Freely" is used to mean "without external force or constraint."

2) And by "mystery not meaning incomprehensible," I mean that the simple fact of it is incomprehensible, as in "God has no beginning."
My mind can't even process the fact of "no beginning," whereas I can at least begin to process God's point of view in the NT mysteries.

Love your accuracy and the way you pay attention, so feel free to clear up anything to me.
At least you're thinking about it.

Carry on!
Haha! —Wait. Did you just call me, "Carrion"? Or were you signing off?

Anyhow, to your 1) above, which I completely agree with as to your use of it, (I think), I would not word it that way myself, because I want it unequivocally understood that all things descend causally from God, in every specific particular. God does not force them to choose what they do; they do it by their own will. But that doesn't mean that even in every particular, that very specific choice was decreed from the beginning —CAUSED to happen.

To say it differently, your word, "free", doesn't mean what they want it to mean. I'm afraid they will take it to mean what it doesn't. But you are in great company, there. I have a problem with the wording on this matter with even the Westminster Confession.

If there is such a thing as absolute spontaneity on the part of the human, then it is still subsumed under God's causation. But I disagree with the notion of absolute spontaneity on the part of the human. We are creative —not creators. What we do is caused.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
@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.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
True that!

Haha! —Wait. Did you just call me, "Carrion"? Or were you signing off?

Haven't decided yet. . .Touche'. . .I'm no match for you!
Anyhow, to your 1) above, which I completely agree with as to your use of it, (I think), I would not word it that way myself, because I want it unequivocally understood that all things descend causally from God, in every specific particular. God does not force them to choose what they do; they do it by their own will. But that doesn't mean that even in every particular, that very specific choice was decreed from the beginning —CAUSED to happen.

To say it differently, your word, "free", doesn't mean what they want it to mean. I'm afraid they will take it to mean what it doesn't. But you are in great company, there. I have a problem with the wording on this matter with even the Westminster Confession.

Dyin' to know how you would say it. . .if I can understand it.

If there is such a thing as absolute spontaneity on the part of the human, then it is still subsumed under God's causation. But I disagree with the notion of absolute spontaneity on the part of the human. We are creative —not creators. What we do is caused.

Does "without external force or constraint" not cover that?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Haven't decided yet. . .Touche'. . .I'm no match for you!


Dyin' to know how you would say it. . .if I can understand it.



Does "without external force or constraint" not cover that?
I'm not sure. Does not causation constrain us? Govern us?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No more than choosing my favorite dessert is a constraint.
Didn't you say
Is the faith itself a matter of constraint?
I took that to mean that having faith is itself something one is constrained to do if one is elect. Was that not your intended meaning?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Didn't you say

I took that to mean that having faith is itself something one is constrained to do if one is elect. Was that not your intended meaning?

No, it was a straight forward question. . .sorry about the confusion.

Constrained is "by force."

There is no more force in choosing to believe than there is in choosing one's favorite dessert,
because God works in the disposition giving one to prefer faith, and one chooses it like he chooses his preferred dessert.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No, it was a straight forward question. . .sorry about the confusion.

Constrained is "by force."

There is no more force in choosing to believe than there is in choosing one's favorite dessert,
because God works in the disposition giving one to prefer faith, and one chooses it like he chooses his preferred dessert.
Yet isn't God's eternal decree external to the human being it involves? Is it not a decision made by God through which God is alleged to fashion each human being to conform? This being done before creation, in eternity, when no human beings as yet existed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Is the faith itself a matter of constraint?
I take 'constraint' not as indicative of restraint —not inhibiting, but causing, as in, "The love of Christ constrains us" —compelling. Driving, directing. Also, there in it are tones of 'obligation', to my mind. God's causation is a principle we cannot escape. We are obligated by our very existence, not willfully, but simply by definition of creaturehood.

Anyhow that is my take. I just don't want you misunderstood to agree with some notion they get.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yet isn't God's eternal decree external to the human being it involves? Is it not a decision made by God through which God is alleged to fashion each human being to conform? This being done before creation, in eternity, when no human beings as yet existed.

Which eternal decree? They are multiple--regarding Christ, salvation, the body of Christ, eternal destiny, creation, etc.
God's eternal decree to anyone's salvation is effected through secondary causes, or means; e.g., hearing the gospel, repentance, faith, etc.

All are born in spiritual death (Jn 3:3-5) and enemies of God (Ro 5:10), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
God works in the disposition of the elect (Mk 13:30, Mk 13:37, Ro 11:7, 2 Ti 2:10, 1Pe 1:1), giving them to prefer the gospel, and they freely and willingly, without constraint, choose what they prefer, repent and believe.
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Which eternal decree?
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.

They are multiple--regarding Christ, salvation, the body of Christ, eternal destiny, creation, etc.
God's eternal decree to anyone's salvation is effected through secondary causes, or means; e.g., hearing the gospel, repentance, faith, etc.

All are born in spiritual death (Jn 3:3-5) and enemies of God (Ro 5:10), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
God works in the disposition of the elect (Mk 13:30, Mk 13:37, Ro 11:7, 2 Ti 2:10, 1Pe 1:1), giving them to prefer the gospel, and they freely and willingly, without constraint, choose what they prefer, repent and believe.
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..
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
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..
Not that I'm well trained in Calvinist Theology, but I think I understand why it is called God's Decree (singular) and I agree with that. But as we do with God's attributes, we do with his decree. God's attributes are many, but none of them separable from the rest of them except in our mental, temporal, handling of them.

His decree (singular) is multiple in its effects, and not to be understood to be a general decree, but specific in its many effects. I'm guessing it is to this that @Clare73 was referring. He has decreed not just one thing, and not even just many things, but all things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,087
1,352
Perth
✟123,915.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Not that I'm well trained in Calvinist Theology, but I think I understand why it is called God's Decree (singular) and I agree with that. But as we do with God's attributes, we do with his decree. God's attributes are many, but none of them separable from the rest of them except in our mental, temporal, handling of them.

His decree (singular) is multiple in its effects, and not to be understood to be a general decree, but specific in its many effects. I'm guessing it is to this that @Clare73 was referring. He has decreed not just one thing, and not even just many things, but all things.
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.