Various types of predestination

[zaida]

Ive really gotten a lot out of looking into this whole topic. From my reading Im seeing that there are many versions of pre-destination:

1)double pre destination where God from the beginning of time chose some for heaven, and others perish. Those chosen cannot refuse grace. Gods choices are Gods choices and we dont question why/how the choice is made. (Lots of possibility in this - God can, for example, come to a mulsim in his last moment of life, and give him the grace of Jesus, because hes elect? We cant judge who is "in" and who is "out" because we just don't know)

2)double pre destination, with a reason behind Gods choosing - God had foreknowledge as to who "would" accept his grace if offered, and those who are the elect are those whom God had this foreknowledge about. The damned are damned because God always knew they would refuse. (lots of ways to interpret this - the muslim on his death bed above, still a possibility, so can be very hopeful)

3)Catholic pre-destination - God has pre-destined that all are elect in Jesus (He came for all) but people then can make the choice to accept their salvation (or not) - grace is offered to everyone. Salvation by grace (all are elect) and choice (we must accept the grace.) Those who don't accept in this life are lost. Free will is very tied up with this, and its related to number 2 above, but more stress on Gods respect for free will. Its offered to all men, even those who never heard of Jesus can respond to the grace given them, by how they live their lives, but the grace is through Jesus. (lots of hopefulness in this - every [person ever born has the possibility of salvation, by responding, as she or she can, to whatever grace is given)

4)Universalist pre destination - God has elected every man and woman who has lived and eventually, everyone accepts this grace - nobody can ultimately refuse. Some universalists believe this acceptance can even happen after purification, after death, if one does not accept in life...(over all, total hope for all mankind in this)

5)Barthian pre destination (still working on understanding this) - Jesus was the "elect" - He came to take all sin onto himself, and all are elect in this choice. Many debates over whether this leads to universalism, or not. Barth said it didnt, necessarily, but many say that it does.

I would imagine, within reformed positions, people are on many ends of the spectrum, various positions?

Blessings!

 

[stenerson]

Ive really gotten a lot out of looking into this whole topic. From my reading Im seeing that there are many versions of pre-destination:

1)double pre destination where God from the beginning of time chose some for heaven, and others perish. Those chosen cannot refuse grace. Gods choices are Gods choices and we dont question why/how the choice is made. (Lots of possibility in this - God can, for example, come to a mulsim in his last moment of life, and give him the grace of Jesus, because hes elect? We cant judge who is "in" and who is "out" because we just don't know)

2)double pre destination, with a reason behind Gods choosing - God had foreknowledge as to who "would" accept his grace if offered, and those who are the elect are those whom God had this foreknowledge about. The damned are damned because God always knew they would refuse. (lots of ways to interpret this - the muslim on his death bed above, still a possibility, so can be very hopeful)

3)Catholic pre-destination - God has pre-destined that all are elect in Jesus (He came for all) but people then can make the choice to accept their salvation (or not) - grace is offered to everyone. Salvation by grace (all are elect) and choice (we must accept the grace.) Those who don't accept in this life are lost. Free will is very tied up with this, and its related to number 2 above, but more stress on Gods respect for free will. Its offered to all men, even those who never heard of Jesus can respond to the grace given them, by how they live their lives, but the grace is through Jesus. (lots of hopefulness in this - every [person ever born has the possibility of salvation, by responding, as she or she can, to whatever grace is given)

4)Universalist pre destination - God has elected every man and woman who has lived and eventually, everyone accepts this grace - nobody can ultimately refuse. Some universalists believe this acceptance can even happen after purification, after death, if one does not accept in life...(over all, total hope for all mankind in this)

5)Barthian pre destination (still working on understanding this) - Jesus was the "elect" - He came to take all sin onto himself, and all are elect in this choice. Many debates over whether this leads to universalism, or not. Barth said it didnt, necessarily, but many say that it does.

I would imagine, within reformed positions, people are on many ends of the spectrum, various positions?

Blessings!

I doubt Catholic and Barthian has a place within reformed positions.
Double predestination though is debated withing reformed circles.

 

[abacabb3]

Double obviously makes the most sense. "God works all things in accordance with His will," not "some things."

The main issue is that double predestination is not predestinarianism, where God literally works man like a puppet, forcing him to do wickedness against his will. Man does not require such puppetry, I have enough wickedness in myself to begin with that apart from his grace, I will seek out to do every wicked act imaginable.

 

[hedrick]

There’s one more: the later Luther. He believed that people are justified entirely by the activity of God, but refused to speak of why those who aren’t saved aren’t. It’s not clear whether this represents an actual change in approach, or he decided for pastoral / tactical reasons to deemphasize reprobation. There are debates among historians about that.

In general conservative Reformed accept double predestination without any basis in us, i.e. your first view.

However many, maybe even the majority, or Reformed today aren’t conservative. I'm not sure most of them have a specific model of predestination. I think they accept something like the statement I'll quote below, but may not have a detailed explanation. Barth's view has been influential, but even among theologians, I'm not sure there is currently an official explanation. We do believe that we are justified only through God's grace and election, but beyond that I don't think there's a dominant choice among Calvin, Barth, Luther, or Arminius. There is a small but influential group that accept universalism.

I believe that the PCUSA is the largest Reformed body in the US. Of the 20th Cent confessional statements, the only one I see that explicitly treats election is the Declaration of Faith. This is the least authoritative. It was accepted by the General Assembly but not made part of the Constitution. But it’s the most detailed, and generally I find it the most useful. Here’s what it says:

36 In all these things we are responsible for our decisions.
37 But after we have trusted and repented
38 we recognize that the Spirit enable us to hear and act.
39 It is not our faith but God's grace in Jesus Christ
40 that justifies us and reconciles us to God.
41 Yet it is only by faith that we accept God's grace
42 and live by it.

I think this is fairly representative of what our members actually think. It asserts that we are justified solely because of God's grace. Other parts of the document speak of God’s election, though it envisions election more as a call for service than a choice for privilege. But it doesn’t specify a particular model of predestination. Most of our Biblical interpreters think this reflects the Scriptural approach. We tend not to go beyond Scripture. Of course traditional Reformed exegesis sees double predestination in a number of Biblical writers. Current mainline Reformed understandings of Paul and other writers don’t agree, though John comes close at times.

My personal position is probably closest to Luther's.

 

[BryanW92]

36 In all these things we are responsible for our decisions.
37 But after we have trusted and repented
38 we recognize that the Spirit enable us to hear and act.
39 It is not our faith but God's grace in Jesus Christ
40 that justifies us and reconciles us to God.
41 Yet it is only by faith that we accept God's grace
42 and live by it.

Thats a beautiful way to put it.

 

[Radagast]

3)Catholic pre-destination - God has pre-destined that all are elect in Jesus (He came for all) but people then can make the choice to accept their salvation (or not) - grace is offered to everyone. Salvation by grace (all are elect) and choice (we must accept the grace.) Those who don't accept in this life are lost. Free will is very tied up with this, and its related to number 2 above, but more stress on Gods respect for free will. Its offered to all men, even those who never heard of Jesus can respond to the grace given them, by how they live their lives, but the grace is through Jesus. (lots of hopefulness in this - every [person ever born has the possibility of salvation, by responding, as she or she can, to whatever grace is given)

That doesn't sound like Catholic doctrine to me. Indeed, it sounds Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is required that Catholics believe in "the definiteness of the number of the elect" and that "the eternal counsel of God regarding the predestined is unchangeable" and that election is "the foreordination of grace in the present and of glory in the future."

What you call "Catholic pre-destination," the Catholic Encyclopedia calls "heresy," so something is very odd here.

There are, in fact, two main Catholic positions on predestination (Thomism and Molinism), and they sound more like your #1 and #2 than like your #3.

Traditionally, Catholics believe that God has ordained from eternity the election of a fixed number of people, while denying that this means double predestination. That doesn't quite make sense to me, since one seems to imply the other. I tend to think the rejection of "double predestination" is in fact a slightly confused equivalent of the standard Calvinist provisos that God is not the author of sin, etc.

 

[hedrick]

Traditionally, Catholics believe that God has ordained from eternity the election of a fixed number of people, while denying that this means double predestination. That doesn't quite make sense to me, since one seems to imply the other. I tend to think the rejection of "double predestination" is in fact a slightly confused equivalent of the standard Calvinist provisos that God is not the author of sin, etc.

[I should note that I'm going to try to give a position consistent with traditional Calvinism. I'm not sure whether I personally agree with all of this.]

Many people think that according to double predestination God takes active steps to damn people. In my view, predestination happens in two ways, one of which applies to both elect and others, but one that only applies to elect.

God's plan includes everything, including the salvation of those who are saved and the damnation of other. But God's plan is carried out in a variety of ways, some involving his direct action and some not.

In addition to his plan, the Holy Spirit works directly with those who are saved. This is necessary to overcome original sin. There is no negative Holy Spirit the actively corrupts those who are not elect.

There is a danger of having Calvinism turn into a kind of mechanical determinism. This can happen if we only look at God's plan. But I think Calvin would say that the real point of Calvinism is the understanding of Christians who realize that their salvation comes from the personal activity of the Holy Spirit regenerating them. While God's plan includes both the elect and the reprobate, his personal presence is only with his people.

My sense is that if someone accepts the Thomist account of predestination but rejects double predestination, they are rejecting an extreme Calvinism that sees God as behaving the same way with the elect and reprobate.

-----------------

Historically Calvinists have made a big deal about the difference between Calvinism (and Thomism) and Molinism. I’m not convinced. Molinism says that God knows how anyone he might create would act in a given situation. (This is called “middle knowledge.&#8221 So his plan includes for everyone whether he is saved or damned, but that’s because he can forsee how they would behave. Calvinism says that God doesn’t just forsee, but actually ordains whether each person is saved or not.

However I’m not convinced that in this picture of the all-powerful God who can see all of history “at once” there’s any difference between choosing and forseeing. If God has a choice in who ends up in history and the situations they end up in, then even in the Molinist model he’s really determining everything. The Molinist’s only point is that he allows everyone to behave in accordance with their nature. But that’s a perfectly Calvinist view. Calvinists agree that God doesn’t force people to be evil. I think the difference is how people choose to speak of the situation, not any real difference in how they think God works.

As you start moving away from the picture of a God who sees all of history at once and ordains it all, Calvinism and Molinism start to diverge. But you’re now starting to move towards open theism, or perhaps the later Luther, who tended to feel that it was a mistake to speak of just how God is involved with those who aren't saved.

 

[lesliedellow]

There are two. versions of predestination in Catholicism; one much closer to the Calvinist position than the other. The officially recommended version is the one furthest from Calvinism, but, unusually for the Catholic Church, it doesn't lay down the law on the subject.