What does predestination refer to?

[dms1972]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

 

[fhansen]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

Historically the church has rejected double predestination but also rejected any strict determinism, maintaining that God foreknows our choices and “predestines” with those choices incorporated.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Not quite. Predestination in the Lutheran system is that Christians are elected in Christ. That is, whenever Scriptures talk about predestination, it's always to comfort and never to threaten. This is why we reject double predestination.

To better understand the issue it can be helpful to consider the underlying doctrine, and this has to do with holy mysteries. One thing all Christians can agree on is that God's Word does contain holy mysteries. For example, the Trinity, or the person of Christ, are both holy mysteries. That is, articles of faith — divinely received truth that is apprehended by faith and not by reason.

Calvinists believe that God is a holy mystery, but we Lutherans believe that both God and His works are holy mysteries. This is why we can confess that God elects to salvation, but not to damnation; that salvation, from beginning to end, is from God, but that damnation, from beginning to end, is from man. They are not contrary ideas but two truths that need to be upheld, just as we uphold the two natures of Christ.

 

[dms1972]

I'm reading Lutheran Theology by Steven D. Paulson:

He writes:

"God has a destination that he is heading for, with a specific delivery of a promise to make, come hell or high water, and this (to use the preacher's language) - is necessarily for you. God has an unthwartable divine destination in time and space, and the way he arrives for the event is via preachers. Preachers do not come with information about an election done elsewhere, outside of time; preachers actually do the electing here and now, in the present, as Christ did for the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".

My question is do I need a preacher? Must I go to church and hear the Gospel preached (in many churches it isn't preached every Sunday - only on the occasion if they are having a seeker service) Can I not just look up the promises in the Bible myself?

 

[dms1972]

Calvinists will say if some rejects the Gospel - they are reprobate. But I don't understand this - so if someone doesn't respond to the Gospel first time they hear it they are reprobate and there is no hope for them?

 

[BBAS 64]

Historically the church has rejected double predestination but also rejected any strict determinism, maintaining that God foreknows our choices and “predestines” with those choices incorporated.

Good Day,

This would only apply to the Roman Catholic Church to call it Historical is some what a stretch (IMHO) even in that denomination.

Consider

Aquinas and Calvin on Predestination: Is There Any Common Ground? - Reformed Faith & Practice

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

On of the better articles on the subject... IMHO

“Double” Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Snip... Luther

Have I not put on record in many books that I am talking about necessity of immutability? I know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God.

Luther's Double or Nothing also very useful in understanding Luther on the issue:

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson



In Him,

Bill

 

[fhansen]

Good Day,

This would only apply to the Roman Catholic Church to call it Historical is some what a stretch (IMHO) even in that denomination.

Consider

Aquinas and Calvin on Predestination: Is There Any Common Ground? - Reformed Faith & Practice

In Him,

Bill

Even Aquinas doesn’t speak for the church, which is why the church never affirmed his teachings on that very subject.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I'm reading Lutheran Theology by Steven D. Paulson:

He writes:

"God has a destination that he is heading for, with a specific delivery of a promise to make, come hell or high water, and this (to use the preacher's language) - is necessarily for you. God has an unthwartable divine destination in time and space, and the way he arrives for the event is via preachers. Preachers do not come with information about an election done elsewhere, outside of time; preachers actually do the electing here and now, in the present, as Christ did for the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".

My question is do I need a preacher? Must I go to church and hear the Gospel preached (in many churches it isn't preached every Sunday - only on the occasion if they are having a seeker service) Can I not just look up the promises in the Bible myself?

Oh, I regret to say that Paulson's Lutheran Theology isn't particularly reflective of actual Lutheran theology. That may be confusing, given the title of his book would. However, for a much better resource, I'd recommend reading our confessions. I can also recommend other sound theology (free ones) if you like.

Regarding predestination, I can recommend reading what we confess in the Formula of Concord, Article XI, Election: The Epitome – Luco

But to answer your question — as Christians, we need God's Law and Gospel continuously. We can know this from something as simple as the Lord's Prayer, where our Lord is teaching us to pray for forgiveness and then also to trust in His forgiveness.

Growing up, it was my understanding that the Gospel is more or less the door the Christian enters through once and then forgets about, and he is to only receive teaching on Sanctification. But that is not true. We are always in need of repentence, and so it follows that we are always in need of the comfort that the Gospel brings. God's Law convicts us of our sins, but the Gospel communicates to us the forgiveness of sins. And we can receive God's Law and Gospel, the words of the Holy Spirit, by reading Bible itself, but God instituted the Church for our good and benefit, that we may receive His Word, Baptism, and body and blood for our comfort and assurance.

In other words, instead of asking "Do we have to go to church?", we should rather think of God's Word and Sacraments as gifts that He ordinarily communicates to us through His Church. However, if we're unable to hear the Gospel in church, then God be praised that we get to receive it through His written Word. But for our own conscience, edification, and protection, it's better to receive God's Word where He instituted it to be normally received, which is the Church.

To put this more plainly: Can we receive God's gifts in Church? Yes. Can we receive His promises through His written Word? Yes. But God instituted the public teaching and personal devotion to go together, so we shouldn't put one against the other. Only if the circumstance prevents one or the other, we can still be thankful and take comfort in that God's Word, whether heard or read, does what it says it does: It grants repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BBAS 64]

Even Aquinas doesn’t speak for the church, which is why the church never affirmed his teachings on that very subject.

Good Day, Fhansen

I think the assertion that Aquinas needed the "churches affirmation" (what ever that means) to make his teaching true is silly:

Ludwig Ott Notes: Forgive me if I find him more convincing on the question and your assertion.


"The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).

Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side. The Thomists quote above all passages from the Letter to the Romans, in which the Divine factor in salvation is brought strongly to the foreground (Rom 8:29; 9:11-13, 9:20 et seq.) . . . The Molinists invoke the passages which attest the universality of the Divine desire for salvation, especially 1 Tim 2:4, as well as the sentence to be pronounced by the Judge of the World (Mt 25:34-36), in which the works of mercy are given as ground for the acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom. But that these are also the basis for the 'preparation' for the Kingdom, that is, for the eternal resolve of Predestination, cannot be definitely proved from them . . ."
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma


In Him,

Bill

 

[lsume]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

When I was young in the military, my wife and I attended a country Methodist church. I had read the Scripture in Romans pertaining to pre-destination (read affixed). I didn’t understand it and asked an elder what it meant. He told me that the people that Scripture was written about know how they are. At that response, I said it wasn’t me and forgot about it. At some point not long after, we had something going on at church where visitors were coming. A man whom I’ve never seen before or since to my knowledge came up to me and asked if I was born again? I responded yes. His response was “I thought I was”. That was it, the whole conversation. Again, I quickly forgot about it. When it was my time to be visited, Christ brought me back to those precise memories. From there I was Truly born again.

Rom.8

1. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

[fhansen]

Good Day,

On of the better articles on the subject... IMHO

“Double” Predestination by R.C. Sproul

Snip... Luther

Have I not put on record in many books that I am talking about necessity of immutability? I know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God.

Luther's Double or Nothing also very useful in understanding Luther on the issue:

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination by Brian G. Mattson



In Him,

Bill

IMHO the concept of strict determinism or predestination becomes a rather mute and academic point at the end of the day, because, if true, it means that man is morally unaccountable- an amoral beast- God is the direct cause of all evil, and human life is no more than a puppet show. The bible would have no purpose because man would really have or no need or reason to be informed of any knowledge that might alter or affect his choices or course of action.

 

[fhansen]

Good Day, Fhansen


Ludwig Ott Notes: Forgive me if I find him more convincing on the question and your assertion.


"The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).

Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side. The Thomists quote above all passages from the Letter to the Romans, in which the Divine factor in salvation is brought strongly to the foreground (Rom 8:29; 9:11-13, 9:20 et seq.) . . . The Molinists invoke the passages which attest the universality of the Divine desire for salvation, especially 1 Tim 2:4, as well as the sentence to be pronounced by the Judge of the World (Mt 25:34-36), in which the works of mercy are given as ground for the acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom. But that these are also the basis for the 'preparation' for the Kingdom, that is, for the eternal resolve of Predestination, cannot be definitely proved from them . . ."
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma


In Him,

Bill

As I stated and as Ott confirmed, "Even Aquinas doesn’t speak for the church, which is why the church never affirmed his teachings on that very subject."

Those various teachings on the matter are considered permissible to believe, with the church not coming down conclusively on any. So it doesn't matter what Aquinas or Molina or Augustine (who arguably believed in double predestination incidentally) or any other Catholic says or doesn't say, the church speaks for itself, speaks for Catholicism IOW. And the church teaches something closer to Molinism as I see it. From the catechism:

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." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren "

Paul is simply stating that God foreknew the Elect, those who chose to believe, and thus predestined them to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

 

[bling]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

Lots of things are predestined by God since that is what He will do and sometimes when He will do it.


If God’s omnipresence includes not only man’s present time, but also man’s past and man’s future time, then God is outside of time.

God expressing himself in anthropomorphically to humans is to show why God would use our understanding of time in communicating with us. We know the results of God’s miracles but not how the miracle was done. God would not have to talk about the relativity of time or his existence outside of our time and would keep it simple and with excellent communication, talk about time from a human perspective. Time in heaven might also have their own time separate from man’s time.

If you know today historically a free will choice, I made yesterday, that choice cannot be changed, since history cannot be changed even by God (it happened). The fact you historically know a free will choice does not mean it was not a free will choice.

If God is outside of human time then God at the end of time knows perfectly historically (history cannot be changed) every autonomous free will choice man made at any and all times. God at the end of time would be able to send that information to Himself at the beginning of time before there was a known universe.

If God at the end of time knows what Adam and Eve did in the Garden, He can provide that to Himself before Adam and Eve were created, so God knows exactly what Adam and Eve are “going to do”, since they have “already done” it (God is in both places at the same “human” time).

It is difficult to think about what it is like to be outside of time and existing throughout time.

My theory would have this:

1. God perfectly knows all human future from some beginning point or before time began.

2. God knows all possible scenarios for the future that would result from His actions and man’s autonomous free will choices.

3. God has predestined in detail most of what man will experience, but this predestined set up scenario by God is to assure every mature adult has a truly independent autonomous free will choice to accept or reject His pure charity as charity, which is the individual’s choice.

4. God predestining the scenarios of man to make this free will choice would be limited to the point an individual could still chose to accept and not harden his/her heart to the point there is nothing more God could do to help that individual.

5. God knows perfectly from the beginning of time what choice every mature adult made throughout man’s history from God’s presence throughout time, but God did not make the choice for the person.

6. God predestined “before” anything was decided to be made that those humans who accepted His charity He would save.

God exists throughout human time at the same time, so there really is no past or future for God, so when we talk about the future, it is only future for us and not God.

It is not that God knows what future you will chose in the future (suggesting the future, is also God’s future), but God knows the free will choices you did make in the future (it is history for God).



The reason God knows a free will choice you will make tomorrow is because you already made that choice for the God which exists at the end of time, so with God being outside of time the God at the end of time is communicating (within Himself) to the God of today the choices you made tomorrow.

Yes, tomorrow’s choice has not been made as far as you are concerned, but has been made as far as God is concerned.

Time is totally “relative” for God and for the last 100 years now, time has been shown to be relative and nothing has even gone against the Theory of Relativity.

Think for a moment about this: If you got an actual video recording of a free will choice a man in China made one hours from now, that choice is set in history, so he cannot make any other choice, yet does that mean the choice will not be a free will choice? You cannot get in touch with him to change anything in the next hour. What you have is the history of his choice ahead of time and history does not keep the choice from being a free will choice.

I understand the concept of God's "extemporal simultaneity." That's the term for it.


I would dispute that the concept of "free will" actually occurs in scripture (Romans 6 directly disputes "free will," and that "free will" exists for angels is a stretch even beyond that.


It still remains that God created Satan, planted the tree, and gave the command fully knowing what would happen. It's impossible to argue credibly that what happened was not His sovereign intention to happen, when He could have simply not done any of those three essential actions.

Again, this is not easy for us in time to understand, but let us think hypothetically: Suppose there is a being, God would give the ability to make just one autonomous free will choice, but God decided never to make this being (there is an infinite number of these type beings). That would mean the being has no history, did not make in the future an autonomous free will choice, so the choice that the being “made” cannot be known, since the being did not make a choice, which God does know, because the being will never exist. If satan was never ever to exist then God would not know historically what choices satan made, but satan does exist so God historically knows all about satan from the moment God decided to create satan.

 

[eleos1954]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

God's foreknowledge is not equivalent to His will for mankind.

 

[com7fy8]

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

My question is do I need a preacher? Must I go to church and hear the Gospel preached (in many churches it isn't preached every Sunday - only on the occasion if they are having a seeker service) Can I not just look up the promises in the Bible myself?

Our apostle Paul did not have a preacher bring him to Jesus, but Jesus personally appeared to Paul, and then Paul met with Ananias and then Barnabas spent time with Paul. Paul does say, how can anyone hear without a preacher? right? But if I tell you you have to have a preacher . . . what if you go to someone who is not even a Christian?

It is good to have a real pastor and church members who are mature examples for you. But you do need to get to know Jesus and God's word so you can double-check what even more mature Christians say and do. You need to become able to pray and make sure with God and be personally guided by Him, but this in sharing as family with other Jesus people who help you with this . . . while you help them > 1 Peter 4:9-10.

About predestination > my opinion is some groups have taken attention away from what predestination is primarily about >

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Romans 8:29)

So, God's predestination here has to do with how we in Jesus are guaranteed to be changed into the image of Jesus . . . in order for Jesus to have "many brethren" > a family with "many" who are like Jesus. God's grace of His word is almighty in us to change our character so we become and love like Jesus > as is guaranteed by His word > 1 John 4:17 guarantees how God's love makes us "as He is" "in this world" > plus we are commanded to love like Jesus > Ephesians 5:2.

So, in Romans 8:29 God's focus of predestination is on having many children who are like Jesus . . . including so Jesus has us "many" as His own family. And therefore this is the main, or a main, focus of Christian ministry >

"Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Colossians 1:28)

So, you do need to have preachers, then, and examples who feed you this, while you as Jesus' family are helping one another with this > Ephesians 4:15.

Therefore, we need to submit to God, seeking how He corrects our character to be the way Jesus wants and is, Himself. God's grace has this effect in us. We depend on how God is guaranteed to succeed

I would say this is the main meaning of Biblical predestination. The main meaning is not only about "who goes to heaven" or if we make the choice or not. I now think predestination is mainly about how God favors His Son and so He has destined Jesus to have "many brethren" who are like Him and who love like Jesus does while being pleasing to our Father like Jesus is so pleasing.

And in order to please our Father . . . I would offer you need to share with other Jesus people. Yes, you can look up promises in your Bible. But I might advise you that God's promises are not first about us. And our Father wants us to please Him, by sharing with one another as His family, including how He means Ephesians 4:31-32. So, yes there are times for us to pray and study by ourselves, but so then we are ready to live in submission to our Father in His peace > 1 Peter 3:4, Colossians 3:15 > while learning how to love with one another.

 

[Albion]

I'm reading Lutheran Theology by Steven D. Paulson:

He writes:

"God has a destination that he is heading for, with a specific delivery of a promise to make, come hell or high water, and this (to use the preacher's language) - is necessarily for you. God has an unthwartable divine destination in time and space, and the way he arrives for the event is via preachers.

I think, offhand, that what he is saying is that God has destined--in advance (pre)--that so and so will be saved. But that person is not saved merely by having his name entered into some book in heaven.

We are saved by Faith. That's a Christian fundamental. So how do these two go together? It's that the person (you, for example) has to have contact with the Gospel in order to believe it...and in that way, have saving Faith. A preacher would be one obvious way, but that's not the answer for everyone at all times and in all places.

My question is do I need a preacher? Must I go to church and hear the Gospel preached (in many churches it isn't preached every Sunday - only on the occasion if they are having a seeker service) Can I not just look up the promises in the Bible myself?

You might conclude that "yes" is the answer, but those who have Faith, do not "duck out" on the sacraments Christ instituted and told us to observe, on Christian fellowship, and on much else that the Bible indicates the followers of Christ should do.

Indeed, someone who had no interest in any of that would, in so doing, call into question whether or not he could be one of the Elect.

 

[BBAS 64]

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren "

Paul is simply stating that God foreknew the Elect, those who chose to believe, and thus predestined them to be saved through His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Good Day, Maria

The object of the Verb "foreknew" is the pronoun "he".

The supposed condition of "chose to believe" is not found in the text at all.

Douglas Moo looks at the text...

IN Him,

Bill

 

[TedT]

I am coming across different views on this in my reading.

Lutherans seems to say God's predestination refers to getting a preacher.

Another writer says that predestination only refers to believers, and that predestination and election are not the same thing.

ImCo:
Predestination and election are two parts of the same thing. Predestination is the promise of GOD that some people will spend their eternal lives in a heavenly marriage with HIM and others will be eternally banished from HIS presence.

Election refers to HIS choice of who will be HIS Bride and who HE will bansh as eternally unsuitable to ever be HIS Bride for sinning the unforgivable sin.

How cruel and blasphemous is the doctrine that HE based HIS election of some to heaven and not others on nothing more than HIS sovereign pleasure by which apparently the damnation of millions gave HIM great pleasure...contrary to scripture.

It is my contention that those who participated in the Satanic fall, the repudiation of YHWH as a liar and a false god, was the unforgivable sin that CAUSED them to be passed over as eternally unfit to be HIS Bride.

That is, they chose their relationship with YHWH as HIS eternal enemy knowing that if they were wrong they would be predestined to hell yet proceeded with their hate anyway...