From before creation
I recently tussled with the idea of predestination as part of an assessment I did for my MTS program. The task was really to design a way of teaching predestination in a way that doesn’t require your listeners to have a BTh, but true to nerdular form, I ended up writing a companion essay to think through the issues more fully and get my head straight on what the Bible teaches on predestination.
The main surprise for me was that the whole doctrine is really not as hard as I thought it would be. In fact, I suspect people get hung up at one of three points and remain stuck there because predestination is one of those things that doesn’t neatly slot into our Western, rationalistic, logic-oriented minds (privately, I do wonder if this will become less of an issue as pluralism sinks in as an acceptable way of assessing ideas). The three points where I reckon most people run aground are:
- The idea that God predestines some and not others to eternal life. This is understandable; to accept this, it requires us to defer to God and acknowledge that He has not chosen to predestine everyone to eternal life, but rather some to eternal life and some to eternal punishment.
- The tension between God’s sovereignty (or, as Packer would argue, His Kingship) and human responsibility for sin (or, God’s role as Judge), seeing as the two are made plain in Scripture but appear irreconcilable. If God is sovereign and all our thoughts and ways are known by Him and subject to His will, how can we be held accountable for our sin? For a related difficulty, see point one above.
- The question of falling away – specifically, if God has predestined His elect, and someone who appears to be elect falls away, were they really elect in the first place?
I could write a lengthy article about these, but I won’t (perhaps I will make my essay available, for the interested). But, I will say this – could it be that our biggest problem with predestination, as a doctrine, is not that it is nonsense, or unfair, or inconsistent, but rather that we are sometimes unwilling to adopt a position of humility and accept that God’s ways are higher than ours? The conflicting, seemingly-incompatible truths presented by the Bible may cause our minds to bristle and may spawn questions which appear to have no answer. This, though, should not lead us instantly to disillusionment. Rather, perhaps we should acknowledge that our human wisdom is finite and accept that we will not always be able to wrangle Biblical truth into a logically-consistent framework. The tensions and difficulties we encounter are no doubt frustrating, but there is also comfort in the knowledge that God would not have created such tensions and difficulties if such things were meant to be skimmed over.
What are your thoughts on predestination? What difficulties do you have with this doctrine when it is taught?
Deborah said,
Aug 11, 23:50 #
I disagree that predestination as a doctrine or truth resists logic or rationality. What it does sit uncomfortably with (I think) is how most Christians are initially taught the gospel and come to know Christ—that you accept Christ as your Saviour, and you are justified by faith which, it’s implied, you arrive at yourself.
It could be that I’m in the minority here, but the tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is not obvious to me. Men sin, and in their fallen state, are unable to have faith in Christ. God, in his mercy, enables the elect to believe. The remaining are still liable for the sins they committed and are therefore punished, justly. It is the elect who are treated unjustly (hence, grace is shown). Moreover, God choosing a people for himself and covenanting with them is his consistent way of interacting with people throughout history (first Israel, then the church).
The objections I’ve encountered are: (a) the idea that God would somehow reject someone who came to him because they were not elected (an irrelevant point, because such would be unable to approach God in the first place); and (b) that election somehow restricts God’s promises (whereas Scripture suggests the elect are many, not few—that the new heavens/earth will be full).
(I haven’t got anything to say about Point 3, because I don’t know what someone “who appears to be elect” might look like.)
Difficulties I have with the way this doctrine is taught:
. when it’s taught like some sort of shibboleth to mark the spiritually mature from the immature, as if Christians who earnestly hold it to be false (Arminians, etc.) are somehow ignorant or not clever enough to grasp it; and
. when it’s not taught in conjuction with grace.
Do you mind emailling your essay? I’d like to read it (just for my own growth, not to critique it or anything).
Ben said,
Aug 12, 10:28 #
Thanks for your comments, Deborah – it’s nice to hear from you.
I take your point about the tension between sovereignty and responsibility being not so tense after all – perhaps I argued too strongly that the doctrine resists rationality because? I do think that the tension might represent a problem for some people, and I do like Packer’s counsel to allow the tension to exist rather than try to resolve it by elevating one facet and diminishing another.
I wonder if the problem is more in our use of language, which is a debate I had with my trainer and fellow trainee when we presented our ideas. The language of choice is often used (choosing to accept Christ, etc.), which I find doesn’t sit well with predestination…perhaps ‘respond’ is a better word? I don’t know.
By ‘who appears to be elect’, I was referring to brothers or sisters who, by their actions, appear outwardly to be dedicated followers of Christ. I mention it because it is an issue amongst people I know at the moment. I thought about this point for a while after writing this article and decided that it was a difficult thing to fret over, because only God in His sovereignty knows who the elect are and who the elect aren’t, and who is fallen away and who isn’t.
I don’t know what a shibboleth is, but I agree that predestination shouldn’t be some kind of screening tool or final exam which marks a superior level of understanding or Christian maturity. However, what is your take on Arminianism? I did a little bit of research into it for my essay/teaching program and didn’t agree on their definition of ‘foreknowledge’ from Romans 8.
I will make my essay available after I rewrite bits of it – it is really, really basic and I have had some thoughts I want to incorporate. Thanks for your interest, though!
Lucy said,
Aug 12, 11:34 #
ARGH! I just got caught in the sinking sand that is Wikipedia…
I have lots of thoughts on the matter, but nothing coherent enough to make a proper comment.
I’d love to read your essays though :)
P.S. On the plus side I now know what shibboleth means. and Arminianism. and Pelagianism… etc ad infinitum
Haoran said,
Aug 13, 12:39 #
I recently had a long and very helpful conversation with a non-Christian (who became a Christian 3 weeks later.. yay!) about this at MYC.
I think you’re right on the Sovereignty & Responsibility thing. I actually think it is one of 2 key things to “solving” the problem.
It may not be a blocker to some people (i.e. like Deb) but they DO need to be understood/taught properly to make it make sense.
i.e.:
1) God is sovereign. Entirely sovereign. Entirely in control of everything; good AND evil. (e.g. Gen 50:20 and Acts 2).
2) Humans are responsible for their evil. In a just system, humans require enough autonomy within that system to be able to be judged for their actions. (rather than being judged to be unwilling pawns of a puppet-master).
If you accept God’s sovereignty, predestination ceases to be a “problem”, and you’re merely left with the issue of what to do with our apparent reality of choice.
The second correction you need to make to most people’s thinking is “Free Will”.
I think the most helpful thing you can do here is to point out the fallacy of “free” will. Our will is not free, and never has been; it is evil and can never choose to do good (without divine intervention) anymore than I can fly (without mechanical intervention).
[It’s the ‘T’ of Calvin’s TULIP: Total Depravity]
Only with the Holy Spirit can I choose to do good; to repent, obey God, and do good deeds.
So in God’s sovereignty, we intend to act. In God’s sovereignty, our actions occur or are foiled. Sometimes he lets evil happen; sometimes he prevents evil from happening.
One of the other objections (sorry for lack of straight-line though) is God’s apparent lack of justice/goodness.
At your point #1, its worth knowing that judgement and punishment of evil is good. So God can be good, could still be good if he had not saved anyone and predestined everyone to judgement.
That he chooses to then save some is an act of overwhelming mercy.
Shibboleth is actually an amusing story; thought not amusing in reality (Judges 12:4-6). They figure out who is an Ephraimite because their bad accent; they say “Sibboleth” rather than “Shibboleth”.
Like you’d get a Kiwi to say “fish and chips”. Only you’d mock them, rather than kill them.
Lucy said,
Aug 15, 12:09 #
Every time i see the word “shibboleth” Sylvester (of Warner Bros Tweety Bird and Sylvester the cat fame) pop into my head… he he he
Deborah said,
Aug 17, 01:39 #
I reckon free will and autonomy exists, but that freedom (any type of freedom, actually) is necessarily bounded by who you are and what your state is, like a paraplegic not being free to walk. People’s will necessarily tends towards evil in their fallen state. That we can’t choose good in an unregenerate state doesn’t imply that we’re pawns or being controlled, because it’s not as if God is making us do evil things, hence human responsibility is intact.
I agree, Ben, I’m not sure whether it’s a helpful or productive thing to wonder about whether people who appear to have fallen away were elect or not – like we don’t wonder whether the people we share the gospel with are elect or not.
I actually don’t know that much about Arminianism and I’m not sure how far it extends (like Calvinism is about much more than soteriology). The position on predestination is not correct to my mind, although I can see how some might earnestly hold to those views based on Scripture and how they understand God’s character, and since it’s not a faith issue, I’m not going to fight with anyone about it (anymore, hahah).
PS – TULIP did not come from Calvin. (Sorry, personal hobby horse, I hate the five points.)