Predestination

[Hollister Holocaust]

Predestination is the idea that God predestined us or planned in eternity past who would and wouldn't be saved. (Those who would be are known as the "elect".)

This is found in the Bible numerous times, and yet so many Christians deny it with negative connotations as a "Calvanist dogma". But its in Scripture!

"29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Romans 8:29-30

So on which side of the debate do you stand? Did God ultimately sovereignly choose those who would be saved? Or did God merely know what would happen, and is not in sovereign control over all events?  

[Shadows-shine]

So if it's already predetermined who is saved and who is going to hell, then why did God grant us free will? I mean if He already has decided who is His elect and who isn't then there is no need for any one to do any thing.


The problem with the passage you cited, is the Greek word "proorizo", which is comprised of the prefix "pro" (meaning before or infront of; beforehand, or earlier) and the verd "orizo" (meaning to determine, mark out, designate, destine, ordain, appoint, or to divide or separate from...to preappoint or pre-ordain). The word "proorizo" can be translated several different ways. Throughout history, various combinations of words have been used to translate the term over a period covering hundreds of years.

Here are some examples of the how the word (proorizo) has been translated:

*Wycliff (1380)- bifor ordeyned (Rom. 8:29) - bifor ordeyned (Rom. 8:30)

*Tyndale (1534)- ordeyned before (Rom. 8:29) - appoynted before (Rom. 8:30)

*Cranmer (1539)- ordeyned before (Rom. 8:29) - appoynted before (Rom. 8:30)

*Geneva (1657)- ordeyned before (Rom. 8:29) - appoyneted before (Rom. 8:30)

*Rheims (1582)- predestinated (Rom. 8:29) - predestinated (Rom. 8:30)

*Standard Rev. (1881)- foreordained (Rom. 8:29) - foreordained (Rom. 8:30)

*James Moffatt (1913)- decreed of old (Rom. 8:29) - has thus decreed (Rom. 8:30)

*J.B. Phillips (195 cool - chose them (Rom. 8:29) - chose them long ago (Rom. 8:30)

*Wm. F. Beck (1963)- appointed long ago (Rom. 8:29) - appointed long ago (Rom. 8:30)

*New Test. in Today's English (1966)- had also set apart (Rom. 8:29) - had already set apart (Rom. 8:30)


Along with these translations, the Greek word "proorizo" can be translated several other ways, examples are, such English words as allotted, planned, and foreapproved. The most correct way to translate the word cannot be determined by simply referring to a dictionary. The word that is chosen may not fully or accurately convey the original writers intent. The accuracy or any translation depends on the translators ability to determine what the original author had in mind and then convey that idea to the reader in another language.
((I pulled this from various sources around the internet and books that I have at home))

The English word "predestinate" does not accurately show what Paul was talking about in Romans 8:29-30. Look at the verse in context. In verses 4-6, Paul tells members to "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." In verses 14-17, Paul explains "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." In verse 24, he talks about the need for hope in order to attain promised blessings, and in verse 28, he states that "all things work together for good to them that love God" and who are foreordained to accept the gospel and become like Christ.

Those who are "foreordained" are justified, sanctified, and glorified (see vs. 30) through the saving ordinances of the gospel (baptism, laying on of hands, etc.) and obeying the commandments ---which is Paul's theme throughout all his epistles.

Paul's teachings can't be reconciled with the concept of Calvinistic predestination, and to translate "proorizo" as predestination doesn't convey accurately the apostle's intended meaning. So, Paul did not believe in or teach predestination as Calvinists have defined the word. It's been the interpreters who have confused the doctrine. Paul has taught that God loves all His children and offers salvation to all of them who will come unto Christ and are justified and sanctified through obedience to the covenants they make with Him.

So I ask again, what is the point of free will if our fate is already predetermined? And why would God offer salvation to all His children, if He has already decided who is going to hell and who is not?  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

I was never a fan of the thought of predestination, for several reasons. The first and foremost is exactly what Shadows asked: what's the point in creating us differently than the angels if we don't have any choice? Why bother going through the pain and suffering on the cross if there is already a list in place? And why would we follow any of these rules set if we're either saved, or we're not, and nothing we can say or do could change that?

Something my pastor pointed out while I was in high school: Jesus talks equally about us being given to God, of being chosen by him, AND of free will. And he speaks about them both like they don't contradict one another. It's hard to wrap one's mind around.

I think it's very possible for some people to have their lives mapped by God. Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Mary, the disciples. They were all born for a specific reason. Does that happen for everyone? I won't discount the possibility, but we don't really know, nor will we until we reach the afterlife. Do I think that means our every action and every step was predetermined? No.

Knowing the outcome of something is different than making it so. When ordering a pizza, you might already know what toppings everyone wants, but you ask anyway. God already knows the names of all who are going to answer his call, but that doesn't mean that he's hasn't called everyone.  

[rmcdra]

How can there be a distinction between good and evil if there is no choice to make?

This would also make morality irrelevant since one who believes s/he is one of the Elect would technically be able to do no wrong since they are already chosen to enter the Kingdom. While no one technically knows if they are of the elect or not, there's no way for one to receive salvation if they are not a member of the Elect so again it hurts a moral code of conduct and destroys the meaning of since which is disobedience to God's Will.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

rmcdra

How can there be a distinction between good and evil if there is no choice to make?

This would also make morality irrelevant since one who believes s/he is one of the Elect would technically be able to do no wrong since they are already chosen to enter the Kingdom. While no one technically knows if they are of the elect or not, there's no way for one to receive salvation if they are not a member of the Elect so again it hurts a moral code of conduct and destroys the meaning of since which is disobedience to God's Will.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to in a more eloquent and succinct fashion. smile  

[Galad Aglaron]

If the plan of God encompasses all things and all things are predestined, that would mean every decision we ever made was made for us. Free will is an illusion. The rebellion of Satan, the fall of man and sin itself were all foreseen and foreordained by God for some inscrutable purpose.

Man, that is bleak. It's an even bleaker image than people say an uncaring universe without a God is.  

[Shadows-shine]

Galad Damodred

If the plan of God encompasses all things and all things are predestined, that would mean every decision we ever made was made for us. Free will is an illusion. The rebellion of Satan, the fall of man and sin itself were all foreseen and foreordained by God for some inscrutable purpose.

Man, that is bleak. It's an even bleaker image than people say an uncaring universe without a God is.

Yes it is! And it's very unjust.  

[freelance lover]

Predestination is always a bit of a Catch-22 because God is omnipotent, but God has also given us with free will. Besides, if we're predestined there's no incentive to "be good" if you will. If your fates already decided, why bother?

I personally believe God doesn't want puppets and wants us to seek Him out our own desire, not because he's preordained it.

As I've said, the way I reconcile these two is with the idea that "God is the author of a choose your own adventure novel."  

[zz1000zz]

The idea of predestination isn't supported by the Bible, or anything else.  

[Galad Aglaron]

It logically follows, doesn't it? If God's plan encompasses all things and knows all things that pass from the creation of the Universe to its end and beyond, then surely every choice and end was ordained by Him at the dawn of things?

The way it was explained to me, God's plan is like a haiku. There are very strict rules to the form, but within those rules, you can do what you like. You can write as you please, but however you write, you will always end up with a haiku. Perhaps it will be about the moon, or the leaves on a tree, or waves crashing on rocks, or the white fan of a lover, but it will always be a haiku.  

[rmcdra]

I think the issue of predestination is due to trying to define what omniscience means. While literally meaning "all knowing" what is God all knowing of exactly? Does this include all choices we will make or just all choices possible that we can make? If we define it to include all choices we will make, this would be inconsistent with his nature. Given that part of God's nature is love, if it were to include all the choices we make, then it would contradict his nature of love in that it would rob us of having choice. So to not contradict the nature that is revealed of this being his omnipotence must be of all choices that are possible for us to make.

As someone state before it's like a choose your own adventure story. All possible of endings are known but the reader decides how to get there.  

[zz1000zz]

rmcdra

I think the issue of predestination is due to trying to define what omniscience means. While literally meaning "all knowing" what is God all knowing of exactly? Does this include all choices we will make or just all choices possible that we can make? If we define it to include all choices we will make, this would be inconsistent with his nature. Given that part of God's nature is love, if it were to include all the choices we make, then it would contradict his nature of love in that it would rob us of having choice. So to not contradict the nature that is revealed of this being his omnipotence must be of all choices that are possible for us to make.

Or one could realize there is no obligation for God to be restricted by the same temporal rules as humans. Once one does this, the "paradox" vanishes.  

[Galad Aglaron]

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...  

[zz1000zz]

Galad Aglaron

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...

Would you mind clarifying this? I have no idea where you are coming from.  

[Galad Aglaron]

zz1000zz

Galad Aglaron

By that logic, there's really no point at all in any kind of debate or discussion of the nature of God...

Would you mind clarifying this? I have no idea where you are coming from.

If there is no obligation for God to be restricted by the same temporal rules as humans, then surely there's no obligation for God to be restricted or defined by anything that humans can conceive of or understand. Therefore, any speculation about the nature of God is just that - speculation.