Predestination?

by Zico 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:
  Of course, not all Calvinists believe in double-predestination. This is often the debate that I and DeputyDog have, wherein he believes in it, while I do not. Hence I describe myself as a moderate, rather than a high- or hyper- Calvinist.

  Sirona:
  As you note, many of these things are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to be a monotheist / polytheist / deist and also a panentheist. It is also quite possible to believe in reincarnation and predestination with no contradiction.

  The freewill debate is approached from the view of there being two sides to the coin - God's view and Man's. From our perspective we have complete freewill. From God's perspective He allegedly can see the end from the beginning and nothing happens that He doesn't know about. It is all predestined. The two sides appear contradictory if you attempt to view them from the same vantage point, but once you realise its merely a matter of perspective it seems rational enough.

  The issue of sin is little different. Sins have been paid for by a lamb that was slain before the founding of the world, and yet it was also an event that was carried out "in" time. If you're a universalist (believing in a universal salvation for all mankind) then there's no unfairness to account for, aside from the crappy providence that many experience in this "hell on earth". If you're not then you have a little explaining to do, but can still come up witha fairly plausible explanation for the diverse opinions found in the canon of 66 books.

  Following on from the "lamb" comment, and to fuirther address your other comment: An eternal "Son of God" threw himself at "death" and allegedly triumphed, but not without repercussions.
• 

  gumby

  he would actually be at every point that’s ever happened, and will happen. If not, he’s being restricted by his own creation, and is therefore not all powerful.

  I don't see how restricting yourself would take away from your power.

  To me, the Watchtower stance on this is the only solution to not making god out to be a sadistic mad scientist. If god was to look into the future of his plans and was to see the outcome, then he was to proceed with his plans knowing full well the outcome would mean pain and suffering for his planned creation of man and beast, then he is a bad planner, unwise, unloving, and, well,........ pure idiot.

  However, for him to "choose not to know" the outcome of his earthly plans is also pure idiocy. What creator or designer would come up with a plan and leave that plan to chance rather than inform themselves of any snags in their plan....if it was in their power to do so? If you were going to build say......a time machine, and you had the power to KNOW that perhaps people would vanish somewhere in time and you could not retrieve them back.....would you still build the machine?

  A loving creator would not if it meant possible harm to any who would suffer and so, why would an all powerful loving god come up with a plan of an earthly paradise for a people made after his image to live forever in happiness praising their creator, when there was a chance that billions of them would suffer in any manner? Either way, god loses as a loving father it seems to me. I could be wrong

  Gumby
• 

  Narkissos

  Ross,

  not all Calvinists believe in double-predestination. This is often the debate that I and DeputyDog have, wherein he believes in it, while I do not. Hence I describe myself as a moderate, rather than a high- or hyper- Calvinist.

  Well, I don't know who holds the "genuine Calvinist" label these days... and it's been some time since I have opened the Institution de la religion chrestienne, but I guess it's difficult to avoid the issue entirely I have seen orthodox Calvinists nuancing the wording of double predestination to make it appear less symmetrical, e.g. distinguishing between God's positive will (volo) and negative will (nolo), but not rejecting the doctrine altogether.

  Gumby,

  Nice to see you. As far as one remains in a historical perspective I entirely agree with what you wrote (I was actually thinking your second paragraph while reading the first!)... but the whole perspective is unsatisfactory to me. I can't help thinking of Ivan Karamazov when we get into that (no final redemption/salvation is worth the tears of one child). Perhaps our problem is precisely with history, and the individual focus, and our narrative fondness for happy endings. History is a mess, individual histories are no exception to the rule, but there are some moments in it which were perhaps worth it. And those have happened too, they will have happened, forever. Grammatical eternity of the future perfect.
• 

  Zico

  Gumby,
  
  I wonder at what point God could have restricted himself, if he didn't exist at a point?
  
  I did note in this thread, that predestination raises further questions about God's morality, I hope someone will try to deal with your post, as I wouldn't know how.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:
  I wouldn't say that one branch of Calvinist holds all the answers, nor claim to the title "genuine" or "orthodox". My view is simply that He predestines those whom He choses (which is easily extended to a universalist position), thus it is a positive predestination.

  As for those left over, he simply permits them to remain as they are, without extending any special grace to them. Since its about showing mercy to whomever He wills, it has little to do with what is and isn't fair. Showing mercy circumvents absolute justice, IMHO, and by very definition isn't fair.

  Gumby:
  Are you sure you aren't again anthropomorphising God in your image of what a "father" should or shouldn't be? Do you take similar issue with a scientist who "plays god" with a few petre dishes of bacteria? As an evolutionist it would be a bit rich of me to do so, believing that the battle for survival has led to the diversity and equilibrium that we now experience on this planet. Why does that process suddenly have to stop with Homo Sapien Sapien, when it could well be that there are a few more adaptations to go before we rise above the stage of bacteria? Or are you telling me that it must be so because some ancient goat-herd got above his station?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  Forget Calvin, What does it mean to be a vessel "fitted out for destruction"?
• 

  Sirona

  LT

  If you don't mind, please could you provide the source for this belief:

  Sins have been paid for by a lamb that was slain before the founding of the world, and yet it was also an event that was carried out "in" time.

  I'm very interested in that concept.

  Sirona
• 

  Sirona

  LT

  My view is simply that He predestines those whom He choses (which is easily extended to a universalist position), thus it is a positive predestination.

  Are you suggesting that God chooses those who will be "born again" and leaves everyone else to their own devices?

  Is that loving?

  As you know, I do not accept our need for atonement, however assuming we do need it, why isn't it offered to all?

  Sirona
• 

  Deputy Dog

  LT

  When do babies get to make their choice or a chance to choose?
• 

  gumby

  Ross, your order is in for the chocolate wax you ordered for your next nutsack shine appointment with me.....oh crap, sorry....wrong thread.

  Gumby:Are you sure you aren't again anthropomorphising God in your image of what a "father" should or shouldn't be?

  Ross, my little skirt wearin buddy.....you know that my comments are usually based from a biblical perspective which is why I spoke of god in the sense that I did. Biblically speaking, god is supposed to be loving, just, wise,etc. A god such as this would be foolish to leave his plans and goals to chance rather than giving them some planned out thought so that these plans would be without error and difficulties.

  Gumby