Skip to main content

Does Predestination Make Sense?

Where we run into difficulties is when we try to reconcile Biblical statements about God’s love with theological systems attempting to comprehend predestination. It’s an old problem that has vexed people from Erasmus to the present day (and one I feel no desire to rehearse here). The problem is, the Bible everywhere assumes that human action and decisions are free, that is, unconstrained by a prior divine decision, and thus humans can and should be held responsible for their behavior. Even so, most reformed theological systems find a way to make room for human freedom and responsibility under an overarching if mysterious divine predestination. This of course makes no sense.

Comments

  1. It's a fantastic post isn't it.

    I wanted to say that on his blog but felt I wasn't adding anything.....cos I haven't really got anything to add, he's covered it beautifully.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hehe, well you can always just comment to say, "nice job"! But I'm glad you've commented here as well. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Merely commenting on the above quote (I haven't the time at the moment to read the whole post):

    ...the Bible everywhere assumes that human action and decisions are free, that is, unconstrained by a prior divine decision, and thus humans can and should be held responsible for their behavior.

    1. I'm not convinced the Bible everywhere does assume freedom of actions and decisions...at least, not in the way an Arminian would usually defend it. It's a bold statement. I'll have to see whether he tries to back it up in his post.

    2. Not sure that the whole sentence follows, i.e. it implies that responsibility necessarily and only flows from freedom of action and decision. A nice idea, but not without problems itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ali, :-)
    On 1. I think you are right, that needs nuancing.
    On 2. Responsibility without freedom to act and decide? In human terms, it is ridiculous to hold someone responsible for what they could not do otherwise. Be glad to hear why I'm wrong though!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I'm actually a lot more deterministic than the following example, but if what you say is true, then how can anyone be held responsible for their sin?

    Or do you believe that a person is free to never sin?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yay! I've managed to stump you!

    I know it's got nothing to do with you being busy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. sorry Ali, can't deal with this in any detail at the mo, I think part of the solution (in my own thinking at least) lies in the recognition that we Christians have tended to flatten sin out into a perfectly flat concept where all sins are equally evil and all should send us to hell, I don't think that is biblical. If, for example, you take the mosaic law as paradigmatic you see that different types and levels of transgression are dealt with by different types and levels of response. Are my daughters sinners? yes. Are they really on a par with rapists and genocidal maniacs? I don't think so. I realise that goes against every evangelistic speech we've ever been subjected to (give or take).

    Sorry just another thing to add to my backlog of things to do a proper series on. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. No worries, Jonathan. I agree that there are "levels" of sin. I also think that sin is far more complicated than normally spoken of. But the "hell-sending factor" is not the individual sins themselves per se, but the context in which they exist, recognising most importantly the sinful motives behind them, especially that of indwelling sin.

    But time...yes, time is always an issue.

    I still prefer just to say I've stumped you!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .