Given that there is a link between predestination and determinism, (thread purpose!) I think lots of Reformers avoid the slippery slope or the rabbit hole because they see what it leads to, and don’t like it.
It’s a personal observation but I get a sense that Calvin (the lawyer) also didn’t like where his logic was leading, hence his limiting comments in the Institutes.
I'm insufficiently au fait with Calvin to comment but that's never stopped me before ... 😉
Didn't he acknowledge the logic of this particular trajectory? I've heard it said that he did so and so stopped short or introduced caveats. I've also heard it said that he was only too aware of where the logic was leading and went with it.
I'd rather wait for someone who knows more about Calvin to address that.
My understanding of how God knows the future and that we have free will is that God transcends time, seeing our genuinely free-willed choices, not as “past” or “future,” but in His Eternal Now. Boethius talks about this in his excellent Consolation of Philosophy.
So you say! I’m not sure you’re necessarily the best judge of that. I’m happier with Rowan Williams’ view that Christianity doesn’t exist to answer all the questions, rather to keep the questions alive.
So I’m subject to the heretical imperative. I ask questions. I wrestle with these things from the perspective of a follower of Jesus for over half a century. And I’m still following.
I'm sure you're not. I'm sure I am : ) He's a nice chap too. Goes beyond the text. You shouldn't have to.
(You'd have seen thru' my typo, 'Genetic liberals have them too, but unequally'.)
A principle that the (Lutheran) seminary professor in our Sunday class keeps bringing up, every time we get into a tangle like this one, is that there are things that belong to "the hidden side of God," as he calls it--stuff that is not our business, because we're not equipped to understand it yet (or maybe ever). When one of those things comes up and appears to contradict what God tells us plainly somewhere else, the best thing we can do is leave it severely alone and go with what we've been told plainly. In this case, the plain thing is that "God our Savior, 4 ... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:3-6).
Of course, there's the principle, and then there's what people do. This isn't going to stop people from trying to make sense of predestination, because people.
A principle that the (Lutheran) seminary professor in our Sunday class keeps bringing up, every time we get into a tangle like this one, is that there are things that belong to "the hidden side of God," as he calls it--stuff that is not our business, because we're not equipped to understand it yet (or maybe ever). When one of those things comes up and appears to contradict what God tells us plainly somewhere else, the best thing we can do is leave it severely alone and go with what we've been told plainly. In this case, the plain thing is that "God our Savior, 4 ... desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:3-6).
Of course, there's the principle, and then there's what people do. This isn't going to stop people from trying to make sense of predestination, because people.
We are perfectly equipped to understand. We are perfectly entitled to know. It is our business.
To make God's desire fit, there's an implicit 'but', so that it doesn't contradict, transcend the explicit damnationism.
There is no principle. Apart from lousy apologetics, making excuses for God.
If Love knows the unreal future, They know it as the Timothy quote, with no buts.
Thanks for that post. I suggest you take a look at the John Piper article I posted (immediately after the Host post).
The reason is that he did not leave 1 Tim 2:4 “severely alone”. Rather, while acknowledging the importance of the verse when considering predestination, he argued that the verse did not in fact contradict it. You can see his argument and it is a rationalisation based on a principle which does not appear in the whole of the key text. His argument is designed to discount what you rightly argue is the plain meaning of the text.
I do not want to divert this discussion into Kerygmania territory. Simply to argue that the predestination understanding with its determinist overtones may not be the only way of looking at human freedoms and God’s mercy.
I agree with you that the 1 Tim 2 text has a plain meaning. It coheres with my belief about the mercy of God and the wideness of Redemption.
1) You will notice the use of the words “paradox” and “mystery”. You don’t often see contemporary conservative Christians use those words when considering the truth of scripture.
2) But in this case he has a point. We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture.
3) Piper does not focus on this but moral accountability is hugely important in the recorded teaching of Jesus. Does he ever argue that we have no choice because God chose to make us that way? I don’t see that myself in the Synoptic gospels though I suppose one might argue that “you did not choose me but I chose you” in John’s gospel, addressed to the disciples, suggests that.
4) I’d argue that moral accountability (whether you are Christian or not) is the key factor in our sentient life which stops life being a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. The philopher A J Ayer, not a Christian, argued (in a Radio 4 programme I heard years ago) that he believed people should be “scrupulous”.
5) Is this an aspect of my “robust illusion” that choices really matter and that choice argues against determinism? Or predestination?
[Numbering mine - Kendel]
1) No, you sure don't. And Piper doesn't mean what you probably mean by them. @Dafyd nails it.
A paradox is an apparent logical contradiction. It doesn't stop being a logical contradiction just because Piper says it isn't one.
Any mystery or paradox for him is cleared up by the verse he doesn't quote and the ones that follow it:
Romans 9:14-22
New International Version
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
For Piper to claim this is a mystery is dishonest. His theology very clearly states the logic of it:
no one comes into judgment who does not deserve judgment.
Which means (to Piper, even in what you quoted, @Barnabas62 ) that the person who comes into judgment deserves it.
2) We do. Jesus talks about it quite differently. As you point out.
3) No Piper doesn't. The moral accountability that Jesus talked about doesn't make a lot of sense in Piper's theology. In a worst case reading, moral accountability would be ironic for Piper. It's not possible for the unbeliever to actually to be moral no matter how moral she is, and there's no reconning for the sinning believer, except having disappointed for God.
4) It makes a difference to Jesus. He spent a lot of time talking about it. And about surprising revelations of who is and isn't righteous.
5) If you believe that Piper is talking about a real paradox or mystery, you are under a robust illusion. (I doubt that you are.)
We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture.
I think the best way to see the latter is - as per the Institutes - a form of comfort for those who are saved, rather than as a general rule to try and divide humanity into those who are predestined and those who are not.
Always more for me to read. So, would you say Piper is harsher in his Calvinism than Calvin?
I agree. But Piper is arguing from the position that the contradiction is only apparent because we don’t know enough to see how it resolves. He has to say that because it is central to his understanding of scripture that there cannot be contradiction in it.
It’s actually progress that he also uses the word mystery! In his understanding scripture is also perspicuous. Not mysterious!
Piper is engaging in hand-waving. He only tells the happy side in most of the articles a quick Google search reveals. However there's this frank article, where he still tries the hand-waving, but actually answers the question:
"My answer is yes. God does determine from eternity who will be saved, who will be lost. But he does it in ways that are mysterious to us so that on that day no one will find any legitimate fault with God. No. The redeemed will know we are saved utterly by grace while deserving hell and the rest will know that they suppressed much knowledge of God’s grace and they deserve to perish."
How do believers in this cope with it without going insane?
Avoid a genuine understanding of what other people think on their own terms.
Keep the walls high, stay in the enclave, surround yourself with the like-minded.
Do not ask yourself questions.
Repeat.
Speaking of paradoxes (which, in some definitions, are apparent contradictions, but are still true), I should reread my Chesterton, or find more and read it.
Thanks for numbering my paragraphs, that was helpful.
As I’ve said previously I’m neither a Calvinist nor someone who agrees with much that Piper has written.
Lots of people have tried to “decode” what Paul is saying in Romans 9 to 11. I think he had difficulty with his own thoughts, hence the doxology at the end of Chapter 11.which I quote in part.
.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out.
Paul wrestles with himself , then recognising his own limitations he writes that.
I believe God is a mystery. I quite like it that after penning Romans 9 to 11 (commonly acknowledged as difficult scriptures) Paul also recognises that.
A question for you. Who do you believe wrote 1 Timothy?
Speaking of paradoxes (which, in some definitions, are apparent contradictions, but are still true), I should reread my Chesterton, or find more and read it.
Chesterton's so-called paradoxes are mostly contradictions of received wisdom or "common sense" or habits of thought, rather than logical contradictions.
There are two scholarly views about 1 Timothy and the other pastoral epistles. The majority believe that the evidence of the text(s) argues against Pauline authorship, on grounds of style, the words used and the theology expressed. The minority see those differences but are not convinced that they rule out Pauline authorship.
(The test of Pauline authorship generally is are the texts consistent with Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians which, analysts say. clearly come from the same mind.)
Why it is significant in this discussion is whether 1 Timothy 2 shows a development of Pauline thinking after penning Romans in particular. Or 1 Timothy shows development of thinking within the early church about the predestination arguments of Paul in what are described as his foundational letters.
So I was wondering whether your own understanding was affected by those (pretty well known) authorship arguments.
It probably does not need saying (but I’ll say it anyway!) that most conservative commentators would normally rule out either separate authorship or signs of developing thought.
Put succinctly, did Paul change his mind, have his mind changed for him, or neither of these is true?
Regardless of the appalling Piper's rhetoric, the claim of predestination at least through divine omniscience, if not omnipotence, will, which is how the text expresses it, active, not passive, is clear.
Are you good liberal folk saying that the text evolves? That what was said earlier was later abrogated, as in the Noble Quran? The the possible - not definite - universalism of 1 Timothy 2:3-6 when looked at in isolation, is there, and if Pauline, supersedes all damnationism that went before. Unless, of course, it was written by Polycarp 80 years later. And then the validity forks again. Was Polycarp liberalizing on his own authority or God's?
On what textual authority can the text supersede itself?
Maybe that (the evolution of thought in scripture) deserves a separate thread? I’m not sure whether it should belong in Purgatory or Kerygmania. But it’s a much wider topic than this thread.
By the way I did check what Calvin had to say about those 1 Tim 2 verses and you can find his arguments in Book 3 Chapter 24 of the Institutes. They are too long to be summarised easily here!
In terms of this thread, I say that text is not determinist nor does it support predestination. Though Calvin does his best to make it do so.
There are two scholarly views about 1 Timothy and the other pastoral epistles. The majority believe that the evidence of the text(s) argues against Pauline authorship, on grounds of style, the words used and the theology expressed. The minority see those differences but are not convinced that they rule out Pauline authorship.
(The test of Pauline authorship generally is are the texts consistent with Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians which, analysts say. clearly come from the same mind.)
Why it is significant in this discussion is whether 1 Timothy 2 shows a development of Pauline thinking after penning Romans in particular. Or 1 Timothy shows development of thinking within the early church about the predestination arguments of Paul in what are described as his foundational letters.
So I was wondering whether your own understanding was affected by those (pretty well known) authorship arguments.
It probably does not need saying (but I’ll say it anyway!) that most conservative commentators would normally rule out either separate authorship or signs of developing thought.
Put succinctly, did Paul change his mind, have his mind changed for him, or neither of these is true?
I'm a woman who has spent my life in theologically and ever more socially conservative independent Baptist churches in the U.S. until the last 3 years - now in a PCA church.
I just gave you a lot of background information there, which explains:
No. I have not studied scholarship on biblical texts. I have been navigating on my own for many years.
I've never not been reading. I've rarely been reading what anyone else I know reads in whatever context I find myself.
Maybe that (the evolution of thought in scripture) deserves a separate thread? I’m not sure whether it should belong in Purgatory or Kerygmania. But it’s a much wider topic than this thread.
OK, so if there is no evolution of thought, how does anything ambiguously universalist trump the unambiguously damnationist?
I respect the Hosts. Let’s see what they might have to say about whether your question is a tangent too far. I think it is, but I’m happy to be corrected.
IMO none of this makes any sense if we are going to say God is all loving all knowing and all powerful, we all have free will, and we only have a single life to "get it right" in, given the extraordinary differences between us humans in all aspects of material incarnation.
Never has made sense to me never will. No amount of mental gymnastics can square all of these to my satisfation. And I do believe that it's supposed to make sense. I don't believe God put me here to waste valuable energy wondering why the hell things are the way they are. There are so many more important things to experience than doubt and misgiving.
If I didn't have actual memories from prior incarnations, I would have had to jettison one of the above premises purely because of the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that arises every time I put attention on the problem.
"One life to live and then the judgment" is, IMO, a marketing tool used by Paul to persuade (or even subtly coerce) people to come to Christianity NOW, and not ten incarnations from now. He was on a mission, and I don't think he felt he was doing anything wrong in putting this forward to the various Greeks, Jews, and other gentile populations who embraced the idea of the transmigrational soul as a kind of "fact of life".
You and I have been here before! But not in this context.
Forgive me. In a previous discussion I think we got to the point of me understanding that your beliefs fell into the arena commonly described as Christian Gnostic. Anyway if I generalise and get it wrong you can put me straight.
I think you believe that your future of your soul is not-yet-determined. What you do in this life will impact whether your soul is sufficiently enlightened so you don’t need to go back on the reincarnation merry-go-round. And the choices of thought and behaviour in this life impact on the development of your soul. A picture of a journey towards enlightenment.
But I might have that wrong. Is there scope in your beliefs for accepting that your life is actually predetermined in any way? That your many-lives journey will happen regardless of the way you live? That you’re a passenger on a train, not involved in any way in the number of stops or ultimate journey time? You can’t affect your cosmic timetable?
I’m pretty sure we’ve never discussed this before but if we have I apologise for asking you to repeat.
I’m amused by your characterisation of Paul as a salesman. “Stop me and buy one. You’ll really regret it if you miss this once in a lifetime opportunity! (BTW God already knows what your answer will be, No pressure!) “
Like @Barnabas62 I'm also impressed with the way you are working through these things.
In some ways I sometimes think I've found a neat cop-out. 'I've changed address and moved East so all this Augustinian and Calvinism/Arminian stuff no longer applies. So I can ignore it.'
Whilst that may be the case to some extent it doesn't mean I don't admire or respect those who are working with those particular paradigms and trying to make sense of them.
But I no longer get exercised about this stuff in the way I used to. I used to describe myself as a 4 petal TULIP ... effectively TU IP.
But that all seems a long time ago and a world away now.
Perhaps I'm 'compartmentalising' but I don't particularly get exercised these days over who might be 'saved' or otherwise or who is 'in' or 'out' or somewhere in between.
This may sound counter-intuitive given that the Orthodox can be very prescriptive as to what constitutes Church - Big C - but we don't tend to speculate as to who is or isn't 'saved' or to how predestination, freewill and so on operate in practice.
It's not that we aren't aware of the issues or aren't interested. We just don't approach it in the same way.
I can remember evangelicals who used to obsess whether other people were Calvinists or Arminians or whether their eschatology was pre, post or a-millenial and much else besides.
Speaking of paradoxes (which, in some definitions, are apparent contradictions, but are still true), I should reread my Chesterton, or find more and read it.
Chesterton's so-called paradoxes are mostly contradictions of received wisdom or "common sense" or habits of thought, rather than logical contradictions.
I would not call them “so called,” but he’s worth reading in any case. ❤️
Like @Barnabas62 I'm also impressed with the way you are working through these things.
You both mean well.
And at times it's a relief to feel agreement, rather than a need to argue to defend every thought or view.
I sit now among women at church who are both complementarian, raising enormous broods of children -- thanks Piper and DeYoung! -- and still better educated in confessional Reformed theology than I am. They know what they believe and why; church history; and at least 3 confessions, much by heart. They wouldn't bother here for long; they don't have time! As a Baptist by background, I have nothing like their catechesis and study in orthodoxy.
I've done nothing here but read the room. Which is not impressive. Unless one has very low expectations of me based on the limited background I've confessed to.
I'm recently becoming more acquainted with N.T. Wright's work (discussion elsewhere of his 2018 Gifford lectures, and his recent book with Michael Byrd on theology of politics). One cannot not come in contact with much of his work without encountering his now old "New Perspective on Paul," the stuff of side-glances and whispered disapproval among "my sort."
I wonder, having not yet even penetrated the surface, if his work has anything interesting to say in regard to the larger question of determinism, free will and predestination.
Martin54
Maybe that (the evolution of thought in scripture) deserves a separate thread? I’m not sure whether it should belong in Purgatory or Kerygmania. But it’s a much wider topic than this thread.
OK, so if there is no evolution of thought, how does anything ambiguously universalist trump the unambiguously damnationist?
Perhaps I'm 'compartmentalising' but I don't particularly get exercised these days over who might be 'saved' or otherwise or who is 'in' or 'out' or somewhere in between.
This may sound counter-intuitive given that the Orthodox can be very prescriptive as to what constitutes Church - Big C - but we don't tend to speculate as to who is or isn't 'saved' or to how predestination, freewill and so on operate in practice.
Seems healthy, at least as stated. Are all the references to election and predestination then relegated to the category of "mystery." Or do the Orthodox offer some other explanation of what might be meant?
...
I've done nothing here but read the room. Which is not impressive. Unless one has very low expectations of me based on the limited background I've confessed to.
...
7) All humans experience some degree of freedom and some number of "controls" that limit our freedom.
My concern with point 7 is very simple.
I mentioned a sliding scale because the image leaves the argument of "how much freedom" and "how much is determined (and by what)" to the side for now. With this metaphor I am still arguing that the "All or Nothing" model does not reflect human experience (even, as I suspected Berdyaev was hinting at, under an authoritarian regime).
A different model that I've run across is in Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death, where the self is an ongoing dialectical process, which is in part developed through a dialectical interaction of "freedom and necessity."
...
Without attempting to comment on variety among individual experience, my point is simply that humans experience some degree of freedom and some degree of constraint. Or, perhaps, freedom with constraints.
This put me in mind of the significance of power relations in human discourse, in which the number of human participants in the process is increased from one to two. As Professor Amandine Catala put it (quoting again from a link I posted in Epiphanies a few days ago) in the context of neuronormativity, but which seems relevant to the issue of human freedom:
Indeed, foregrounding the oppressive power relations that produce dominant and non-dominant social groups is important not only in order to politicize and denaturalize systems of categories and hierarchies that might otherwise seem neutral or natural, but also, relatedly, in order to highlight what might be termed here neuronormalized (or so-called neurotypical) privilege. Indeed, any system of oppression, whether it be sexism, racism, or neuroableism, is built around power relations that systematically privilege one group that thereby becomes the dominant group (men, people racialized as white, neuronormalized or so-called neurotypical people), while systematically subordinating or marginalizing another group that thereby becomes the non-dominant group (women or other gender minorities, people racialized as non-white, neurominoritized or so-called neuroatypical or neurodivergent people). Just as sexism or racism are systems of oppression that are produced and maintained by patriarchy or white supremacy; i.e., sets of assumptions, norms, and practices that discriminate against women and other gender minorities or people racialized as ‘non-white’; neuroableism is a system of oppression that is produced and maintained by neuronormativity...
It might help to know that my background is similar to yours. So I understand, at least in part, some of the challenges you have faced. However, I avoided the direct impact of “hell fire damnationists”. I knew about it but I had a good friend who advised me to stay well clear of those who fostered fear and guilt. It didn’t sound like good news then, even more so now!
I remain impressed with the way you have “read the room”. It can take time to do that.
Re Orthodoxy Gamaliel can answer much better than me.
Re New Perspectives on Paul I haven’t read the N T Wright book but I know he isn’t the only one who has looked or is looking into that topic. Finding out more is on my personal to do list! Again others will probably know than me. I think N T Wright is a good author, on the conservative side.
My very best wishes in your journey. I hope you find this argumentative website useful. I’ve found it so for 20 years.
You and I have been here before! But not in this context.
Forgive me. In a previous discussion I think we got to the point of me understanding that your beliefs fell into the arena commonly described as Christian Gnostic. Anyway if I generalise and get it wrong you can put me straight.
I think you believe that your future of your soul is not-yet-determined. What you do in this life will impact whether your soul is sufficiently enlightened so you don’t need to go back on the reincarnation merry-go-round. And the choices of thought and behaviour in this life impact on the development of your soul. A picture of a journey towards enlightenment.
But I might have that wrong. Is there scope in your beliefs for accepting that your life is actually predetermined in any way? That your many-lives journey will happen regardless of the way you live? That you’re a passenger on a train, not involved in any way in the number of stops or ultimate journey time? You can’t affect your cosmic timetable?
I’m pretty sure we’ve never discussed this before but if we have I apologise for asking you to repeat.
I’m amused by your characterisation of Paul as a salesman. “Stop me and buy one. You’ll really regret it if you miss this once in a lifetime opportunity! (BTW God already knows what your answer will be, No pressure!) “
Barnabas my dear friend I so deeply appreciate your trying to understand the context from whence I comment (Grammar?). Yes I would call myself a little-g gnostic but not Big-G Gnostic because I have fundamental disgreements with the Valentinians, Manichaeans, Sufis etc...
I've arrived at what I call a coherent narrative. When it comes down to it we're all influenced by information parsed in the form of a Story or Narrative. The coherence of the narrative depends on the foundational premises - the basis upon which we "suspend our disbelief" - and the logic of the conclusions that proceed from them.
I have been willing to accept as "true" - suspend my disbelief - on the premise that there is a God, that It/He/She is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good/loving. That's the easy part.
From there I have to work backwards, based on what I have observed and experienced in my own life. I have observed that "free will" doesn't mean the same thing as "abundance of options". I have also experienced "precognition" - that is being able to see but not avoid certain catastrophic events in my life, which I have experienced as "determinism" or "fate". I also have actual memories of past incarnations, which for me personally negates Paul's very emphatic assertion that "this is your only go round so make it count".
So this is the information I have to parse into what is a coherent narrative. I can't dismiss what I have experienced because it is real, that is. it has had the same effect on my sensory input as any material experience would have.
So the constants are: There is a God which is all-good/loving, all-knowing and all-powerful.
Also: there is such a thing as free will, but it's not something I can operate here in this state of being unless I am writing a story or operating imaginatively.
Also: there is something known as determinism because I have been able to see catastrophes before they happen but have been unable to avoid them.
Also: past incarnations are a thing because my memories are not always memories of this life (how to tell the difference between memory and imagination simple. I can teach you if you like).
So then working forwards from this information:
There's a plan for my life, that is like a Script. That's the predeterminism part. Certain things are bound to happen no matter what, other things have more variable probabilities.
But who wrote the Script? Was it God? No because that negates my free will. Even if He wrote it for me and I signed off on it, would it me MY story or God's story? Free Will means I get to write anything, even the atrocious bits, and God signs off on it. Look at history. Plenty of stories of atrocities, no godly intervention.
What was I doing while I was in between incarnations? Just hanging around on a cloud or frolicking in the Elysian fields? No. I was busy collaborating with others on the next chapter of my Story. That's the Free Will part.
Is my Script confined to a single chapter bounded by a single lifetime? Apparently not in my own case, and I don't think I'm special.
It's not about enlightenment - the idea of this earthly sphere as a big classroom full of "lessons" and "exams" and a final "graduation" is so life-negating. Who the hell wants to experience an infinite classroom with dreary and painful "lessons" certainly not me.
For me it's about an eternally evolving narrative that is so compelling, so breathtaking, so exquisitely timed and brilliantly choreographed, so complex and subtle, so heartbreaking and hilarious played on a stage so vast and perfectly appointed and sustained by a Consciousness so imponderable that it encompasses all the Players, all the Dimensions, all the possible outcomes, all the Stages, all the Props and Scenery, and the entire Audience to boot.
Re New Perspectives on Paul I haven’t read the N T Wright book but I know he isn’t the only one who has looked or is looking into that topic.
Within the NPP group of scholars Wright tends to be towards the more conservative end when it comes to attributing authorship (indeed some of his work is essentially tracking the development of Pauline thought through the various epistles).
In terms of the question at hand, he wrote a fairly standard Reformed (maybe more Continental in form) introduction to faith relatively early on (he may even have still been a student at that point). His later work doesn't entirely move away from that, but shifts it far further into the background and into the realm of mystery, whilst headlining a more federal understanding of those questions. There are probably longer treatments, but this isn't untypical:
@Kendel, when the Orthodox put something in the 'Mystery' category it isn't because they want to file it under 'Too Difficult.'
I may want to do that though ... 😉
'Mystery' to the Orthodox is more about 'things revealed' - so the Trinity, the Incarnation, the real presence in the Eucharist (however that's understood) and so on are all Divine Mysteries. They are all things that have been 'revealed' and worthy of acceptance even if we can't figure out the nuts and bolts.
When I say we don't generally get exercised about election and predestination it's not because we aren't bothered or aren't interested, it's more a case that we don't define ourselves by speculative positions on those things.
With all due respect to those Reformed women you mention, we would applaud their alacrity and learning but probably conclude that it is all rather speculative and Scholastic. It might be scholastically impressive but addressing questions we don't find it relevant to ask.
I'll dig out some pointers or short Orthodox treatments on the subject and see whether any of those might help answer your question.
It's a good question and I'm finding it hard to articulate exactly how we come at these things from a different direction but come at them from a different direction we do. Give me some time and I'll pick out a few pointers.
Please don't misunderstand me, though. I am not being dismissive, simply pointing out that this is an area where Orthodox and Protestants can 'talk past' each other as we are coming at these things from different angles.
I respect the Hosts. Let’s see what they might have to say about whether your question is a tangent too far. I think it is, but I’m happy to be corrected.
Absolutely likewise. But I rescinded the question, for the time being,
Maybe that (the evolution of thought in scripture) deserves a separate thread? I’m not sure whether it should belong in Purgatory or Kerygmania. But it’s a much wider topic than this thread.
OK, so if there is no evolution of thought, how does anything ambiguously universalist trump the unambiguously damnationist?
Predestination is damnationist unless it's meaningless; all are predestined to good, or, as I always believed under Armstrongism, and beyond, the Church was predestined ultimately for the good of all. That goes beyond the text of course.
Every commentator here seems to be trying to circle the square of the 'mysterious' text.
Re New Perspectives on Paul I haven’t read the N T Wright book but I know he isn’t the only one who has looked or is looking into that topic.
Within the NPP group of scholars Wright tends to be towards the more conservative end when it comes to attributing authorship (indeed some of his work is essentially tracking the development of Pauline thought through the various epistles).
In terms of the question at hand, he wrote a fairly standard Reformed (maybe more Continental in form) introduction to faith relatively early on (he may even have still been a student at that point). His later work doesn't entirely move away from that, but shifts it far further into the background and into the realm of mystery, whilst headlining a more federal understanding of those questions. There are probably longer treatments, but this isn't untypical:
...
I've done nothing here but read the room. Which is not impressive. Unless one has very low expectations of me based on the limited background I've confessed to.
...
7) All humans experience some degree of freedom and some number of "controls" that limit our freedom.
My concern with point 7 is very simple.
I mentioned a sliding scale because the image leaves the argument of "how much freedom" and "how much is determined (and by what)" to the side for now. With this metaphor I am still arguing that the "All or Nothing" model does not reflect human experience (even, as I suspected Berdyaev was hinting at, under an authoritarian regime).
A different model that I've run across is in Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death, where the self is an ongoing dialectical process, which is in part developed through a dialectical interaction of "freedom and necessity."
...
Without attempting to comment on variety among individual experience, my point is simply that humans experience some degree of freedom and some degree of constraint. Or, perhaps, freedom with constraints.
This put me in mind of the significance of power relations in human discourse, in which the number of human participants in the process is increased from one to two. As Professor Amandine Catala put it (quoting again from a link I posted in Epiphanies a few days ago) in the context of neuronormativity, but which seems relevant to the issue of human freedom:
Indeed, foregrounding the oppressive power relations that produce dominant and non-dominant social groups is important not only in order to politicize and denaturalize systems of categories and hierarchies that might otherwise seem neutral or natural, but also, relatedly, in order to highlight what might be termed here neuronormalized (or so-called neurotypical) privilege. Indeed, any system of oppression, whether it be sexism, racism, or neuroableism, is built around power relations that systematically privilege one group that thereby becomes the dominant group (men, people racialized as white, neuronormalized or so-called neurotypical people), while systematically subordinating or marginalizing another group that thereby becomes the non-dominant group (women or other gender minorities, people racialized as non-white, neurominoritized or so-called neuroatypical or neurodivergent people). Just as sexism or racism are systems of oppression that are produced and maintained by patriarchy or white supremacy; i.e., sets of assumptions, norms, and practices that discriminate against women and other gender minorities or people racialized as ‘non-white’; neuroableism is a system of oppression that is produced and maintained by neuronormativity...
Hmm. Don't keep me guessing. What do you see as relevant in Catala's quote to the situations you credited with having brought her quote to mind?
Re New Perspectives on Paul I haven’t read the N T Wright book but I know he isn’t the only one who has looked or is looking into that topic.
Within the NPP group of scholars Wright tends to be towards the more conservative end when it comes to attributing authorship (indeed some of his work is essentially tracking the development of Pauline thought through the various epistles).
In terms of the question at hand, he wrote a fairly standard Reformed (maybe more Continental in form) introduction to faith relatively early on (he may even have still been a student at that point). His later work doesn't entirely move away from that, but shifts it far further into the background and into the realm of mystery, whilst headlining a more federal understanding of those questions. There are probably longer treatments, but this isn't untypical:
One unspoken assumption I think is operative off and on on this thread is starting from Bible verses, rather than the Christian traditions which at least some of us regard as where those verses came from, and without which some of us believe they can’t be understood properly. (This applies to lots of things, but here too, I believe.) For me, if I see a verse in the Bible which at first sounds like God is just pitching people at will into hell, then I first want to know what the Church—in my case, the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox end of the spectrum—has had to say about that matter. I think especially when it comes to things that lead to potential despair (like this), that’s something really worth investigating.
Well yes, and I increasingly feel like that on almost every thread where doctrinal or 'kerygmaniacal' issues are discussed.
I find myself thinking, 'Why aren't they citing the Fathers (and Mothers) on this one?'
Or, 'How can they separate scripture from Tradition like that?'
I s'pose it shows how far I've fallen ... 😉
As far as I understand it, though, the RCC does believe in predestination but it isn't as big an issue as it is in the Reformed traditions - and as @Jengie Jon has helpfully reminded us several times, the Arminian position is actually a subset of that (in a small r reformed way I'd imagine).
The Anglican 39 Articles are moderately Calvinist of course and I can't understand how anyone can interpret them otherwise.
Those Anglicans who take a very different view are drawing on wider Patristic and more broadly 'Catholic' sources and influences, I would suggest, but that's only an observation from 'outside'.
But we could debate Anglicanism as a form of 'reformed catholicism' or even whether it belongs in a category of its own. But to all intents and purposes as far as this issue goes I would put the 'higher' end of the Anglican spectrum alongside both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whilst retaining distinctions between all three.
Apologies, I'm awake in the night and haven't yet had a chance to look up some Orthodox perspectives on this issue.
As you'd expect, it's not a 'sola scriptura' approach as the term is understood by those who hold that position here - a position I don't find particularly logical to be quite honest - but then I keep being challenged that I'm caricaturing it or don't understand it properly.
But yes, @ChastMastr has highlighted an important issue here. Most contributors are taking a post-Reformation 'Western' approach to this issue or drawing from the Augustinian - Aquinas - Reformers trajectory- which is understandable as that's the tradition they come from.
But it's not how the Christian East understands these things and, as ChastMastr indicates, the more Catholic traditions within Western Christianity understand these things differently too. There are overlaps and parallels of course.
I'm afraid I don't see a 'sola scriptura' approach to these things but a 'scripture as interpreted through a Catholic / Reformed / Wesleyan / Orthodox / Whatever Else lens approach.'
We are all wearing spectacles. The only thing that varies is the prescription.
The last three paragraphs here describe the Roman Catholic position, which I take to be the Boethian position. Whether the description of the Calvinist position in the paragraphs above is fair, I don’t know.
Not discussed so far but I think a few thoughts about predestination as a form of determinism may complement the science-faith dialogue and pease’s “robust illusion” observation.
The conservative evangelical John Piper and I see many things difficulty but in this recent article he does bring to the forefront what seems to me to be good point for discussion.
Predestined and Accountable
Here’s the paradox — not a contradiction, a paradox. Lots of people try to make this out to be a logical contradiction. It’s not. It runs through the whole Bible. Human beings are morally accountable, even though they do not have ultimate self-determination. There is no injustice with God (Romans 9:14). No one is punished who does not truly deserve to be punished. And the measure of the punishment is always in righteous proportion to the measure of the evil. Though God predestines who will be saved and who will not be saved, no one comes into judgment who does not deserve judgment.
This is not a logical contradiction, which so many try to make it out to be. It is a mystery. I don’t think the Bible makes plain how both of these truths — God’s sovereignty and man’s accountability — are in perfect compatibility. But the whole Bible testifies to both truths. They are compatible. The Bible teaches the truth of both. And they are profoundly important to embrace for the good of our souls, and for the integrity of God’s word, and for the health of the church, and for the advancement of God’s mission, and for the glory of God’s grace.
You will notice the use of the words “paradox” and “mystery”. You don’t often see contemporary conservative Christians use those words when considering the truth of scripture. But in this case he has a point. We see both moral accountability and predestination of eternal fate in scripture. Piper does not focus on this but moral accountability is hugely important in the recorded teaching of Jesus. Does he ever argue that we have no choice because God chose to make us that way? I don’t see that myself in the Synoptic gospels though I suppose one might argue that “you did not choose me but I chose you” in John’s gospel, addressed to the disciples, suggests that.
I’d argue that moral accountability (whether you are Christian or not) is the key factor in our sentient life which stops life being a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. The philopher A J Ayer, not a Christian, argued (in a Radio 4 programme I heard years ago) that he believed people should be “scrupulous”.
Is this an aspect of my “robust illusion” that choices really matter and that choice argues against determinism? Or predestination?
It's all well and good to say "it's not a contradiction" and "they are compatible." A further explanation is needed here. Anybody can say "these two apparently mutually exclusive claims are not a contradiction, they're compatible." In the fact that he even says this he acknowledges that he has the burden of proof. But no proof is offered. Unless it lies beyond the bit that you quoted.
My understanding of how God knows the future and that we have free will is that God transcends time, seeing our genuinely free-willed choices, not as “past” or “future,” but in His Eternal Now. Boethius talks about this in his excellent Consolation of Philosophy.
I think Lewis uses this angle also. I know he was conversant with Boethius.
Speaking of paradoxes (which, in some definitions, are apparent contradictions, but are still true), I should reread my Chesterton, or find more and read it.
Heavens the one Catholic I truly despise, Darwin help me.
In comparison with the lethal headache Boethius received? (See Wiki article for gruesome details).
Is ChastMastr right in observing that the Catholic position in the article he linked is Boethian? It looks that way to me too.
I think this, found online, is a pretty fair summary of Boethian understanding.
1. Boethius believed that God's plan unfolds in time as Fate.
2. He called God's foreknowledge "Providence" to avoid the temporal word.
3.He believed that God sees all things as present, and that God's knowledge is based on conditional necessity.
4. He believed that causation does not imply necessity.
5. He believed that God's foreknowledge of the future does not cause things to happen.
6. He believed that humans have free will, and that there is no contradiction between this and God's foreknowledge.
This intends to be a summary of his thoughts, expressed primarily in his book “On the Consolation of Philosophy” which was much read and discussed by the Medieval Schoolmen, well known wrestlers with Christian understanding.
Did he see something? Or was this just a 6th century attempt to “square the circle”?
...
Hmm. Don't keep me guessing. What do you see as relevant in Catala's quote to the situations you credited with having brought her quote to mind?
There's no guessing involved. Reading the room gave me a headache. You've already indicated how it made you feel.
Er. Ok.
Reading the room indicated to me where people are on the issues of the OP, but I've been reading this room for over a year. I've been reading other rooms for years and years. Learning the universal ethic, so to speak.
So, perhaps you are refering to my willingness to keep it theoretical, rather than get pummeled, by saying what the community will not tolerate? Possibly. We can get so practiced at that task, that we forget we are even doing it.
But sticking to the theoretical can be good exercise, examining and weighing the componants. For those very reasons I liked what @Barnabas62 said about Berdyaev arguing against his own position.
Maybe I am pulling a Berdyaev myself and strengthening my "Hm. I don't know about that" in a more informed way.
I am not a seeker. Certainly not in the sense of someone who finds herself lost or without resources, or without a protector to guide me. When I need assistance, I will ask. I am happy to hash over ideas here.
"Being impressed" with any of my participation here, belies assumptions about me, my background, my experiences and formation. Although you don't intend it to be, it's patronizing. I have provided no impressive insights here. Nothing new or unique. You're expectations are too low.
One unspoken assumption I think is operative off and on on this thread is starting from Bible verses, rather than the Christian traditions
That's an interesting point. Although we generally don't admit it, Protestants actually do rely on "tradition," but we treat it differently in, I think, two ways:
1. The corpus of work considered valuable for interpretive assistance is different, and probably smaller and certainly less clearly defined.
2. We treat it not as authoritative, but as the insights of other brothers and (maybe a few ghost-writing) sisters in Christ.
I am certainly not treating you like a 'seeker' - other than to make the observation that we all are.
Nor am I intending to patronise you. I was simply agreeing with @Barnabas62 on the quality of your posts. In doing so I'm not making a value judgement about anyone else's.
I will try to avoid being inadvertently patronising in future.
Meanwhile, you did ask me to expand on the Orthodox approach to these issues and I'm very conscious that I've gone off on tangents and not addressed your question directly.
You asked: 'Are all the references to election and predestination then relegated to the category of "mystery." Or do the Orthodox offer some other explanation of what might be meant?
Well, firstly, I wouldn't say that we 'relegate' things to the category of 'mystery' - or Mystery with a Big M - rather that we elevate them that way!
None of these things can be approached in a reductionist manner. This isn't 'Theology By numbers' in a 'Painting By Numbers' sense.
That's not a jibe, by the way, it's an acknowledgement that I haven't made it clear what we mean by 'mystery'. In Orthodox terms, the term 'Mystery' refers to things revealed, things that God has made known.
When it comes to the references to 'election' and 'predestination', then yes, of course we accept these as scriptural concepts. In a nutshell, we firstly put the focus on God's 'foreknowledge' rather than some inscrutable predetermined will, as it were. Secondly, we tend to emphasise the corporate rather than the individual aspect - although salvation is always personal of course.
Comments
Please tell me you're ventriloquising.
I'm insufficiently au fait with Calvin to comment but that's never stopped me before ... 😉
Didn't he acknowledge the logic of this particular trajectory? I've heard it said that he did so and so stopped short or introduced caveats. I've also heard it said that he was only too aware of where the logic was leading and went with it.
I'd rather wait for someone who knows more about Calvin to address that.
I'm sure you're not. I'm sure I am : ) He's a nice chap too. Goes beyond the text. You shouldn't have to.
(You'd have seen thru' my typo, 'Genetic liberals have them too, but unequally'.)
Aye, we all live with paradoxes in separate boxes. Most damnationists I know by far are very nice people.
As for 2nd guessing. Hmmmm. Doesn't that work both ways?
Of course, there's the principle, and then there's what people do. This isn't going to stop people from trying to make sense of predestination, because people.
Sorry KarlB I didn’t mean that to go both ways. I don’t think like that.
We are perfectly equipped to understand. We are perfectly entitled to know. It is our business.
To make God's desire fit, there's an implicit 'but', so that it doesn't contradict, transcend the explicit damnationism.
There is no principle. Apart from lousy apologetics, making excuses for God.
If Love knows the unreal future, They know it as the Timothy quote, with no buts.
Nothing else could make sense.
The text certainly doesn't.
Lamb Chopped
Thanks for that post. I suggest you take a look at the John Piper article I posted (immediately after the Host post).
The reason is that he did not leave 1 Tim 2:4 “severely alone”. Rather, while acknowledging the importance of the verse when considering predestination, he argued that the verse did not in fact contradict it. You can see his argument and it is a rationalisation based on a principle which does not appear in the whole of the key text. His argument is designed to discount what you rightly argue is the plain meaning of the text.
I do not want to divert this discussion into Kerygmania territory. Simply to argue that the predestination understanding with its determinist overtones may not be the only way of looking at human freedoms and God’s mercy.
I agree with you that the 1 Tim 2 text has a plain meaning. It coheres with my belief about the mercy of God and the wideness of Redemption.
1) No, you sure don't. And Piper doesn't mean what you probably mean by them. @Dafyd nails it. Any mystery or paradox for him is cleared up by the verse he doesn't quote and the ones that follow it:
For Piper to claim this is a mystery is dishonest. His theology very clearly states the logic of it: Which means (to Piper, even in what you quoted, @Barnabas62 ) that the person who comes into judgment deserves it.
2) We do. Jesus talks about it quite differently. As you point out.
3) No Piper doesn't. The moral accountability that Jesus talked about doesn't make a lot of sense in Piper's theology. In a worst case reading, moral accountability would be ironic for Piper. It's not possible for the unbeliever to actually to be moral no matter how moral she is, and there's no reconning for the sinning believer, except having disappointed for God.
4) It makes a difference to Jesus. He spent a lot of time talking about it. And about surprising revelations of who is and isn't righteous.
5) If you believe that Piper is talking about a real paradox or mystery, you are under a robust illusion. (I doubt that you are.)
Always more for me to read. So, would you say Piper is harsher in his Calvinism than Calvin? @Martin54 , what is a genetic liberal? I can't find a good explanation via Google. Is this a Haidt reference?
Piper is engaging in hand-waving. He only tells the happy side in most of the articles a quick Google search reveals. However there's this frank article, where he still tries the hand-waving, but actually answers the question: Not this side of the Jordan.
Avoid a genuine understanding of what other people think on their own terms.
Keep the walls high, stay in the enclave, surround yourself with the like-minded.
Do not ask yourself questions.
Repeat.
Thanks for numbering my paragraphs, that was helpful.
As I’ve said previously I’m neither a Calvinist nor someone who agrees with much that Piper has written.
Lots of people have tried to “decode” what Paul is saying in Romans 9 to 11. I think he had difficulty with his own thoughts, hence the doxology at the end of Chapter 11.which I quote in part.
Paul wrestles with himself , then recognising his own limitations he writes that.
I believe God is a mystery. I quite like it that after penning Romans 9 to 11 (commonly acknowledged as difficult scriptures) Paul also recognises that.
A question for you. Who do you believe wrote 1 Timothy?
Why do you ask?
There are two scholarly views about 1 Timothy and the other pastoral epistles. The majority believe that the evidence of the text(s) argues against Pauline authorship, on grounds of style, the words used and the theology expressed. The minority see those differences but are not convinced that they rule out Pauline authorship.
(The test of Pauline authorship generally is are the texts consistent with Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians which, analysts say. clearly come from the same mind.)
Why it is significant in this discussion is whether 1 Timothy 2 shows a development of Pauline thinking after penning Romans in particular. Or 1 Timothy shows development of thinking within the early church about the predestination arguments of Paul in what are described as his foundational letters.
So I was wondering whether your own understanding was affected by those (pretty well known) authorship arguments.
It probably does not need saying (but I’ll say it anyway!) that most conservative commentators would normally rule out either separate authorship or signs of developing thought.
Put succinctly, did Paul change his mind, have his mind changed for him, or neither of these is true?
Open question.
Regardless of the appalling Piper's rhetoric, the claim of predestination at least through divine omniscience, if not omnipotence, will, which is how the text expresses it, active, not passive, is clear.
Are you good liberal folk saying that the text evolves? That what was said earlier was later abrogated, as in the Noble Quran? The the possible - not definite - universalism of 1 Timothy 2:3-6 when looked at in isolation, is there, and if Pauline, supersedes all damnationism that went before. Unless, of course, it was written by Polycarp 80 years later. And then the validity forks again. Was Polycarp liberalizing on his own authority or God's?
On what textual authority can the text supersede itself?
Maybe that (the evolution of thought in scripture) deserves a separate thread? I’m not sure whether it should belong in Purgatory or Kerygmania. But it’s a much wider topic than this thread.
In terms of this thread, I say that text is not determinist nor does it support predestination. Though Calvin does his best to make it do so.
Thanks, @Barnabas62.
I'm a woman who has spent my life in theologically and ever more socially conservative independent Baptist churches in the U.S. until the last 3 years - now in a PCA church.
I just gave you a lot of background information there, which explains:
No. I have not studied scholarship on biblical texts. I have been navigating on my own for many years.
I've never not been reading. I've rarely been reading what anyone else I know reads in whatever context I find myself.
OK, so if there is no evolution of thought, how does anything ambiguously universalist trump the unambiguously damnationist?
Never has made sense to me never will. No amount of mental gymnastics can square all of these to my satisfation. And I do believe that it's supposed to make sense. I don't believe God put me here to waste valuable energy wondering why the hell things are the way they are. There are so many more important things to experience than doubt and misgiving.
If I didn't have actual memories from prior incarnations, I would have had to jettison one of the above premises purely because of the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that arises every time I put attention on the problem.
"One life to live and then the judgment" is, IMO, a marketing tool used by Paul to persuade (or even subtly coerce) people to come to Christianity NOW, and not ten incarnations from now. He was on a mission, and I don't think he felt he was doing anything wrong in putting this forward to the various Greeks, Jews, and other gentile populations who embraced the idea of the transmigrational soul as a kind of "fact of life".
AFF
You and I have been here before! But not in this context.
Forgive me. In a previous discussion I think we got to the point of me understanding that your beliefs fell into the arena commonly described as Christian Gnostic. Anyway if I generalise and get it wrong you can put me straight.
I think you believe that your future of your soul is not-yet-determined. What you do in this life will impact whether your soul is sufficiently enlightened so you don’t need to go back on the reincarnation merry-go-round. And the choices of thought and behaviour in this life impact on the development of your soul. A picture of a journey towards enlightenment.
But I might have that wrong. Is there scope in your beliefs for accepting that your life is actually predetermined in any way? That your many-lives journey will happen regardless of the way you live? That you’re a passenger on a train, not involved in any way in the number of stops or ultimate journey time? You can’t affect your cosmic timetable?
I’m pretty sure we’ve never discussed this before but if we have I apologise for asking you to repeat.
I’m amused by your characterisation of Paul as a salesman. “Stop me and buy one. You’ll really regret it if you miss this once in a lifetime opportunity! (BTW God already knows what your answer will be, No pressure!) “
Like @Barnabas62 I'm also impressed with the way you are working through these things.
In some ways I sometimes think I've found a neat cop-out. 'I've changed address and moved East so all this Augustinian and Calvinism/Arminian stuff no longer applies. So I can ignore it.'
Whilst that may be the case to some extent it doesn't mean I don't admire or respect those who are working with those particular paradigms and trying to make sense of them.
But I no longer get exercised about this stuff in the way I used to. I used to describe myself as a 4 petal TULIP ... effectively TU IP.
But that all seems a long time ago and a world away now.
Perhaps I'm 'compartmentalising' but I don't particularly get exercised these days over who might be 'saved' or otherwise or who is 'in' or 'out' or somewhere in between.
This may sound counter-intuitive given that the Orthodox can be very prescriptive as to what constitutes Church - Big C - but we don't tend to speculate as to who is or isn't 'saved' or to how predestination, freewill and so on operate in practice.
It's not that we aren't aware of the issues or aren't interested. We just don't approach it in the same way.
I can remember evangelicals who used to obsess whether other people were Calvinists or Arminians or whether their eschatology was pre, post or a-millenial and much else besides.
It all seems so irrelevant now.
I would not call them “so called,” but he’s worth reading in any case. ❤️
https://www.chesterton.org/lecture-130-a-primer-in-paradox/
You both mean well.
And at times it's a relief to feel agreement, rather than a need to argue to defend every thought or view.
I sit now among women at church who are both complementarian, raising enormous broods of children -- thanks Piper and DeYoung! -- and still better educated in confessional Reformed theology than I am. They know what they believe and why; church history; and at least 3 confessions, much by heart. They wouldn't bother here for long; they don't have time! As a Baptist by background, I have nothing like their catechesis and study in orthodoxy.
I've done nothing here but read the room. Which is not impressive. Unless one has very low expectations of me based on the limited background I've confessed to.
I'm recently becoming more acquainted with N.T. Wright's work (discussion elsewhere of his 2018 Gifford lectures, and his recent book with Michael Byrd on theology of politics). One cannot not come in contact with much of his work without encountering his now old "New Perspective on Paul," the stuff of side-glances and whispered disapproval among "my sort."
I wonder, having not yet even penetrated the surface, if his work has anything interesting to say in regard to the larger question of determinism, free will and predestination.
And yes, this is a perpetual problem.
Seems healthy, at least as stated. Are all the references to election and predestination then relegated to the category of "mystery." Or do the Orthodox offer some other explanation of what might be meant?
It might help to know that my background is similar to yours. So I understand, at least in part, some of the challenges you have faced. However, I avoided the direct impact of “hell fire damnationists”. I knew about it but I had a good friend who advised me to stay well clear of those who fostered fear and guilt. It didn’t sound like good news then, even more so now!
I remain impressed with the way you have “read the room”. It can take time to do that.
Re Orthodoxy Gamaliel can answer much better than me.
Re New Perspectives on Paul I haven’t read the N T Wright book but I know he isn’t the only one who has looked or is looking into that topic. Finding out more is on my personal to do list! Again others will probably know than me. I think N T Wright is a good author, on the conservative side.
My very best wishes in your journey. I hope you find this argumentative website useful. I’ve found it so for 20 years.
Barnabas my dear friend I so deeply appreciate your trying to understand the context from whence I comment (Grammar?). Yes I would call myself a little-g gnostic but not Big-G Gnostic because I have fundamental disgreements with the Valentinians, Manichaeans, Sufis etc...
I've arrived at what I call a coherent narrative. When it comes down to it we're all influenced by information parsed in the form of a Story or Narrative. The coherence of the narrative depends on the foundational premises - the basis upon which we "suspend our disbelief" - and the logic of the conclusions that proceed from them.
I have been willing to accept as "true" - suspend my disbelief - on the premise that there is a God, that It/He/She is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good/loving. That's the easy part.
From there I have to work backwards, based on what I have observed and experienced in my own life. I have observed that "free will" doesn't mean the same thing as "abundance of options". I have also experienced "precognition" - that is being able to see but not avoid certain catastrophic events in my life, which I have experienced as "determinism" or "fate". I also have actual memories of past incarnations, which for me personally negates Paul's very emphatic assertion that "this is your only go round so make it count".
So this is the information I have to parse into what is a coherent narrative. I can't dismiss what I have experienced because it is real, that is. it has had the same effect on my sensory input as any material experience would have.
So the constants are: There is a God which is all-good/loving, all-knowing and all-powerful.
Also: there is such a thing as free will, but it's not something I can operate here in this state of being unless I am writing a story or operating imaginatively.
Also: there is something known as determinism because I have been able to see catastrophes before they happen but have been unable to avoid them.
Also: past incarnations are a thing because my memories are not always memories of this life (how to tell the difference between memory and imagination simple. I can teach you if you like).
So then working forwards from this information:
There's a plan for my life, that is like a Script. That's the predeterminism part. Certain things are bound to happen no matter what, other things have more variable probabilities.
But who wrote the Script? Was it God? No because that negates my free will. Even if He wrote it for me and I signed off on it, would it me MY story or God's story? Free Will means I get to write anything, even the atrocious bits, and God signs off on it. Look at history. Plenty of stories of atrocities, no godly intervention.
What was I doing while I was in between incarnations? Just hanging around on a cloud or frolicking in the Elysian fields? No. I was busy collaborating with others on the next chapter of my Story. That's the Free Will part.
Is my Script confined to a single chapter bounded by a single lifetime? Apparently not in my own case, and I don't think I'm special.
It's not about enlightenment - the idea of this earthly sphere as a big classroom full of "lessons" and "exams" and a final "graduation" is so life-negating. Who the hell wants to experience an infinite classroom with dreary and painful "lessons" certainly not me.
For me it's about an eternally evolving narrative that is so compelling, so breathtaking, so exquisitely timed and brilliantly choreographed, so complex and subtle, so heartbreaking and hilarious played on a stage so vast and perfectly appointed and sustained by a Consciousness so imponderable that it encompasses all the Players, all the Dimensions, all the possible outcomes, all the Stages, all the Props and Scenery, and the entire Audience to boot.
AFF
..
Within the NPP group of scholars Wright tends to be towards the more conservative end when it comes to attributing authorship (indeed some of his work is essentially tracking the development of Pauline thought through the various epistles).
In terms of the question at hand, he wrote a fairly standard Reformed (maybe more Continental in form) introduction to faith relatively early on (he may even have still been a student at that point). His later work doesn't entirely move away from that, but shifts it far further into the background and into the realm of mystery, whilst headlining a more federal understanding of those questions. There are probably longer treatments, but this isn't untypical:
https://youtu.be/qKwIijhZW-M
I may want to do that though ... 😉
'Mystery' to the Orthodox is more about 'things revealed' - so the Trinity, the Incarnation, the real presence in the Eucharist (however that's understood) and so on are all Divine Mysteries. They are all things that have been 'revealed' and worthy of acceptance even if we can't figure out the nuts and bolts.
When I say we don't generally get exercised about election and predestination it's not because we aren't bothered or aren't interested, it's more a case that we don't define ourselves by speculative positions on those things.
With all due respect to those Reformed women you mention, we would applaud their alacrity and learning but probably conclude that it is all rather speculative and Scholastic. It might be scholastically impressive but addressing questions we don't find it relevant to ask.
I'll dig out some pointers or short Orthodox treatments on the subject and see whether any of those might help answer your question.
It's a good question and I'm finding it hard to articulate exactly how we come at these things from a different direction but come at them from a different direction we do. Give me some time and I'll pick out a few pointers.
Please don't misunderstand me, though. I am not being dismissive, simply pointing out that this is an area where Orthodox and Protestants can 'talk past' each other as we are coming at these things from different angles.
I get that - I think! And I can see you’ve moved on since last we chatted.
Much appreciated!
Absolutely likewise. But I rescinded the question, for the time being,
Predestination is damnationist unless it's meaningless; all are predestined to good, or, as I always believed under Armstrongism, and beyond, the Church was predestined ultimately for the good of all. That goes beyond the text of course.
Every commentator here seems to be trying to circle the square of the 'mysterious' text.
It cannot be done.
Thanks,chrisstiles
Illuminating comments. I'm stimulated enough to get the book! I'm glad he uses the term "difficult" to describe Romans 9-11.
Hmm. Don't keep me guessing. What do you see as relevant in Catala's quote to the situations you credited with having brought her quote to mind?
Thanks, @chrisstiles. If I haven't seen this video before, I have seen or read something very like it.
I find myself thinking, 'Why aren't they citing the Fathers (and Mothers) on this one?'
Or, 'How can they separate scripture from Tradition like that?'
I s'pose it shows how far I've fallen ... 😉
As far as I understand it, though, the RCC does believe in predestination but it isn't as big an issue as it is in the Reformed traditions - and as @Jengie Jon has helpfully reminded us several times, the Arminian position is actually a subset of that (in a small r reformed way I'd imagine).
The Anglican 39 Articles are moderately Calvinist of course and I can't understand how anyone can interpret them otherwise.
Those Anglicans who take a very different view are drawing on wider Patristic and more broadly 'Catholic' sources and influences, I would suggest, but that's only an observation from 'outside'.
But we could debate Anglicanism as a form of 'reformed catholicism' or even whether it belongs in a category of its own. But to all intents and purposes as far as this issue goes I would put the 'higher' end of the Anglican spectrum alongside both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, whilst retaining distinctions between all three.
Apologies, I'm awake in the night and haven't yet had a chance to look up some Orthodox perspectives on this issue.
As you'd expect, it's not a 'sola scriptura' approach as the term is understood by those who hold that position here - a position I don't find particularly logical to be quite honest - but then I keep being challenged that I'm caricaturing it or don't understand it properly.
But yes, @ChastMastr has highlighted an important issue here. Most contributors are taking a post-Reformation 'Western' approach to this issue or drawing from the Augustinian - Aquinas - Reformers trajectory- which is understandable as that's the tradition they come from.
But it's not how the Christian East understands these things and, as ChastMastr indicates, the more Catholic traditions within Western Christianity understand these things differently too. There are overlaps and parallels of course.
I'm afraid I don't see a 'sola scriptura' approach to these things but a 'scripture as interpreted through a Catholic / Reformed / Wesleyan / Orthodox / Whatever Else lens approach.'
We are all wearing spectacles. The only thing that varies is the prescription.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-predestination
It's all well and good to say "it's not a contradiction" and "they are compatible." A further explanation is needed here. Anybody can say "these two apparently mutually exclusive claims are not a contradiction, they're compatible." In the fact that he even says this he acknowledges that he has the burden of proof. But no proof is offered. Unless it lies beyond the bit that you quoted.
I think Lewis uses this angle also. I know he was conversant with Boethius.
Heavens the one Catholic I truly despise, Darwin help me.
In comparison with the lethal headache Boethius received? (See Wiki article for gruesome details).
Is ChastMastr right in observing that the Catholic position in the article he linked is Boethian? It looks that way to me too.
I think this, found online, is a pretty fair summary of Boethian understanding.
This intends to be a summary of his thoughts, expressed primarily in his book “On the Consolation of Philosophy” which was much read and discussed by the Medieval Schoolmen, well known wrestlers with Christian understanding.
Did he see something? Or was this just a 6th century attempt to “square the circle”?
At any rate, I think it was a pretty good effort.
Er. Ok.
Reading the room indicated to me where people are on the issues of the OP, but I've been reading this room for over a year. I've been reading other rooms for years and years. Learning the universal ethic, so to speak.
So, perhaps you are refering to my willingness to keep it theoretical, rather than get pummeled, by saying what the community will not tolerate? Possibly. We can get so practiced at that task, that we forget we are even doing it.
But sticking to the theoretical can be good exercise, examining and weighing the componants. For those very reasons I liked what @Barnabas62 said about Berdyaev arguing against his own position.
Maybe I am pulling a Berdyaev myself and strengthening my "Hm. I don't know about that" in a more informed way.
@Barnabas62, @Gamma Gamaliel
I am not a seeker. Certainly not in the sense of someone who finds herself lost or without resources, or without a protector to guide me. When I need assistance, I will ask. I am happy to hash over ideas here.
"Being impressed" with any of my participation here, belies assumptions about me, my background, my experiences and formation. Although you don't intend it to be, it's patronizing. I have provided no impressive insights here. Nothing new or unique. You're expectations are too low.
That's an interesting point. Although we generally don't admit it, Protestants actually do rely on "tradition," but we treat it differently in, I think, two ways:
1. The corpus of work considered valuable for interpretive assistance is different, and probably smaller and certainly less clearly defined.
2. We treat it not as authoritative, but as the insights of other brothers and (maybe a few ghost-writing) sisters in Christ.
This topic could be worthy of its own thread.
Indeed!
Being impressed here is just a personal opinion about the quality of posts. It’s not based on any assumptions about you.
But as you point out the danger of inadvertent patronising, or assumption of need, I won’t do it again.
I am certainly not treating you like a 'seeker' - other than to make the observation that we all are.
Nor am I intending to patronise you. I was simply agreeing with @Barnabas62 on the quality of your posts. In doing so I'm not making a value judgement about anyone else's.
I will try to avoid being inadvertently patronising in future.
Meanwhile, you did ask me to expand on the Orthodox approach to these issues and I'm very conscious that I've gone off on tangents and not addressed your question directly.
You asked: 'Are all the references to election and predestination then relegated to the category of "mystery." Or do the Orthodox offer some other explanation of what might be meant?
Well, firstly, I wouldn't say that we 'relegate' things to the category of 'mystery' - or Mystery with a Big M - rather that we elevate them that way!
None of these things can be approached in a reductionist manner. This isn't 'Theology By numbers' in a 'Painting By Numbers' sense.
That's not a jibe, by the way, it's an acknowledgement that I haven't made it clear what we mean by 'mystery'. In Orthodox terms, the term 'Mystery' refers to things revealed, things that God has made known.
When it comes to the references to 'election' and 'predestination', then yes, of course we accept these as scriptural concepts. In a nutshell, we firstly put the focus on God's 'foreknowledge' rather than some inscrutable predetermined will, as it were. Secondly, we tend to emphasise the corporate rather than the individual aspect - although salvation is always personal of course.
Here is a lengthy treatment which I find helpful: https://saintgeorgekearney.com/load.php?pageid=55