Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election

Theology
42

@KPuff I found this…

Brief Definitions

What is Fatalism?
Alfred Hitchcock produced some of my favorite movies. One such movie was, “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” starring Doris Day and James Stewart. This movie was also my introduction to Fatalism. Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) was introduced and soon became Doris Day’s signature song on the comedy, “The Doris Day Show.”

Fatalism is the unbiblical idea that regardless of what choices one makes, some event “X” is inevitably going to happen. It teaches that some kind of blind impersonal force controls everything; an impersonal determinism. Therefore, fate is aimless and arbitrary. A dark cloud of hopelessness and inevitability hangs over the victims of fate. No matter what they say, think, or do all their choices are all absolutely meaningless. It is a godless doctrine!

What is Predestination?
On the other hand, the biblical doctrine of predestination/election, teaches that God has a loving divine goal and he is working all things out according to his own will and purpose (Eph 1:3-11; cf. Dan 4:35; Isa 14:24; 46:10). Predestination teaches that God neither ordains, does, nor permits, anything except that which serves his divine purpose (Psa 33:11). God is sovereign over the universe; the One who does all things as he wills.

Fatalistic Charges
As beautiful as the song, Que Sera, Sera, was to me at one time, things don’t just happen. Christians reject fatalism. Rather, they understand that the only loving, holy, wise, good, and sovereign God has control of every detail of life (Matt 10:29-30). They believe God is sovereign over all - the entire universe.

However, Calvinists are often accused by those who adhere to Arminianism of being fatalistic - or at least to have fatalistic tendencies. However, just the opposite is actually true. While Calvinists understand God’s providence to mean that he has sovereignly foreordained all that comes to pass, without being the author of evil, (see WCF V, Of Providence) providence is not purposeless and arbitrary! Rather, providence is the outworking of a specific plan by a loving purposeful God. Unlike fatalism, God is immanent and personally relates to those in this world (Deut 32:10; Psa. 68:5; 103; 131; John 14:16, 23; Rom 8:16, 26; Gal 4:6, etc.). Moreover, providence does not render one’s choices meaningless. Men are free to make choices - meaningful ones - according to their nature (Jer 17:9; John 6:44; 8:34; Jas 1:13-15).

Unlike Arminianism??, in Calvinism, man has free agency in that he is a free moral agent and makes genuine choices that have very real consequences, but he is limited by his fallen nature. Perhaps an illustration would help:

There is a story of a little Dutch boy, which embodies very fairly the difference between God and Fate. This little boy’s home was on a dyke in Holland, near a great wind-mill, whose long arms swept so close to the ground as to endanger those who carelessly strayed under them. But he was very fond of playing precisely under this mill. His anxious parents had forbidden him to go near it; and, when his stubborn will did not give way, had sought to frighten him away from it by arousing his imagination to the terror of being struck by the arms and carried up into the air to have life beaten out of him by their ceaseless strokes. One day, heedless of their warning, he strayed again under the dangerous arms, and was soon absorbed in his play there forgetful of everything but his present pleasures. Perhaps, he was half conscious of a breeze springing up; and somewhere in the depth of his soul, he may have been obscurely aware of the danger with which he had been threatened. At any rate, suddenly, as he played, he was violently smitten from behind, and found himself swung all at once, with his head downward, up into the air; and then the blows came, swift and hard! 0 what a sinking of the heart! 0 what a horror of great darkness! It had come then! And he was gone! In his terrified writhing, he twisted himself about, and looking up, saw not the immeasureable expanse of the brazen heavens above him, but his father’s face. At once, he realized, with a great revulsion, that he was not caught in the mill, but was only receiving the threatened punishment of his disobedience. He melted into tears, not of pain, but of relief and joy. In that moment, he understood the difference between falling into the grinding power of a machine and into the loving hands of a father.

That is the difference between Fate and Predestination. [Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970].

Arminians, not Calvinists are the ones who are actually fatalistic. As H. M. Curry wrote in the booklet, Feast of Fat Things:

Interesting, I am not a Calvinist, so does this mean I am a fatalist?

J.

43

Honest question to @Johann , @KPuff , or anyone else who wishes to participate. This is what I have always understood it to be. The conflict usually arises because we struggle to imagine knowledge without temporal priority (knowing something before it happens). If God is outside of time, there is no “before.” His knowledge follows your act in the order of reality, even if it seems “ahead” of your act in the order of time.

The question of how divine foreknowledge interacts with human freedom is a classic philosophical and theological puzzle often referred to as the Dilemma of Theological Fatalism. When we conceptualize God as being “outside of time,” we move into a perspective often championed by thinkers like Boethius or Thomas Aquinas. To explore whether this negates free will, it helps to break the logic down into how we perceive “seeing” versus “causing.”

The “Eternal Present” God exists in an “eternal now,” He does not “foresee” the future in the way we anticipate a weather report. Instead, He “sees” all moments simultaneously. Imagine you are standing on a high mountain watching a boat travel down a winding river. You can see where the boat was, where it is, and the waterfall it is approaching all at once. Your observation of the boat heading toward the waterfall does not force the rower to steer that way.

In this view, God’s knowledge is post-conditional rather than pre-deterministic. He knows what you do because you freely choose to do it; you do not choose to do it because He knows it.

Philosophers often distinguish between two types of necessity: Simple Necessity: Something that must be true by its very nature (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4). Something necessary only because it is happening. For example, if you are currently sitting down, it is “necessary” that you are sitting (you can’t be sitting and standing at the same exact time). However, your choice to sit was not forced; you were free to remain standing until the moment you sat.

If God sees you choosing “Option A” from His position outside of time, “Option A” is conditionally necessary (it is what is happening), but it wasn’t simply necessary (you weren’t forced into it by a prior cause). The tension often lies in the word “plan.” * If “planning” means God scripts every movement like a puppet master, then free will is indeed an illusion.

However, many theological frameworks argue that God’s plan is a comprehensive response to human freedom. In this sense, the “plan” is not a rigid track you are bolted to, but a divine orchestration that accounts for every free choice you make, weaving those choices into a larger purpose without overriding your agency. (Since you are going to sit on this date and time, God arranges for you to have a chair to sit on.)

Another way to look at this is through Middle Knowledge (Molinism). This theory suggests God knows “counterfactuals”—He knows exactly what any person would freely choose in any given situation. By placing people in specific circumstances, He fulfills His plan, yet the individuals are still making choices based on their own true desires

If I place two bowls out, one with Candy, one with veggies, I know that either of my two of my kids will take the candy. However, my middle boy will, without a doubt, choose the veggies. I did not make him, I just knew He would.
Peter

44

@PeterC

I looked for a question (or a question mark) and did not find one.
You offered a thorough explanation of your ideas, but I’m not sure what you are looking for from me. Are you asking how I hold these ideas in my own head; how I understand, what you call the “Dilemma of Theological Fatalism”? I have alread “weighed in” on this topic (#6)

KP

45

https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position

Which of these “versions” do you find most consistent with the Greek morphology we’ve been looking at in the Pauline epistles @PeterC?
As you can see, this is a deep dive, depending on which fench we are sitting on re the biblical doctrine of election.

(Election/Predestination and the Need for a Theological Balance)

  1. The Arminian View (Conditional Election)To see the direct scholarly defense of the view that God chooses those He foreknows will believe, you should look at the Free Will Baptist or Methodist archives.Primary Scholar: Jacob Arminius (1560–1609).Key Resource: The Works of James Arminius (Available on CCEL.org).

Look for his “Declaration of Sentiments” regarding Predestination.Modern Scholarship: The Society of Evangelical Arminians. They host detailed articles on “Prevenient Grace” and the distinction between individual and corporate election.

  1. The Lutheran View (Single Unconditional Election)Lutherans differ from Calvinists by rejecting “Double Predestination” (the idea that God also chooses people for hell).Primary Document: The Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration, Article XI). This is the definitive Lutheran “link” on election**.The Argument: It emphasizes that election is a “comforting” doctrine for believers, not a speculative math problem about who is “out.”**

Link: LCMS.org (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) has a “Brief Statement” that clarifies their middle-ground position

.3. The Barthian/Corporate View (Christological Election)Karl Barth (1886–1968) famously re-centered election on Jesus rather than on individuals.Primary Text: Church Dogmatics, Vol. II.2. This is a massive work, but you can find summaries online.Key Concept: Jesus is the only “Elect” and the only “Reprobate” (rejected).Digital Resource: The Center for Barth Studies (Princeton Theological Seminary). They provide summaries of Barth’s “Yes” and “No” in the election of Christ

  1. The Molinist View (Middle Knowledge)This is a popular “reconciling” view used by many modern apologists to maintain both total sovereignty and libertarian free will.Primary Scholar: William Lane Craig.Key Resource: ReasonableFaith.org. Searching his site for “Middle Knowledge” or “Molinism” will give you dozens of transcripts and articles explaining how God uses “counterfactuals” to elect.5. "Link: NetBible.org on Ephesians 1:4-5.What to look for: Click on the “Notes” tab. Look for the “tn” (Translator’s Note) on the word ἐξελέξατο (exelexato - “He chose”). Wallace provides the grammatical justification for the timing and intent of the divine choice.

Summary Table for Forum Quick-ReferenceSystem
Best Online Link Primary Emphasis
CalvinismMonergism.com Sovereign Decree (Unconditional)ArminianismSEA (evangelicalarminians.org)
Foreseen Faith (Conditional) LutheranismBookofConcord.org Gospel Promise (Non-Speculative)MolinismReasonableFaith.orgMiddle Knowledge (Counterfactuals)

Not for the fainthearted.

J.