Org Mobile Site
Thread: Predestination, John Calvin
Does anyone here belivie in it?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
no im a heathen catholic.
predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.
predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.
I've known a few Calvinists. Apparently they were predestined to smoke lots of pot and play D&D with my ex-wife, "D&D" being a clever cover story for sexual relations. That or maybe they really did play D&D and then had sex dressed as orks and yeti.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Does anyone here belivie in it?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
It's pretty simple really. The basic argument goes like this:Does anyone here belivie in it?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
1. God is all knowing, all seeing.
2. Ergo, God knows what will happen in the future.
3. Ergo, the future is fixed.
4. Ergo, it has already been decided whether or not I go to Hell.
The other part of the argument goes like this:
1. When Man was first created he had free will.
2. Sin has so corrupted Man's understanding of the world he is chained and cannot choose freely.
3. God can release you from Sin though Christ.
4. It is already decided who will be released from Sin (see above).
5. Anyone released from Sin would obviously choose God, because any other choice would be inconcievable.
It all swings on the idea that God has foreknowledge, and therefore the future is inherrently fixed.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
It's pretty simple really. The basic argument goes like this:
1. God is all knowing, all seeing.
2. Ergo, God knows what will happen in the future.
3. Ergo, the future is fixed.
It all swings on the idea that God has foreknowledge, and therefore the future is inherrently fixed.
That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.It's pretty simple really. The basic argument goes like this:
1. God is all knowing, all seeing.
2. Ergo, God knows what will happen in the future.
3. Ergo, the future is fixed.
It all swings on the idea that God has foreknowledge, and therefore the future is inherrently fixed.
Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.
Youtube Video
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.
Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.
It also falls down because it assumes God is, erm, bothered with that.That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.
Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
It also falls down because it assumes God
Even further fixed. It also falls down because it assumes God
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Even further fixed.
Even further fixed.
That is a basic assumption in Theology.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Does anyone here belivie in it?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
I'm not a 100% calvinist but what are the issues you have a hard time figuring out?Does anyone here belivie in it?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a few things
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
no im a heathen catholic.
predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.
And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .no im a heathen catholic.
predestination just sounds stupid and depressing to me.
So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
God's irresistible grace will make his elect live in a Godly manner, I suppose.So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
IMO predestination and free will work together in a way we don't really understand yet, kinda like the trinity or the Christ's nature as being both fully god and fully man. So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
We live in free will and so our actions do matter as we are responsible for what we do.
Originally Posted by TheLastDays:
IMO predestination and free will work together in a way we don't really understand yet, kinda like the trinity or the Christ's nature as being both fully god and fully man.
We live in free will and so our actions do matter as we are responsible for what we do.
Hate to break it to you but you are 0% Calvinist.IMO predestination and free will work together in a way we don't really understand yet, kinda like the trinity or the Christ's nature as being both fully god and fully man.
We live in free will and so our actions do matter as we are responsible for what we do.
Originally Posted by Skullhead:
And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .
Catholicism =/= semi-Pelagianism. Semi-pelagianism/Arminianism is an offshoot of Reformed theology, Arminius himself studied under Calvin's successor Theodore Beza at Geneva.And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .
As for Augustine he was Calvin's hero figure but in all honestly he wasn't very 'Calvinistic'. If you really want to see the roots of double predestination (the Calvinist kind, with Luther's being single predestination) in the Catholic Church then you will find it very clearly in the works of Aquinas.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
Being moral is a noble end in itself, not a means to salvation.So if your fate is already decided what's the point of being moral?
So some things to clear up...
People always conflate two things when talking about free will and Calvinism. The first is free will in general, the second man's ability to be saved.
Now when it comes to the first, this is where God's foreknowledge comes in. Everything might be pretedermined, but only because there is only one way anyone would act in any given situation. Now in a past debate on this forum I called this determinism and while people didn't like what they thought that term to mean, in the end the atheists came round and said that my idea of determinism is in fact their idea of free will. Basically, in any situation, you will be prone to act a certain way, and so you act that way. That's all it is, nothing malicious there IMO. You might even wonder how what appears to be common sense could have at one time been such a revolutionary doctrine and one that still abhors so many people, I guess its just because of all the fantastical theories other theologians went to the trouble of forming because they thought the idea of predestination to be so horrible.
Anyway, what Calvinists do wholeheartedly affirm is that man is competely unable to turn to God and ask to be saved without God's grace first making them inclined to do so.
This is what people dislike most about Calvinism. For some reason they obsess on the foreknowledge aspect of it, although in reality what they have a problem with is the 'total depravity' part, since that's the part when man loses all ability to save himself, and instead God chooses a number of people to be saved.
And this for me is what Christianity is all about. I find the idea of claiming I had the least role in my being born again to be unthinkable, I just don't understand the mentality of Christians that can really come out and say that they made a decision to save themselves.
Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr:
Hate to break it to you but you are 0% Calvinist.
This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.Hate to break it to you but you are 0% Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.
Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?
Originally Posted by TheLastDays:
This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.
Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?
I've heard that Rob Bell, a fairly famous christian speaker claims that God did elect everyone.This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.
Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?
Originally Posted by TheLastDays:
This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.
No what you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't see how you can brush it off and just say "well the Trinity doesn't make sense either". What scriptures do you base your beliefs on?This might be true, and yet I am as much/little Arminian as I am Calvinist.
I believe that everything is predetermined and yet it all comes down to a choice based upon free will. Doesn't make sense? True, but neither does the claim that three are three and yet one.
Originally Posted by TheLastDays:
Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?
It says that God would like everyone to come to him and be saved. The problem is that nobody would.Now I have a question for you: There are scriptures that state, that God wants everyone to be saved. If salvation comes down solely to predestination and God chooses those that get saved, leaving them no free will on the matter, why does He not simply elect everyone?
If you are going to ask why only some were saved, I think it would be better for you to ask yourself why any are saved.
When you do that, you will learn to see things from a God-centred and not man-centred perspective.
Originally Posted by Rhyfylwyr:
No what you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't see how you can brush it off and just say "well the Trinity doesn't make sense either". What scriptures do you base your beliefs on?
It says that God would like everyone to come to him and be saved. The problem is that nobody would.
If you are going to ask why only some were saved, I think it would be better for you to ask yourself why any are saved.
When you do that, you will learn to see things from a God-centred and not man-centred perspective.
You are not answering my question. No what you are saying doesn't make sense. I don't see how you can brush it off and just say "well the Trinity doesn't make sense either". What scriptures do you base your beliefs on?
It says that God would like everyone to come to him and be saved. The problem is that nobody would.
If you are going to ask why only some were saved, I think it would be better for you to ask yourself why any are saved.
When you do that, you will learn to see things from a God-centred and not man-centred perspective.
It makes no sense that God, who wants everyone to be saved, would not elect everyone to be saved. If there is no free will involved, that God could overrule but chooses not to overrule then what you are saying hints that something else is hindering God from electing/saving everyone and that's nonsense.
As I said, I don't understand the way it works completely but both concepts on their own (predestination and free will) don't work, scritpurally. Since there are scriptures supporting both I can only assume that both principles are at work somehow. The trinity is never mentioned directly in the Bible either. We base it on the faith, that we have one God yet we believe in the father, the son and the holy spirit. We have scriptures that are supporting the deity of a father, Christ and the holy spirit seperately and we have some vague scriptures mentioning some aspects of them together but in the end the trinity is not mentioned in a scripture specifically. Yet we believe it nonetheless, I do too. But from our logical point of view it makes no sense.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.
Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.
Is it bad that one of my favorite Tennant Dr. Who episodes is one where the main characters are seen the least?That's where the argument falls down - it assumes that Time is a strict progression from cause to effect.
Whereas it's actually a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey erm, stuff.
Blink is brilliant though.
Regarding the debate on trinitarianism, I just like the fact that nobody noticed that Jesus was in fact a woman.
In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Originally Posted by Skullhead:
And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .
The issue with that being that the Church has moved away from its beliefs in 431 AD. According to your reasoning I should also be a total heretic for believing in evolution. Also Augustine and Calvin have superficial similarities at best.And an heretic at that. Did you ever read some works of St. Augustine? Calvin's and Augustine's ideas were very similiar. With the difference that Calvin was excommunicated and Augustine canonized. You do sound like an adherent of (semi-)Pelagianism, a notoir heresy, denounced by pope Innocentius I himself and anathemised at the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D .
I'm a Presbyterian and I do believe in Predestination.... To a certain extent anyhow. 
I believe God gives us the free choice to be predestined or not.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
The issue with that being that the Church has moved away from its beliefs in 431 AD. According to your reasoning I should also be a total heretic for believing in evolution. Also Augustine and Calvin have superficial similarities at best.
Augustine believed in evolution.The issue with that being that the Church has moved away from its beliefs in 431 AD. According to your reasoning I should also be a total heretic for believing in evolution. Also Augustine and Calvin have superficial similarities at best.
The church as a whole did not in 500 AD.
I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.
I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.
Wait how could Augustine and the church in 500 AD believe in evolution? I thought the theory didn't come about until the 19th century.
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
The church as a whole did not in 500 AD.
I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.
The church as a whole did not in 500 AD.
I daresay you know exactly what I meant but are just being difficult.
Originally Posted by Chuchip:
Wait how could Augustine and the church in 500 AD believe in evolution? I thought the theory didn't come about until the 19th century.
Well, first of all, Augustine was long dead by 500 AD, nearly a century in fact.Wait how could Augustine and the church in 500 AD believe in evolution? I thought the theory didn't come about until the 19th century.
Secondly, Darwinian evolution was first proposed in the 19th Century but the theory was a scientific crock until we were able to verify Mendelevian genetics and "modern" evolutionary theory is far advanced from Darwin's original hypothesis, it even includes elements of Lamarkism. However, the concept of evolution is actually a very obvious one, animals develop and adapt, just as people do. It has always been plain to see for all stock breeders, and it was a fairly uncontentious stance until quite recently. Nor has is ever been vigarously opposed by the Churches on religious grounds, in so far as it was opposed it was on the basis of scientific scepticism.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Regarding the debate on trinitarianism, I just like the fact that nobody noticed that Jesus was in fact a woman.
In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Ah, well that explains why Scripture states that no women should teach...Regarding the debate on trinitarianism, I just like the fact that nobody noticed that Jesus was in fact a woman.
In the name of the (Divine) Father, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
And Augustine (and Calvin to some extend) believed Genesis should not be taken too literal. Since why should God rest on the 7th day when he can't be tired. And why was the earth created in 7 days when God could have done it in no time? The sentence 'omnia simul fecit ' somewhere in the apocryphs proved that theory for Augustine.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Well, first of all, Augustine was long dead by 500 AD, nearly a century in fact.
Secondly, Darwinian evolution was first proposed in the 19th Century but the theory was a scientific crock until we were able to verify Mendelevian genetics and "modern" evolutionary theory is far advanced from Darwin's original hypothesis, it even includes elements of Lamarkism. However, the concept of evolution is actually a very obvious one, animals develop and adapt, just as people do. It has always been plain to see for all stock breeders, and it was a fairly uncontentious stance until quite recently. Nor has is ever been vigarously opposed by the Churches on religious grounds, in so far as it was opposed it was on the basis of scientific scepticism.
Oh ok I understand now, thanks.Well, first of all, Augustine was long dead by 500 AD, nearly a century in fact.
Secondly, Darwinian evolution was first proposed in the 19th Century but the theory was a scientific crock until we were able to verify Mendelevian genetics and "modern" evolutionary theory is far advanced from Darwin's original hypothesis, it even includes elements of Lamarkism. However, the concept of evolution is actually a very obvious one, animals develop and adapt, just as people do. It has always been plain to see for all stock breeders, and it was a fairly uncontentious stance until quite recently. Nor has is ever been vigarously opposed by the Churches on religious grounds, in so far as it was opposed it was on the basis of scientific scepticism.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO