Luiseach

I completely agree (with the biblical scholarship being interesting, I mean)...I was referring to the fact that both Calvinism and Predestination are, shall we say, heavy doctrines, not entirely conducive to light-heartedness...I am at a loss as to how anyone who subscribes to Calvinism (or Presbyterianism for that matter) can find joy in its dictates.

I am from a Presbyterian background, although I was raised atheist, and I managed to sit through one Presbyterian sermon...even the minister was yawning.

Amos

Predestination is a good idea but if heaven is for Catholics only it becomes rather easy to be elected if you are not a Catholic.

Free will is not meaningless because we are predetermined only by our own soul nature and since our soul is ours we are still free to respond to our inner determinations. Therefore we are responsible for our actions but indeed will pay for the sins of our fathers and reap the benefits of their virtues.

Calvinist should be reminded that salvation is just the beginning of our faith journey and heaven is not until we have worked out our salvation.

Beetle

One important thing to remember about calvinism/reformed theology is that predestination is not its core doctrine. The core of calvinism is an emphasis on god's glory and god's sovreignty. It stresses that "god alone is god" (as the cliche goes) and is actively ruling the universe, and there is no way in which his will can be contradicted. (this is seen as a good thing) Predestination really only emerges as part of the calvinist view of salvation, which is summed up in the useful (but somewhat misleading) acronym TULIP:

T- Total Depravity - each human has a "sin nature" because of original sin, and therefore lacks the capacity to do any good or righteous act. (they still say humans have free will, but it's limited by the sin nature. A person is free to act according to their nature, which means they are helpless to do any pure good)

U - Unconditional Election - God chooses which humans are going to heaven as a function of his sovreign power, and not due to any work or deed on the part of the human. Humans make no contribution to their salvation. The corollary to this is that god also chooses who doesn't go to heaven. Some christians would strongly disagree with this.

L - Limited atonement - Christ's death on the cross gained salvation only for the elect. It has nothing to do with the non-elect. Most christians really don't like this idea. The term "four point calvinist" is used for those that accept the rest of TULIP but drop this point (which one can't logically do, all the points are too interconnected).

I - Irresistable grace - If you're elect, you'll be saved. There's no way to thwart god's plan, you'll end up in heaven. (some calvinists would say that this doesn't remove "free will" because god "changes" the person's will, he doesn't override it. Sophistry? You decide.)

P - Perseverance of the saints - Once god saves a person, that person remains saved no matter what (so if somebody claims belief and then becomes apostate, they must never have believed in the first place)

Luiseach, I spent most of the past decade as a calvinist because I thought it was correct, but it certainly doesn't fill one with happy feelings. Eventually it dawned on me how monstrously unjust the entire system of thought is. It's like telling a group of people with no legs that you'll kill them all unless they can do a 6' broad jump. Then saying you'll carry 5 of the group past the 6' mark, but the rest will perish. Where's the justice in that?

CJD

Luiseach, I'll be answering you point-by-point since there are a few sloppy caricatures in this thread already.

My understanding is that predestination is one of the central tenets of Calvinism. Am I correct?

* Historically, predestination has been forced to the center of Calvin's system of thought, but that is mainly because many of those who followed him at Geneva were more "hyper" in their predestinarian tendencies. Predestination, however, was not at the center of Calvin's system of thought; rather, it was just one of many tenets he espoused. Besides this, he was merely emphasizing (or exfoliating) Saint Augustine's doctrine of salvation, that is to say, he was not saying anything new. Finally, it would behoove you as a teacher to help remove this notion that the doctrine of predestination is "all there is" to Calvinsim. Calvin barely refers to it in his first edition of The Institutes. Reducing Calvinism to its "five-points" is a truncated picture at best, and in the end does more to promote sloppy scholarship than not.

Furthermore, my understanding of predestination is the following: God is omniscient and knows the past, present and future; he knows what human beings will do; he knows which human beings will go to Heaven and which ones will go to Hell.

* This would be technically called "exhaustive foreknowledge"—not "predestination."

Since God knows what will happen, human beings cannot control the trajectories of their lives because they are predestined to act in such ways that will lead to salvation or damnation. No matter what they do, they couldn't have done otherwise, because God has forseen it all.

*This, of course, is one those caricatures. The whole picture has Calvin (and those who are not "hyper-Calvinists"), equally affirming God's immanence (his being in all; i.e., "panentheism") as well as his transcendence (that which you have described above: God forordaining whatsoever to come to pass). This brings the necessary balance to the doctrine (from Calvin's perspective). While God knows all (past, present, future), he nonetheless foreordains everyday historical contingencies (i.e., he sees and reacts to you on Monday, etc.). In the Calvinst perspective, then, he stands above and in time. Calvinists further break this down by differentiating between God's will and desires, in order to explain how exhaustive foreknowledge does not mean, as you put it, that "human beings cannot control the trajectories of their lives because they are predestined to act in such ways . . . .", etc. But this might exceed your intention for this question.

As far as what you say above goes, Calvin and most Calvinists might agree with you theoretically, but I bet they would have taken issue if you just stopped there. They thought the doctrine of predestination actually secured free will in that God damns those who do not believe, not those who, by his eternal decree, were chosen not to believe. It is a matter of emphasis; and historically, Calvin (and those not "hyper") emphasized the former.

If I'm right, and free will is meaningless because of predestination, then human beings cannot be held morally responsible for either their goodness or their wickedness. God has written the script of history, as it were, and human beings merely fulfil their allotted roles.

* That is a big if. If the doctrine did preclude our natural abilities to act freely, then you would be right. But historically, Calvinists have argued that while we humans are naturally able to believe in Christ Jesus, we are nonetheless morally unable to believe in him for salvation because, you will remember, Calvinists held to the doctrine of original sin. That is, all humans born into this world are at enmity with God. To put it differently, Calvinsts might use this example: Let's equate salvation with getting out of a burning house. If you are tied to a chair inside the house, then you are naturally unable to leave. There is no fault of your own involved. If, however, you are not tied up, but still remain inside for want of a (moral) desire to leave, then you are entirely at fault. Calvinists will put those who do not believe in the latter category: naturally able, but morally unable.

Or is it that God's omniscience is offset by his inability to change what will happen; does predestination imply that God is not omnipotent?

* I don't follow this line of reasoning. If God decreed whatsoever to come to pass, then he is clearly omnipotent. As the one who decrees, he would obviously exhaustively know whatsoever is coming.

I would greatly appreciate some input on this. I have one student - deeply religious and a bit miffed by my take on Calvinism/predestination - which has made me think that I have misinterpreted the doctrine.

I would be, too, because the misrepresentation is evident. But encouraging and challenging your student to think critically is the way to go.

Regards,

CJD

Luiseach

I know that Predestination is not the only doctrine of Calvinism...which is why I stated in my OP that 'predestination is one of the central tenets of Calvinism' (italics added for emphasis and clarification).

At the same time, and as you point out, God's will is seen as incontrovertible...his omnipotence goes hand-in-hand with Predestination and his omniscience.

A handy-dandy little Presbyterian catechism... :-D It sure sums up the doctrine rather well.

This last excerpt is the best description of Calvinism I've seen yet.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Much appreciated...