# Predestination a "non-essential"



## D. Paul (Dec 10, 2009)

Through an email conversation I've had with a woman regarding Predestination, which was borne out of The Truth Project class and discussion, this is what was stated by her:
_*"I'm for being a stickler on the essentials and for being tolerant on the non-essentials and to me that doctrine is a non-essential."*_

Ought I be shocked? Is this how they speak, who say they "Love God" yet hate this doctrine? Or ought I be more gracious toward this sentiment?


----------



## Tim (Dec 10, 2009)

Essential for what purpose? This must be the first question. What does she mean by 'essential'?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 10, 2009)

Perhaps you could explain it this way,

It's "non-essential" in the same sense as water is not essential for a fish.


----------



## Andres (Dec 10, 2009)

I agree with Tim. Ask her to clarify what she means by essential and non-essential. I would probably also ask her to list what she considers to be the "essentials" of the faith. Surely somewhere in there she would have to deal with scriptures being essential and you could explain to her how predestination is completely biblical.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2009)

This is a standard answer. They (meaning non-Calvinists who are not scholars) argue a little bit about the doctrine, then come up with a "well I love Jesus and that is all that matters" answer. I have been given this answer numerous times.


----------



## Tim (Dec 10, 2009)

I'll go further now. If by essential she means that IF a certain doctrinal proposition is not believed the person cannot be a Christian, then I can go along with this, but I think the area is more gray than this person believes. 

IF a person believes that Jesus is not God, they are believing in a false Jesus and therefore cannot be saved. This is essential to the faith.

IF a person believes that justification is not by grace through faith, they would be lost because they are putting their trust in something other than grace. This is essential to the faith.

IF a person does not believe in predestination....

Well, this is a bit more difficult. A consistent Arminian seems to move in the direction of works-righteousness, when the system is taken to its logical conclusion. On that basis, believing in predestination might be deemed essential.

But I suspect not all of us would be comfortable to immediately make that claim. 

Good discussion. Keep it going.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 10, 2009)

Can you illogically reject predestination and works-based salvation at the same time? I know there Arminians who will do so. Of course, they claim that they are being logical but never seem to be able to illustrate it. That being the case, can one be a heretic by implication?


----------



## Tim (Dec 10, 2009)

I think this is the heart of the problem.


----------



## reformedminister (Dec 10, 2009)

While predestination is a Scriptural truth, it is not acknowledged by all Bible-believing Christians. Arminians deny the doctrine, yet many of them are saved. It is not an essential in the sense that inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, deity of Christ: his virgin birth, miracles, and substitutionary atonement, death, resurrection, and literal second coming is. When it comes to paedo or credo baptism, someone is right and someone is wrong. However, we would both agree that neither side should make it an essential doctrine any more than we should what we perceive as the right escatological view.


----------



## Herald (Dec 10, 2009)

We want to be careful that we do not elevate predestination as essential for salvation; nor do we want to lessen its importance as an essential component in understanding God, as revealed in scripture.

Predestination goes hand in hand with divine election, God's omniscience, and divine sovereignty. Fortunately, most individuals who rebel against predestination do not consider the gravity of their error. They don't realize how other doctrines are intimately intertwined with it. They create a logical fallacy and refuse to listen to the clear teaching of scripture or plain reason. Call it willful ignorance. It may not call into question their salvation, but it certainly marginalizes their ability to rightly divide the word of truth.


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 10, 2009)

Be more gracious toward this sentiment


----------



## Herald (Dec 10, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> Be more gracious toward this sentiment



Be more gracious towards what sentiment? You can be gracious to the individual while calling the denial of predestination for what it is - serious error.


----------



## TimV (Dec 10, 2009)

It goes back to (I think) the other thread about the difference between heterodox and heresy. There's either a litmus test or there are lots of litmus tests or there are no litmus tests for heresy. So for meaningful discussion every one would have to agree to a litmus test, or to explain why they think their view should be the litmus test of whether or not a denial of predestination is or isn't heretical.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 10, 2009)

TimV said:


> It goes back to (I think) the other thread about the difference between heterodox and heresy. There's either a litmus test or there are lots of litmus tests or there are no litmus tests for heresy. So for meaningful discussion every one would have to agree to a litmus test, or to explain why they think their view should be the litmus test of whether or not a denial of predestination is or isn't heretical.



Thank you, Tim. This is exactly the issue I'm trying to settle.

Is it too politically incorrect to label anything a heresy these days outside the obvious?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 10, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > It goes back to (I think) the other thread about the difference between heterodox and heresy. There's either a litmus test or there are lots of litmus tests or there are no litmus tests for heresy. So for meaningful discussion every one would have to agree to a litmus test, or to explain why they think their view should be the litmus test of whether or not a denial of predestination is or isn't heretical.
> ...



In many circles it isn't PC to label anything heresy, including the obvious.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 10, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, Tim. This is exactly the issue I'm trying to settle.
> ...



Ain't that the truth!


----------



## Poimen (Dec 10, 2009)

Clearly you should be gracious so let this be an opportunity to teach her. For myself I would approach it in this way:

1) No matter how we define predestination, it is a biblical doctrine. (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5&11)
2) We are obligated to understand and apply all of scripture, not just the parts that are, in our estimation, 'uncontroversial' (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 3:16)
3) When differences amongst Christians arise as to a proper understanding of a biblical doctrine we are obligated to study scripture to show ourselves approved (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 11:19) 
4) Predestination is an essential insofar as it is central to God's glory which can never be compromised (Romans 9:22; Ephesians 1:6,12,14). It is also central to our very salvation itself, i.e. the golden chain of salvation (Romans 8:30). Finally it is essential to our comfort and assurance that we are God's children forever. Thus it is no small matter whether we consider it objectively or subjectively.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 10, 2009)

D. Paul said:


> _*"I'm for being a stickler on the essentials and for being tolerant on the non-essentials and to me that doctrine is a non-essential."*_



Samuel Rutherford identified the toleration of errors in non-essentials as an atheistic position promulgated by Libertines, Socinians and Arminians. 



> I offer (Worthy Reader) to your unpartiall and ingenuous censure these my ensuing thoughts against Liberty of conscience, from which way looking to me with a face of Atheism, I call the Adversaries, Libertines, not intending to reach a blow to any godly man, or to wound those who out of weakness are captived with that error, but to breed in the hearts of the godly a detestation of that way, which in truth hath its rise from Libertinism, and savoureth rankly of wide, loose and bold Atheistical thoughts of the majesty of God, as if our conscience had a Prerogative Royal beside a rule; yea (which is prodigious) in its simple apprehensions of God, of the Mediator, of the revealed will of God, above the Law of God: So I think, and all say so, and our faith and hope must be resolved in the first principle of skepticism. So it seems to me, for the young daughters of the mind, the simplest acts of apprehendding, knowing, believing God and divine truths are innocent, harmless ill-less soul-works, being from un- der all dominion of either freewill or a divine Law, and the mind, a free born absolute Princess, can no more incur guiltiness in its operations about an infi- nite Sovereign God, and his revealed will, by this law- less way, then the fire in burning, the Sun in enlightening, the stone in moving downward, be arraigned of any breach of Law, if toleration have place.



Free Disputation

While it may be true that predestination is not essential for one's justification, this does not mean it is non-essential for a Christian to believe. And if obstinately refused, then it becomes such a fundamental, not in itself, but in the refusal to yield to sacred scriptures' teaching.

Cheers,


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 10, 2009)

I referred her to Zanchius Absolute Sovereignty as definition for my position, that being Predestination is intricately tied to God's _absolute_ Sovereignty. It was this that she denied, not seeing how God's sovereignty is "reduced" in any way if He grants men freedom of choice and will. 

Great quote from Rutherford, Christusregnat. Thanks. 
Good points, Poimen.

Also, she has declined further dialog on the issue since it is a "non-essential". I found it disturbing, actually, after I had a chance to recognize it for what it was, that she actually censored my discussion in the group. As leader, she would stop the conversation when it led into this topic.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 10, 2009)

D. Paul said:


> I referred her to Zanchius Absolute Sovereignty as definition for my position, that being Predestination is intricately tied to God's _absolute_ Sovereignty. It was this that she denied, not seeing how God's sovereignty is "reduced" in any way if He grants men freedom of choice and will.
> 
> Great quote from Rutherford, Christusregnat. Thanks.
> Good points, Poimen.
> ...



Perhaps a more "ecumenical" approach is better. While she might not think belief in "predestination" is essential, certainly she would believe that "the grace of God" is essential. From there, with a humble attitude, explain how the Bible uses saving grace and predestination synonymously. If you believe salvation is all by grace alone, then explore how deep the grace goes, from outward works, to inner thoughts, to inner desires, to the very will itself. What does grace do? What kind of freedom is lost in the fall? What kind of freedom is restored in regeneration? In conversations like that, you need to get to the more basic beliefs which you hold in common, and from there, gently show how their incorrect view (in this case Arminian self-determiniation) is inconsistent with the more basic truths of grace. Start with the milk, then work up to the meat.


----------



## Iconoclast (Dec 11, 2009)

Daniel's post was right on.
A person might not have come to understand the importance of predestination and need to be instructed. We are predestined to be conformed to the image of our Lord. This is a vital truth that leads to a correct view of what sanctification is.
Anyone who "shrinks back " from this truth is missing a vital link that is given for our good as a blessing. She is probably being mis-taught about electing grace,and lumping it all together with what we are predestined to be.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 11, 2009)

1. There is a difference between simple ignorance and willful rejection. A newbie who knows little more than the basics of the Gospel is not in the same situation as a seasoned theologian.

2. Remember that many pastors were taught that the inerrant Bible teaches that God is sovereign AND that we have free choice in an Arminian sense. Examples of two sides of the same coin, a sign on the front of heaven announcing "whosoever will" and on the inside "elect from before the foundation of the world" are part and parcel of their training. Is their theology consistent? NO!!! Are they wrong? YES!!! Does it disqualify them from heaven? Please! As tennis badboy John McEnroe used to say: "You can't be serious." I cannot see how we can relegate Billy Graham to hell regardless of our strong objections to his theology.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Dec 11, 2009)

reformedminister said:


> While predestination is a Scriptural truth, it is not acknowledged by all Bible-believing Christians. *Arminians deny the doctrine*, yet many of them are saved. It is not an essential in the sense that inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, deity of Christ: his virgin birth, miracles, and substitutionary atonement, death, resurrection, and literal second coming is. When it comes to paedo or credo baptism, someone is right and someone is wrong. However, we would both agree that neither side should make it an essential doctrine any more than we should what we perceive as the right escatological view.



Andy: Perhaps modern day Arminians deny it altogether, but the remonstrants did hold to 'a predestination' based on foreseen faith. I am simplifying it tremendously only to show the distinction. If one denies any sort of predestination, the I would question their being regenerated. If the Holy Spirit leads one into truth, then I find it hard that He would leave this one out when it is a foundation of the biblical witness. Notice I also made a distinction between regeneration and salvation. To flatly and willfully deny any sort or predestination is one thing, to define it differently is another.


----------



## D. Paul (Dec 11, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> 1. There is a difference between simple ignorance and willful rejection. A newbie who knows little more than the basics of the Gospel is not in the same situation as a seasoned theologian.
> 
> 2. Remember that many pastors were taught that the inerrant Bible teaches that God is sovereign AND that we have free choice in an Arminian sense. Examples of two sides of the same coin, a sign on the front of heaven announcing "whosoever will" and on the inside "elect from before the foundation of the world" are part and parcel of their training. Is their theology consistent? NO!!! Are they wrong? YES!!! Does it disqualify them from heaven? Please! As tennis badboy John McEnroe used to say: "You can't be serious." I cannot see how we can relegate Billy Graham to hell regardless of our strong objections to his theology.



Yes, Dennis, and noting that difference you state, she said she has "studied this issue at length", thus her conclusion and thus her declining to further discuss it. The last point is troubling bc any attempt I may make to draw her back in will be seen as harassment or something.


----------



## reformedminister (Dec 11, 2009)

Amazing Grace said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> > While predestination is a Scriptural truth, it is not acknowledged by all Bible-believing Christians. *Arminians deny the doctrine*, yet many of them are saved. It is not an essential in the sense that inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, deity of Christ: his virgin birth, miracles, and substitutionary atonement, death, resurrection, and literal second coming is. When it comes to paedo or credo baptism, someone is right and someone is wrong. However, we would both agree that neither side should make it an essential doctrine any more than we should what we perceive as the right escatological view.
> ...



You are right. I should have made my point more clear. When I said that predestination is not acknowledged by many Christians, I meant the Reformed understanding of it. It is true that Arminians believe in predestination but define it differently, that it is based on God's foreknowledge of our choice to believe. This of course makes no sense at all.


----------

