# A concept I've been thinking over regarding predestination and obligation



## steven-nemes (Feb 15, 2009)

I have been considering the question of how can people be considered morally responsible for their actions, and yet their actions were destined to take place from before the earth was made, and what is the relationship between human beings doing good works and such and God having destined them to do these good things. The question is basically: if it is destined that I do or not do these things, why should I even bother?

I propose that there be "two perspectives" on these sorts of issues, a Godly perspective and an Earthly perspective. From the perspective of God, the entire course of history is exactly how he decided it would go about and it was accomplished according to his will--who would be saved, who would die in their sins, whether or not I would make an effort to read my Bible every day or not, etc.; everything is as he decided it would be. Yet, from our Earthly perspective, we have an obligation to do the good thing, to choose life, to obey God's commandments, and nonetheless, the ability to do them (from our own eyes). Sort of an obligation to "work out our salvation in fear and trembling"; we have to do things; but from the opposite perspective, it is God enabling us to do these things and working in us to will and to good works. 

Maybe I have not worded it clearly, though, so here's an example. God has already chosen who will and will not have faith. Yet it is our responsibility to believe if we want to live. So, God "sees from his perspective" what will happen because he has decided it; nonetheless, from our perspective (from which we do not see the decree and will of God), we all have to believe if we are going to be saved. God has already decided the course of human history, therefore, do good and abstain from evil. 

There are times in scripture (assuming my position is correct) where someone may write a truth from the perspective of God, and there are times when a truth is written from the perspective of humans. God knows who will go to Heaven and who won't, but nonetheless, Jesus tells us to strive to enter through the narrow gate.

Does this make much sense? Is it heretical in any way? What are your thoughts? Is there already an idea like this somewhere out there?

Obviously this is something still in development, but perhaps this can be the beginning of my contribution to the Christian philosophical and theological community (I do plan on becoming a philosopher when I go to college).


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 15, 2009)

Good questions.



> I have been considering the question of how can people be considered morally responsible for their actions,
> 
> The short answer is that man, fallen in sin, freely does what he wants, which is to sin, because that is in accordance with his sinful nature.
> 
> ...


----------



## steven-nemes (Feb 15, 2009)

> I have been considering the question of how can people be considered morally responsible for their actions,
> 
> The short answer is that man, fallen in sin, freely does what he wants, which is to sin, because that is in accordance with his sinful nature.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree with all that and the question I'm asking (or rather attempting to answer) is "If God destined that _x_ take place, why should I bother doing anything at all? If it is God's will that this person be saved, why should I preach the gospel, if he's saved anyway? God already made sure it would happen, so I'm not going to do anything..." I'm trying to answer this objection.



> and what is the relationship between human beings doing good works and such and God having destined them to do these good things.
> No short answer can address this fully. When God changes our nature (He chose to elect, effectually call, justify, give faith- 100% His work), we are "free" by a new nature that allows us to do good works (e.g. works done with right motive of obeying God as well as outwardly right in His sight). What the Westminster Confession calls secondary causes interplay and allow man as part of sanctification to have "free will" (in the secondary causes sense) to do good unto God, for which he, man will be blessed for obedience.



Yes, but this is not what I am addressing: I am trying to answer the question of _why do anything if predestination is true? Why bother living a good life if God already decided my destiny?_ My response is that from our perspective, we have no notion of destiny (we don't see our future), and it seems to us that we do have libertarian freedom of the will, and that we have an obligation to do good, and can do so, and as such, we ought to strive to do the good thing.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 15, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> > I have been considering the question of how can people be considered morally responsible for their actions,
> >
> > The short answer is that man, fallen in sin, freely does what he wants, which is to sin, because that is in accordance with his sinful nature.
> >
> ...



Remember what happens to a Christian who sins. He will suffer the consequences and misery that sin brings in this life, the chastisement of His Lord (as a father chastens his son), and perhaps suffer loss in heaven [not salvation, and scripture doesn't give us much detail, but their are rewards and losses in heaven based on behavior here]



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter VI
> 
> VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 15, 2009)

This question is an exhibition of why the WCF's statements on secondary causation are important.

Also, a Christocentric notion of predestination is essential, and this question is partly why the reformers strenuously avoided attempts to peer into the decrees of God. We cannot speculate as to what specific actions are ordained for us in the present or future. The only manner in which we can "see" the decree of God is in Christ, the "mirror of election," which was a favorite expression of Calvin and Bullinger. Apprehending this decree by faith, we see in Christ our predestination to life [the end of the decree]; and we see in him also the means by which this is accomplished, and as such acknowledge that those who take God to be their God, and so repent of their sins and follow after him, trusting in his care, persevering to the end are those who will receive this life. If we see our election in Christ (our predestination), then this in itself requires that we act in specific ways: for, as the only manner of perceiving this decree of predestination is in Christ and by the eye of faith, then if we are aware of the decree we also by impulse and inclination must live a certain way. _In other words, the decree which we see in Christ by faith is the decree to the end (eternal life) and that by a certain means. Thus, if we behold the decree at all, we also of necessity see the means by which this decree is brought about, which involves us doing certain things._ Rational speculation about predestination and the decree of God is that alone which can lead to such questions and "doubts;" but if we behold the decree in the only proper (and possible) manner, such questions are moot.

As *Calvin* said to Pighius, who raised the same question:

"All this teaching (predestination) has no other purpose but to make the believer rest, free from anxiety, in the omnipotence of God. He then will fear neither fortune nor chance, and will not be afraid for himself because of wild animals or human beings or devils, as though the reins had been let go or broken and they came on under their own impulse without any control from above. Instead, he will entrust his soul and body to God and so, with a calm and tranquil mind, sink back into the protection of him whose will he knows determines everything and whose hand brings everything to pass. Moreover, since this entire teaching trains a person only to be humble, to fear God, to place his trust in God, and to ascribe glory to God, which are the chief components of religion, there is no reason why Pighius should direct so awful an accusation against us [that predestination undermines religion and actions by men]." _BLW 258_

And again, regarding secondary causes on the preceding page:

"If we cannot think of anything good or evil, or plan our ways, whether good or evil, but everything is in God's control and happens necessarily in accordance with it, why do we not snore and sleep forever? Why does the farmer sweat so in ploughing, sowing and gathering crops?" 
Because the end being decreed does not undermine the use and contingent necessity of secondary causation in bringing it about.

Grace and peace, brother.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 15, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> > I have been considering the question of how can people be considered morally responsible for their actions,
> >
> > The short answer is that man, fallen in sin, freely does what he wants, which is to sin, because that is in accordance with his sinful nature.
> >
> ...



I think part of your answer lies behind what is being said in Rom. 3:5-8, particularly the part that says, "why not do evil that good may come......their condemnation is just". All that we prove is ourselves. And so, the same is true with your question. If knowledge of the sovereignty of God and of predestination only serves to motivate us to do no good deeds, then it just basically shows that we don't have much of a renewed heart at all. It boils down to us acting and behaving genuinely according to our natures. If we have a renewed nature, we act in obedience to God because it is our nature to do so, and not out of any external compulsion. That's what happens when God "writes his law upon our hearts". No command is necessary to fence our behavior, because it is our nature to remain inside the box of obedience anyway. And, to disobey God would be to go against that nature that we are naturally inclined to follow. We obey because we have a nature that can do no other, just like a dog barks because it is a dog, and a duck quacks because it is a duck. And so, our obedience is just a normal, resultant and necessary fruit of the new nature that we are, and one that we cannot resist bearing.

I think the second part of your answer lies in the idea that, God determines the end, but he also determines the means to that end. And, with us, that involves our wills. He does not violate the will of the creature. He fashions and bends the nature of the person, and thereby the will of that person follows. So, he causes us to choose, but yet we must choose. He is the first domino that causes the third to fall, but yet the second, which is our will, is the one that knocks the thrid down. And so, therefore, we preach the gospel, because he intends his gospel to go forth through the agency of his preachers.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 16, 2009)

God's chosen messengers preach the gospel so the elect will hear their wake up call. Spurgeon talks of a "Duty Faith" in some of his sermons. I'm not good at posting links like some do, but google that term with Spurgeon and these sermon posts that show up may be helpful. I believe it is also discussed at length in Ian Murrays book about Spurgeon-vs- Hyper Calvinism


----------



## CNJ (Feb 16, 2009)

From what I can understand from my pastor, your questions center around the difference between *Sanctification* and *Justification*. There is nothing we can do to be Sanctified or Elected. Following the Scriptures are part of our Justification, but not part of our Sanctification. Then we have the Ephesian Scripture that we are _justified by faith, not of works_ and the James Scripture that _faith without works is dead._


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 16, 2009)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter III
> 
> Of God's Eternal Decree
> ...



Here's a few practical helps to study through the Westminster Confession of Faith, which addresses these difficult biblical concepts clearly. The texts include the Scripture "proofs" as well.

Westminster Standards
That's the PCA blue notebook that has loose leaf pages- Westminster Standards (Confessions, Larger and Shorter Catechism) with Scripture proofs at the bottom of each page plus it has an excellent concise Reformation historical summary.

http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-561-co...ound-3-ho.aspx

The Blue notebook binder:
http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-76-boo...er-binder.aspx



Westminster Standards Study Guide
GI Williamson
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER CONFESSION FOR STUDY CLASSES


----------



## skala (Feb 18, 2009)

*edit* just realized moral necessity answered the exact same way, and well said. Nevertheless I will leave what I wrote*



> "If God destined that x take place, why should I bother doing anything at all? If it is God's will that this person be saved, why should I preach the gospel, if he's saved anyway? God already made sure it would happen, so I'm not going to do anything..."



Fair question, it is one I personally struggled with for a while near the beginning of my journey into TULIP theology. The answer is simple to _mentally acknowledge_, but perhaps, as with the Trinity and the concept of "eternity", impossible to _fully grasp_ with our finite human brains.

The simple answer I'm referring to is that God is the God of the ends as well _as the means to those ends_. God ordains the ends, but He also ordains the means to reach those ends.

God does not work through fatalism. That is, that X is going to happen "no matter what" or "without a means", but rather, God works by ordaining X to happen "through the means He has chosen".

For example, God did not snap his fingers to get Joseph into Egypt. He had Joseph betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, find favor with certain men to climb the ranks, and was finally 2nd in command. Means to reach the end.

God did not snap his fingers and have a family, an ark, and all the animals ready to avoid a flood that was instantly in existence. Instead, God had Noah build the ark, he had the animals come to Noah, and he had it rain for 40 days. Means to reach the end.

God did not save His people by snapping His fingers. Rather, He sent Christ to die for atonement, but also to live for ~33 years sinlessly to fulfill the covenant of works for the sake of imputing His righteousness to His people. The means to reach the end.

You can apply this concept to prayer, for example. We know that God knows everything, and he knows what we need before we ask, so why should we waste time praying? The answer is, because prayer is one of the means that God has ordained to reach His ends. 

Is a man unsaved? Has God ordained that the person be saved?(The ends) 
If so, he will be saved _through the preaching of the gospel _(The means)

Does a Christian have a need? Has God ordained to meet that need? (the ends)
If so, then the Christian will ask for, and receive the need, through prayer. (the means)

Hope this helps! God bless!


----------

