Making (non)sense of predestination.

Predestination is an issue that divides some Christians. It is probably fair to say that the majority ignore the issue, and who can blame them? However, others get extremely uptight about the matter. There are three main camps: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism (or middle knowledge). I am not a theologian nor philosopher (and no doubt that will show), so if you want real in-depth insight on these matters you need to go elsewhere, but I will seek to offer a few thoughts that some might find helpful.

The crux of the matter is the apparent conflict between the sovereignty of God and human freewill. Calvinism stresses the sovereignty of God and Arminianism stresses human freewill. Molinism seeks to do justice to both, and William Lane Craig is perhaps the most well-known proponent of Molinism.

The problem arises when we see things through only one lens. God is sovereign, it is His will that will prevail. The Bible is abundantly clear on this point, from beginning to end. The issue arises when we view things through that lens alone, for then it seems to negate freewill. It can also be accused of making God the author of evil, and turning us into little more than automatons. (By the way, the freewill problem is not confined to theology, it is a general philosophical problem.) If there is no human freewill then that goes against the glory of God. For the Bible teaches us that we were made in His image, and the whole goal of the Bible is a people who freely choose to love the Lord ("I will be their God, and they will be my people"). So Calvinism can easily slip into taking away the glory of God that it seeks to proclaim.

While the Bible is clear on the sovereignty of God it is equally clear that our attitudes and our actions matter. There are also numerous examples where God's actions are influenced by our actions, and even cases where the Bible presents God as having changed His mind. So we do have freewill and how we live our lives really does matter. The danger arises when if make this the overriding lens through which we view things, for then it can easily end up negating the sovereignty of God, making God subject to us.

Molinism seeks to do justice to both, respecting freewill while fully honouring the sovereignty of God. So that is something very much in its favour. However, it does seem to fall into philosophical and theological traps. Reasons to Believe had a couple of very good programmes on it recently, and James White makes frequent valid criticisms.

So where does that leave us? My approach is this. Take the Bible as your guide. Believe everything it proclaims. So we should believe we were chosen before the creation of the world, we should believe that our decisions matter. 

What about seeking to understand it. Well we need to recognise that we cannot fully understand it, but that does not mean we cannot understand anything. Nor does it mean that we should not seek to understand anything. What it does mean is that we learn to recognise when we are coming up against the limits of our understanding. The problems arise when we seek to push beyond these limits.

Is this a cop-out? No, it is actually philosophically and mathematically reasonable. Godel has a famous incompleteness theorem that states that in any logically consistent system there will be some things that are true but that cannot be proven to be true. Now that most definitely does not mean that we throw logic out of the window. It does mean that we recognise the limits of logic. In fact, logic is very useful for atheists and evolutionists can sometimes be the most illogical people on earth.

The whole Christian world view (more generally theistic world view) is that the universe was created by someone or something outside of the universe. So we should not actually expect to be able to understand everything (Deut 29:29).