Two concepts of predestination

I got into a bit of a  back and forth about predestination over at Theology of Andrew (scroll down to the comments) and feel the need to expand here on what I said there.

There are two kinds of arguments that lead us to predestination connundrums. The first is an argument about God and the second is an argument about justification.

1. The argument about God is an old nugget that asks how can an all-powerful, all-knowing God be reconciled with free will? The short and honest answer to that is I don't know? Do you?

But there is also something unserious about this question. It is reminiscent of a quip from the early 1960s: "What happens when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object?" Well, nothing happens because no actual force is ever applied to any actual object. All that happens here is that two mutually exclusive definitions are made to run into one another. It's a purely verbal problem posing as an engineering problem.

The question of reconciling God's power and our freedom is not identical but we can easily get to the point where it is. I don't need to precisely define who and what God is to believe in him and I don't need to precisely define what free will is to make moral choices. If I start insisting otherwise, then I will rapidly reach the point where I am pretending that a purely verbal problem is actually a moral problem. I may as well start arguing about angels dancing on the head of a  pin.

2. The second kind of predestination arises from a deep problem with the concept of sola fide.

For if we are saved by faith alone, how does our faith "happen". Imagine a not-so-imaginary conversation. Joe has just been convinced of his need for Jesus and the person who has convinced him says, "You should stop right now and ask Jesus to be your own personal saviour."

That would be an act. To decide is to act. To change your mind is to act. To have faith is to act. All of these acts can only have one of two sources*—us or God. That is a problem for everyone of course and that is why I thank God for my faith (as poor as it is) rather than taking credit for it.

But it would be a different proposition altogether if I started arguing salvation by faith alone. That very move requires me to be precise about my definition of faith and requires me to explain how faith can exist apart from voluntary acts.

Calvin saw that the notion of sola fide had to go down that route if it was to be coherent. Luther did not.

PS: I think poor Calvin has gotten a  raw deal from history. He is the better man than Luther in every regard.

PPS: Regarding faith and acts, Wittgenstein's private language argument is (although it was not intended to be) probably the most devastating dismantling of Luther's logic ever set down. Combine it with the Letter from James and Luther is left naked. If you are going to be a Protestant the only coherent positions are Calvin and Wesley and their variations.




*That is if we believe in free will. It is also possible to believe that faith is a function of genetic predisposition.