I'm about to post my first revision. It's such a major revision, that I'm concerned that I will inadvertently offend. If I break etiquette in doing it this way, please let me know what I should do in the future.
The revision reorganizes the article to more generally include the various conceptions of predestination, (including Islam and a mention of Judaism, which should be expanded), and contrasts these with other kinds of determinism. It then compares these versions in terms of two antithetical notions of 'freedom'. These differences are described in terms of the two most influential figures in the development of a Christian understanding of predestination: Augustine and Calvin. Finally, the examples of non-Calvinistic predestination, which appeared in the original article, have been slightly edited and appended to the end. I tried to retain all of the content of the original article, and as much of the original wording as I could fit into the new structure.
I think a finished article would provide some of the texts from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and the Q'uran, which are the basis of these various ideas of predestination. - mkmcconn
I think this line needs more explanation:
- Predestination is a belief held by by Calvinists ; according to Calvinists, God's decision is totally arbitrary yet completely just; he does not base his decision on what people have done or will do in the future.
It should elaborate on exactly what God does base his decision on, if that's known. Is it original sin? Or genuinely arbitrary as far as any human can tell? As it stands, Calvinists are left wide open to the charge that, if they're right, then God is extremely unjust for damning people to Hell whether or not they're guilty of anything at all. It would also appear to eliminate any reason for a person to do good rather than evil, if their choices in this life have no bearing whatever on future outcomes. I know there's more to the Calvinist position than this; someone better versed in it ought to flesh this out. --Wesley
Hmmm... this is my first visit to this page. It does need some work, doesn't it? I'll see if I can talk my some of my Calvinist theologian friends to do something with it. --STG
I'm no Calvinist, but I think the line above is pretty accurate. They're not left wide open to the charge that "God is extremely unjust for damning people to Hell whether or not they're guilty of anything at all", because they say that everyone deserves to be damned to Hell and everyone is guilty -- its just that God, rather than damn them all, arbitrarily chose a few to save instead, even though they did absolutely nothing to deserve it and where in no way in themselves any better than those who he damned. -- SJK
Ok... then God is just, but loves some people but not all people, or some people more than others, since he only chose to save some, or is limited in his mercy, or is only able to save some people. It still depicts God as someone I'm not sure I really want to love and worship, both because he doesn't seem to be all good, and because it doesn't matter at this stage whether I choose to love him or not. Predestination does horrible damage to Christianity in this way. But perhaps there's a better way to formulate it, since I know the arguments I just made are not in the least bit original. --Wesley, a sinner
I once heard someone say that the word 'predestined' is written on the inside of heaven's gate, not on the outside, meaning that the concept of predestination is a mystery only God fully understands, but that man's responsibility is to react to the call of God to repent and enter into a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. I suppose that's how many protestants and evangelicals see it, too. -- TK
Wesley: I know it doesn't sound nice, but I'm pretty sure "God loves some people more than others" is a pretty accurate rendition of the Calvinist position. (Are there any Calvinist theologians out there to confirm this?) -- SJK
In my opinion, the article's focus on Calvinism is misleading. The Calvinist version is not the only doctrine of predestination. In fact, the article itself describes various views of predestination that are not Calvinist, in seeming contradiction of the opening paragraphs. For that matter, the Calvinist doctrine is poorly expressed, if the representation is not entirely false. Even if it adds considerably to the length and complexity of the article, the subject ought to be treated more broadly, with more complete accounting of the development of the doctrine. Especially, the opening paragraph cannot pass the test of a neutral point of view..-- mkmcconn.
I am removing this paragraph for now, and am explaining why.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have occasionally produced conceptions of God that bear little resemblance to traditional understanding,
- Huh? Precisely what traditional understanding of God is this person referring to? As the sentence is written the "traditional" view of God isn't Jewish, Christian or Muslim! This entire entry is similarly ambiguously written, to the point where it is incomprehensible.
which are thus in some cases more comparable to polytheistic or spiritualist notions of determinism, or even irrationalism.
- Huh? Someone is saying that Judaism and Islam have polytheistic views of God? Utter nonsense. And what precisely does it mean when all three faiths are said to have "irrationalism". This entry needs to be written in English, not obscure-ish.
- I apologize for the fuzzy language. The paragraph asserts that there are religions which have arisen under the name Christianity (or Judaism or Islam), that depart from some basic tenet of those faiths to the point that it is
easier to compare them to other religions or to humanistic philosophies, than it is to compare them to what is ordinarily meant when talking about those religions.[[User::Mkmcconn|mkmcconn]]
These versions, while in some cases important, are not predestinarian because the conceptions variously deny the unchangeability of God's nature or, the personality of God or, the volitional aspect of God's personality or, that the cosmos is the product of God's action or, that it is possible for God either to produce or to predict the future condition of any individual with certainty.
- Since when does the entry hold as a fact that God has an unchangeable nature? What is being claimed here? What precisely is the definition of an "unchanging" nature? This entire article is so heavilly biased towards one type of theology, and ambiguously written, that it needs to be heavilly edited. RK
- It's closer to the intention of the paragraph to say that belief in "predestination" involves belief in the unchangeable nature of God. If God cannot be sure of what God is or will be from one moment to another, then what would it mean for God to predestine? Is that clearer?
- I appreciate the comments, and the explanations. I hope that I haven't caused too many problems by posting an article in such an unfinished state. I'll take your comments to heart and try to fix some of the more bothersome parts, with your help. mkmcconn