Thoughts on predestination

Hey y'all, I realized that I gave you more of the philosophical background behind the debate. As an alternative recap, let me summarize that the debate often turns on whether God's foreknowledge and/or sovereignty is compossible with human agency. Calvinists and Open Theists agree that they are incompatible, but choose different horns of the dilemma. Calvinists redefine human agency to being compatible with divine determinism (so God is in direct control of everything, therefore sovereign and capable of foreknowing all facts), while Open Theists protect a libertarian notion of free will, reject foreknowledge, and redefine sovereignty (something like "God's in control in the same way parents are in control of their kid"). Arminians (not Armenians!) think that neither God's foreknowledge and sovereignty are threatened by human freedom in virtue of His other properties (e.g., omniscience, omnipotence).

However, the theological debate lies more in soteriology. In other words, who is responsible for the salvation of a person — that person or God? Calvinists argue for monergism, which says that God alone is responsible for a person's salvation. It is associated with the notion of irresistible grace: once God's grace is proffered, the person automatically responds. Arminians counter with synergism, which allows the person to reject God's grace and, therefore, choose damnation over salvation. Calvinists argue that this robs God of the glory coming from His lovingly choosing and saving someone despite themselves. Arminians argue this isn't really love — it's manipulation, without the willing response of the receiver of grace.

Alright, there's obviously much more to say, but that'll suffice for now. Comments?

If you're interested in getting a head start to this week, check out: http://www.christianmind.org/illus/patterns_color.htm

Cheerio~

Matt