Talk:Predestination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Predestination falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Discussion

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 it is not unfare for us to go to hell but unfare (in a good way) for us to be able to go to heaven.-ross

Predestination is a biblical term. All Christians should therefore believe in it (not only Calvinists), the only question is, how one should understand it. For an explanation of biblical predestination, follow this link: http://followchrist.info/e_pred.html. - Alice predestination is used in the Bible talking about the number of days we will live not salvation.-ross

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, we can not limit God to anything because we are only human. we can not understand God completely. we still have free will but Gods foreknowledge limits that.-ross

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 i agree.-ross

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 im not calvonist but as christians we do not know. if he does we are his creations and he has every right to.-ross

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 agree.-ross

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. (— Mark (Mkmcconn) **)
it is possible (he is God and is only limited by his own self).-ross

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 biased towards one type of theology, and ambiguously written; it needs to be 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

As a newcomer, I'm stumbling all over myself trying to remove my own bias from my revisions. I'm afraid that this causes some of the things I've added to be unclear. Because I was trying to respect the perspective on Calvinism that was presented in the original article, the article contains elements that are not true to the spirit of Calvinism (speaking as a Calvinist), and I would like to see them fixed.

For example, the Synod of Dordt rejects as slanderous, the characterization of the Reformed doctrine which is presented in this article on Predestination. In the summary of their decision, it reads in English:

Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

--that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.

Should an article of doctrine that an important, defining, international conference of Calvinist churches has urged all Calvinists to "denounce with their whole heart", be allowed to represent the Calvinist position, just because the majority of people continue to attribute that doctrine to Calvinism? In addition, the Wikipedia article on Calvinism assigns the positive doctrine of double predestination uniquely to the Hyper-Calvinists, or supralapsarians. One assignment or the other should be corrected. I favor a correction of the article on predestination.

I'm trying to get my mind around what is meant by "a neutral point of view". -- mkmcconn

NPOV means that we try to get the encyclopaedia entry to be unbiased, and free of pormoting one particular belief system or political ideology. Thus, in regards ot this entry, the entry should not try to convince people that predestination is an indisputable fact; rather it should objectively try to describe the beliefs of people who believe in it. Different points of view should be given relatively equal space. Of course, if a particular point of view is only held by a small group of people, it doesn't merit the same space and attention as a point of view held by millions of people. (Unless of course this rare point of view happens to have significant importance for some reason.) RK

I approve of the goal to be descriptive, without promoting one view over another. I acknowledge that the author only has himself and his own connections to ideas outside of himself to draw from; so that his view of things is always going to be discernible by others, especially by those who do not share his connections. So, I would approve of expanding or adding sections, so that the subject is covered more completely than I am able to. mkmcconn

I think that this entry should point out the theological and philosophical problems that come along with this belief. Many Christians, and a few Muslims, disagree with any concept of predestination. Unitarian-Universalists, Humanists, and Jews also disagree with this concept; their belief systems are in fact antithetical to it...

The problems that accompany and resolve from belief in predestination are felt the most keenly by those who hold that belief, I'm sure. However, if that's so then, the converse is true as well: that the problems that accompany or resolve from rejecting belief in predestination are known more intimately by those who consciously adopt that view of things. Maybe what you are suggesting could be started here? If it grows outside the topic, it could then be moved and referenced from this entry. mkmcconn

Incidentally, universalism in the classical sense is predestinarian. It teaches that it's the destiny of the whole world to become the Church, and of every individual to be reconciled with God as He is believed in by the Christians. Whether they presently want it now or not, and even if they die hating the idea, this is their destiny, and they'll have all eternity to get used to the affront against their free will. Again, not Calvinism -mkmcconn

I have totally overhauled the section on Judaism and predestination, adding everything I know, and additional information based on my reading of various sources, such as the Encyclopaedia Judaica. Additional information from those in the know would be welcome. RK

Mkmcconn, I think you've made some good additions. Should something be said about total depravity as it relates to predestination? Wesley 17:27 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

There is the briefest mention of Original Sin in the entry already, and of the idea that all are undeserving of grace. I'm concerned that further elaboration on the Calvinist system will start to make this entry as complicated as Calvinism itself. It's already a very difficult entry to read, with all of the tedious qualifications involved in describing such a broad issue. And, although I am a Calvinist, I'm not looking to make Wikipedia into an advertising spot for my faith, especially under the heading of predestination. However, since apparently there is no article on Total Depravity, maybe someone (or I) should start work on that entry?

I am grateful for your assurances that I haven't totally messed things up, yet. Thanks. - mkmcconn

From the opening paragraph, I think this sentence would be clearer if the words based on foreknowledge were added to it:

This decision is by some conceived as an annunciation, or judicial decision based on foreknowledge; others conceive it as a creative decision effecting the outcome.

Would that still be a fair and accurate statement of the position being described? Wesley

It strikes me as being fine. Mkmcconn

"Expressed sympathetically, the Calvinist doctrine is that..." I feel that wiki should not try to express things sympathetically, but to express things the supporters of a viewpoint would express it themselves.

(but perhaps, being a calvinist fundamentalist by heart, and being active very short on wiki, I am to sensitive :) ) TeunSpaans

I think that's what "expressed sympathetically" means. Many times, Wikipedia tries to attain a Neutral Point of View by stating things both "sympathetically" and "critically", and probably achieves neutrality with varying degrees of success depending on the article. You can read through the Talk pages and edit histories of some contentious articles to see how this has worked itself out in different cases. I think it usually works out in the end, especially when participating editors are willing to work towards a consensus on the Talk pages. Wesley

Please feel free to make the "sympathetic" viewpoint more precisely the way that you would have it put. Expect some questions, if your view does not match the understanding of those who do not understand it this way. Mkmcconn

Hold everything. Upon re-reading, I now understand why I haven't understood some of the things you were saying. We have been using the same word to refer to two different things! You are the word predestination where I am more familiar with the term omniscience! I have read a bit here and there about how various Christian groups believe in something else called predestination; but this use of the word had to do more with Calvin's views, which are actually a somewhat separate idea. I think that the problem with the article, as it currently stands, is that it doesn't yet make clear in the beginning that this same word has many different uses. The same problem used to exist in the entries on prayer, propehcy and revelation, where people used the same word to descrive radically different ideas. Wikipedia now has clear descriptions of these different meanings. Perhaps we could compare the structure of those articles, and apply it to the predestination article. I am thinking that the article should start out by saying something like: RK

The term predestination has a number of uses. Some Christian groups, especuially those influenced by Calvin, use this term to describe a pre-judgeing by God of a person's afterlife fate before they are born. Another distinct use of this term in Christian communities is to refer to the consequences of God's omniscience. In this latter view, it is held that God is both omniscient and atemporal (out of the flow of time in our universe) and thus sees past, present and future. Given this belief about God, one can say that God knows the future, and hence futures can be said to be predetermined, while at the same time allowing for the existence of free will. Other faiths (such as Judaism) accept te possibility that God is atemporal, but use the term omniscience instead of predestination.

i agree with what you are saying i think that "predestination" is based on Gods foreknowledge wich still leaves free will.

Any thoughts? RK

You can't substitute the word omniscience for predestination, because even if the various views really amount to nothing more than omniscience, they are put forward to explain the New Testament's meaning of "predestine", "foreordained", etc. But, you can use the word "omniscience" to explain some kinds of predestination. When you continue to insist that "predestination" concerns God's foreknowledge or determination concerning who will be saved and who will be damned, you need to understand that this prejudices the topic against Calvinism, which does not understand the issue within those terms except by implication. The attempt to define the calvinist position, within those bounds, will always end up being a caricature of the doctrine.

I'm thinking that the best way to express the various positions on predestination, to save them from unintentional caricature, might be to create articles on Predestination (Augustine), Predestination (Semi-Augustinianism) redirect to -> Predestination (Gregorian), Predestination (Semi-pelagianism), Predestination (Jansenism), Predestination (Aquinas), Predestination (Arminianism), Predestination (Calvinism), Predestination (Lutheran), Predestination (Barthian), Predestination (Evangelical) and so forth.

That kind of scheme would allow articles to be written that expand on the sometimes subtle differences in meaning, without having the problem of terms spilling over into incompatible definitions. Wiki repeatedly misdefines calvinism as having primarily to do with the doctrine of predestination. I think that this kind of organization might provide some helpful information, to prevent these mistakes. Do you think it would work? Mkmcconn

Calvin made clear that men have no free will. That is the basis of Calvinist doctrin. In the Institutes Calvin wrote, "In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel God has once for all determined both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on His Gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment." Man is elected by God based on God's whim, and free will is a sham. End of story. We need to rewrite the article on Canvinism and on Predestination to reach this teaching, even if we personally find it to be repugnant and immoral. RK

where in the Bible does it say we have no free will im not a calvanist but i wonder how calvanist can be so sure that we have no free will when the Bible never states that if we have no free will God might as well have created a bunch of robots to glorify him.-ross

Calvinists even today clearly teach that man's actions have no bearing at all on whether or not we can be saved. All of choices are meaningless, and we have no ability whatsoever to affect our afterlife outcome. This is made crystal clear in this quote:

According to Calvinism, our salvation comes from the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose us; the Son died for us; and the Holy Spirit makes all this known to us. Without the intervention of the Spirit, we could not know Christ's death. Thus, our response by faith and repentance could not happen because of the clouding of our sin that blinds us to His Word and call. Without the power and intervention of the Spirit, we could not become Christians, because we could not obey the Gospel. Therefore, the entire process of our election, redemption, and regeneration is solely by the work of God. It is by grace alone, through our faith alone. Thus God, not we, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.

..."Unconditional Election" means to select or to choose. God chose us by His purpose. PERIOD. It was by nothing else, neither by our means nor His foreknowledge. (Romans 9:15,21; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10) This doctrine states that God chose those with whom He is pleased to bring to them knowledge of Himself. This is not based upon any merit by anyone. Thus, the object of His grace is not based upon looking down the corridor of time to discover who would accept the offer of the Gospel of Christ. God has elected us based solely upon the His own Will for us, to do good works, which do not save us. (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Peter 2:10)

Source of quote

I understand that some Calvinists will bend over backwards to prove that this also allows for man to have free will. But that is clearly an irrational position, made out of emotional desperation. Some people have an innate desire to accept certain beliefs as true, even when they are morally repelled by them on an intellectual level. Thus thus affirm that both mutually contradictory beliefs are true, even if that is impossible. This is equivalent to claiming that 1 = 2. You can say that you believe it to be true, but deep down inside you know that there is a contradiction, and that this cannot possible be true. RK

Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Predestination

Unfortunately, I replied to you first under Talk:Original Sin. I do appreciate the quotes, and I agree with your intent to be clear in expressing the full force of the doctrine. However, it is not the same doctrine, if you eliminate free will as it is understood in a calvinist sense. Mkmcconn

The re-write expands the article to 14 pages. If you look it over and agree that we are now talking about the same thing, then we can start removing and condensing material with the goal of making it more readable. Sound okay? Mkmcconn

Agreed. I definately think that this entire article can be tightened up. However, if the need arises, I don't have a problem with long entries. Its just that, as normally happens, it takes lots of space to initially express ideas, and once these are hammered out, they can edited down. In the future some additional ideas may be added to make this entry longer. In that case, we could leave the article in the longer form, or spin-off more material into sub-sections on Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish and Calvinist views of the subject, while leaving this main entry for the overview, basic theological and philosophical ideas, and comparisons of ther various forms of predestination. RK

---

Very impressive article. Yes, it could use tightening and expansion in places. However, it is very nice to see a spectrum of views explained here in some depth. A couple of thoughts:

1. It would be nice to have references pointing people to source material and places to explore further.
2. I think some discussion of science and determinism is appropriate here. For example, that Newton's mathematical descriptions of motion made it seem that given a state of matter (e.g. all matter in the universe), if you know the present position and motion of every particle, and you have sufficient computational capability, you can predict the future of every particle. Later, quantum mechanics seemed to say the opposite--that some particle behavior is absolutely impossible to predict, and that some things are unknowable (Heisenberg uncertainty - you can know position or velocity, but not both). If I remember correctly, there were in recent centuries, many who relied on Newton's findings to support their belief in a God who could set the universe in motion, but would not need to be an active participant (an interesting aside-Newton himself felt the only way to explain the force of gravity was God's constant interaction). In "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking speculates about God from a physical scientific point of view. Could God have created the universe by means of the Big Bang, etc. -q

Q -- I'll gather some good references, on-line and paper. And, I'll try to do a better job of documenting assertions of fact (I had no idea at first that the article was going to grow as long and complex as it did). For the other issue, you're pointing to a very interesting line of questions. There should be a way to insert a discussion like that, especially at the end under speculations. The idea of predestination (or more narrowly called "providence") was for a long time considered important to science, as you say, and the presupposition behind predictabiliity. Ideas obviously have been forced to change, with new discoveries - and that has had an impact on how religious people think about predestination. -- Mkmcconn

Here is an interesting paper. While it is probably outside the scope of this article, I found interesting some of the parallels between the view of God who constantly makes everything work vs. computer that constantly makes everything work. One is very theistic, one rather atheistic, and yet they are similar in other ways. Q

It's very intriguing, and I admire the disciplined argument! I particularly like the tidy paradox in the conclusion:

The probability that you or your descendants will ever run an ancestor-simulation is negligible, unless you are now living in such a simulation.

There is no blue pill. — Mkmcconn

I think the problem with traditional theology is the fact that it's based on an absolute view point. That is to say, that in an odd way, you can say one is predestined and still have free-will. What if from our perspective we have free-will yet we are predestined from God's point of view. Kind of like a parent who places guards on stairs to prevent babies from falling down the stairs. Of course, the parent would have to make sure the baby doesn't know that fact that stairs even exist ('cause the baby might want to go on the stairs if he/she knew about its existance). Given such a condition, the baby has free will according itself ('cause from the baby's point of view, he/she doesn't know, so can't choose). From the parent's point of view, he/she has predestined the baby not to fall down the stairs. So maybe what God does is place certain "guards" so you are in sense prevented from (or required to) taking certain actions. It doesn't violate the free-will part because you are free to do whatever from your perspective...

Another analogy is regarding motion (change in displacement). Without a reference there is no such think as motion. So the question is, is A in motion, if A sees B and is moving relative to B, and C sees A and is not in motion relative to A, but C does not see B. Thus, A is in motion according to B, but not in motion according to C. Thus you can have a paradox that says A is in motion and not in motion, but the paradox can be explained through relativity...

Theology doesn't dictate philosophy or psychology. A traditionalist would say that what you suggest above is a legitimate way of working out how to think and feel, according to the guidelines indicated by a theological knowledge of God: objections to it would come primarily from philosophers and psychologists, rather than theologians. Mkmcconn 18:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________ God tells us in his word:1-That He knew us befor the womb 2-befor the creation of the world,this tells me we excisted befor this game called Life that were forced to play in,maybe some of us full hartedley already chosed to stand aginst Our God (like the 3rd of his angels)-N- 1 3rd already chosed to stand with Our God (his chosen ones),That leaves a 3rd cunfuesed -N- undecided. I know This much for shure,My God is a good,loveing -N- most of all JUST in all he does,HE Himself came dn. in the flesh to prove this to all of His creation(thank you Jesus!).Let us not allow debates or unansered questions stop us from drawling close to our Creator. (for what its worth) A.T.F. A GOD CHASER

i agree a 100% we need to make sure we do not get cought up in the non essentials.

[edit] "Removal of NPOV"

I just noticed that User:KHM03 did some considerable deletions on two pages, which he described as "removed NPOV".

• Predestination: removed Types of religious predestination and other links;
• Salvation: removed Reformed Soteriology and other links;

Our interests only overlap marginally, so I can't say anything about the general validity of his edits. Could someone interested in Christian religious topics please take a look at his edits (and possibly his earlier edits as well)? — Sebastian 02:20, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I removed the link to Reformed Soteriology simply because that page itself is extremely messy and primarily edited by two users (The DataRat and 68.227.224.123...who may be the same user under different names) who have professed animosity to the wiki system of NPOV edits, and their work demonstrates this concern. The Reformed Soteriology page needs a lot of work and I just felt it not ready to stand as a link until it looks much better, NPOV, and more informative...basically, until it's worth linking to. I think removing Types of religious predestination was an error on my part; I did edit several links to a somewhat inflammatory site by The DataRat. I certainly would not have any problem restoring the Types of religious predestination link, unless there's an objection. In both cases, I am happy to defer to the community. KHM03 12:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made two changes to the conditional predestination section, adjusting the spelling of Arminius' first name to Jacobus (thus allowing the link to work properly) and removing the paragraph that began "this doctrine is flawed, however, because" on the grounds that it does not reflect a neutral point of view. This is my first Wikipedia edit so I did not go farther, but there are a number of areas in which this article could be improved and perhaps I may return to it at some later date. I also wonder if the name of Jacob/Jacobus/James Arminius should be standardized in the article because it could be confusing to readers who do not recognize that all these names refer to the same person. Demmeis 14:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Very good edit. KHM03 15:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other Interpretations

Though rare, some argue that predestination is the act of God previously determining the inevitability of the presentation of opportunity to follow Christ's teachings. This teaching is closely followed by the theory that someone may commit sin only when they knowingly rebel.

This section is hard for me to follow. I'm not sure what it's referring to, or who holds the view. I'd be glad to look for a place to re-insert it, if I could get a clearer idea of what it means. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting/Additions

I made some reformatting additions in order to clarify some of the various Christian positions. I'll add more later, but, of course, anyone else is welcome (and encouraged) to contribute. KHM03 1 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

[edit] Bible versions.

Meh. This article needs a lot of work I suspect... I took out a few of the glaring "how did this get into the article?" things that just had to be mistakes. However, a more pressing concern: from what translation of the Bible did our current quotes come from? I'm not sure a little special section is the best place for it, and it's a bit awkward as it stands... but they really need a translation note on it. I did a quick check, and it's neither the KJV, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, nor the New International Version. More interestingly, none of those very common versions use the word "predestined," at least for the Corinthians passage I was using as a test. It makes me suspect that someone is trying to make predestination appear more closely entwined to the Bible than it really is... if someone can find the version and it's a commonly used version, fine, but an encyclopedia should really use "standard" translations (with caveats if necessary), not unusual niche translations. SnowFire 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bits from the intro

I reverted a botched edit to the top of the page; we now have a good introduction that explains the religious and philosophical notions. Someone else fixed the botched edit in a different way; this makes for a less dry and more engaging intro, but should probably be merged in the Christian section. Argav ۞ 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Predestination is the doctrine that God, in his omniscience, omnipotence, and status outside of time, knows exactly the course of events of human history and actively Wills them. The doctrine states that God has chosen a number of people to be saved (the 'Elect') and damned (the 'Reprobate') before they are created. There are some passages in epistles of the New Testament which support this doctrine (Ephesians 1:3-11, 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Romans 8:28-30 ), but they only affirm that God has chosen to justify and save some before he created them, saying nothing on those who he has not elected. Predestination essentially lays its authority in the evangelical belief that the words of the epistles are absolute; as such they cause many problems in reconciling other fundamentally held beliefs. Many Christians reject predestination because they simply cannot reconcile the idea of a just and loving God with the God who is said to create people with the aim of damning them for eternity. For them it contradicts their notion of the righteousness of God. Another reason for many Christians rejecting this doctrine is its implications on free will: if we cannot possibly do anything to attain salvation, we cannot be said to be free agents; and if this is so, then there is little reason for behaving morally and the commands of God are useless.

[edit] I beg to differ on this point

"The idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient didn't formally exist in Judaism during the Biblical era, but rather was a later development due to the influence of neo-Platonic and neo-Aristotelian philosophy."

Why do the textual critics and secular humanists get the last word on everything? I assuredly believe that God was esteemed as omnipotent and omniscient by the patriarchs Abraham, Moses and Jacob.