As a freshman at BYU and a new Ancient Studies Club member I had the opportunity to hear one of the best lectures on predestination in Paul. I’d grown up being taught that I should read “foreordain” for every “predestinate” in the NT. (this isn’t necessarily wrong but we’ll get to that later) But here was an LDS scholar arguing for real, genuine predestination in Paul and boy was he convincing.
I’ve since had this doctrine explained to me in greater detail and I’m a devout Predestinationist. And I believe that all LDS people are too, they just don’t know it yet.
The heart of understanding the concept lies in differentiating between Western thinking (ours) and Eastern thinking (Paul and everyone else in the NT and OT for that matter). Paul was the apostle to the Greeks but he wasn’t himself a native Greek. He probably spoke Greek as his first language (though this is debated) and he was certainly a Hellenized Jew. He was also an extremely strict Pharisee by his own reckoning and herein lies what is probably the key to the matter.
If Paul is a hard-core, fully trained Pharisee then he has been trained to think like the people who will shortly after come to be called the Rabbis. He has been trained to interpret scriptures like them and for all the radical breaks Paul makes with Judaism, this training strongly tempers his thinking.
Now there are many differences, I’m sure, between Easterners and Westerners but one is of particular interest and will form the thread from which my argument will hang. But before I get to that let me quickly and badly stereotype for you what a Westerner and Easterner are. A Westerner is a European, a Greek, a Roman, etc. An Easterner is a Jew, a Samaritan, an Asian (think province in this case, not continent although to some degree that works too), a Persian, and so on.
In our case, Westerners are Greeks and Romans from whom we take our social cues historically. Westerners and logical, reasoning, mathematical, fiercely individual, and extremely competitive. Easterners are intuitive, mystical, allegorical, tribal (from their heritage, especially the Jews), and community oriented. These are broad and expansive (and thus poor and extremely fallible) characterizations, but bear with me.
As Westerners (and the majority of Christians have been Westerners since the second or third century) we tend to think in very individualistic terms. This is not to say that we are always self-centered, egotistical jerks (although you could look at it that way), it is that we tend to think about all people in individualistic terms. All people are individuals. They are personally responsible for themselves. They all have their own agency. Every man must work out his own salvation before God with fear and trembling. All of these ideas are very individualistic.
The Eastern way of thinking is quite different. Community comes first, especially for the Jews. As a people they are special, chosen. They are Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s posterity. They belong to tribes (mostly Judah by Jesus day), have a very communal conception of family, and so on. A good example of this is the way that Israel’s and Judah’s captivities are described. The whole nation was taken captive according to the record, yet history teaches us that many peasants and farmers were left behind. A majority remained percentage wise, yet the ten tribes of Israel are lost entirely.
This can be seen in the case of the Samaritans. They were the (un)lucky folk who got left behind in the destruction of Israel and who later bred with outsiders planted in their land. The Jews forever afterward considered them polluted people and shunned them. There were people left behind in that captivity but the whole nation is spoken of as being carried away. This community minded thinking is crucial to understanding Paul.
Now lets take a look at the word “predestine.” In Greek the word is pro-oridzo and it is absolutely fascinating. Literally it means to set a boundary beforehand. Our word horizon comes from this root because the horizon is the boundary of what we can see. Oridzo means generally to decide, determine, appoint, designate. All people do this and so does God. Add the pro to the beginning and it means to do it beforehand, specifically, to do it before the foundation of the world.
The problem begins when we look this word up in Greek. Sure, the first meanings are to predestinate, decide or set apart from the beginning or before hand. But it also can be properly translated as foreordain, to set apart from the beginning or before hand. We would say these are two different ideas in LDS culture. They are identical to the Greeks. Now to unravel.
In the church we have heavily nuanced the concept of foreordination. This seems to me to be a reaction to the ultra-conservative Protestant view of individual predestination where every person’s fate is predetermined by God to salvation or damnation. This false doctrine (an inappropriate application of a true doctrine) was countered in LDS circles by a true but somewhat poor response. We responded to the personal, individual aspect of personal salvation and pre-mortal callings from God by explaining that God foreordained without any determinism that certain individuals should have certain blessings, have certain powers, and do certain things. All of these things are meant to happen but hinge upon every person’s agency to choose to receive/do them. Instead we could (maybe should) have responded by preaching the true teaching of absolute, deterministic predestination.
If we apply that Eastern thinking to deterministic predestination then we get a very interesting picture. Instead of predestining individuals, we predestinate groups. Only for Paul, there is only one group truly predestined to salvation with God and Jesus in their kingdom: the Church! Now it should be said that I’m no expert on Paul’s view of the Jews but he knows that Israel will be brought to salvation eventually but I would argue that he still thinks that they must accept Jesus when that happens as the Messiah.
Mormons believe that the Church is predestined to salvation, we just don’t usually think of it in these terms. But we believe that before the world was physically created that there was a plan set forth in which all of the terms for how things would go were set forth (predestined) with a special focus (I assume) on salvation. Now labeling the purposes of life is tricky but this much is clear, we were meant to be able to return to live with God after it was all over and done with. In order for this to occur each person must be saved or redeemed from the fallen and cursed state that they would enter while here. At that council it was determined that Jesus would perform the Atonement and that any individual who did X, Y, and Z would receive access to this atonement and be saved, with X, Y, and Z being faith in Christ, repentance, receiving the ordinances, and enduring in the covenants until the end.
You all believe this. I know you do. You must because you are all members of the Church. You believe that by following the above steps that you will receive salvation. The decision that the people who followed those steps adequately would be saved was made before the earth was made. We call it the Plan of Salvation. The only difference with Paul is he says that whoever does X, Y, and Z is the Church. If you don’t get saved then you didn’t do X, Y, and Z and thus you aren’t a part of the Church. Pretty simple. You can’t be a part of the Church, not really, and not be saved because if you were really doing everything expected of those in the Church you would be saved because there are no exceptions. God is no respecter of persons.
The best proof for me that Latter-day Saints believe this doctrine is the true doctrine of hope. I think that this has been discussed recently around here, at least in passing, but I’ll elucidate. In Ether 12:4 we read:
4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.
I had a hard time understanding this verse for a very long time including most of my mission. The focus is on hope which acts as an anchor to men’s souls. I used to think that it was faith that was the anchor. I was wrong. Real hope isn’t wishful thinking but an assured yet unseen future. That future is the coming of the Messiah, the redemption of the righteous, the destruction of the wicked, and the glory of the received kingdom of God. The truth of these coming events anchors us, gives us a reason for being good and keeping the commandments (i.e. the rest of the verse). We have a hope that the righteous (those who do X, Y, and Z) will receive salvation. We also have a hope that the wicked (those who don’t) will receive damnation. It’s hope because we know this and we are determined to act accordingly. The hope that we have is that these realities-waiting-to-happen are predetermined. They are irrevocably decreed. Thus we can absolutely trust in them; they truly are an anchor to our souls, some of the only things we can utterly depend on.
Paul most clearly teaches this doctrine in Romans 8:29-9:33 and Ephesians 1. I’d advise reading them in light of our discussion if you have not already. Especially Romans 9:9-23 (I’d also read around it too) because the problems this particular passage raises to our new view of this doctrine will be the subject of part two in this post. I’m going to bed now and I’ll be fishing for most of the next two days. I’ll try my best to keep on top of any comments here and get onto that much anticipated vessels of wrath conclusion. (this is a very fun topic but it really is just a set up for the next one)
25 Replies to “To Predestinate or Not To Predestinate Pt.1”
“In our case, Westerners are Greeks and Romans from whom we take our social cues historically. Westerners and logical, reasoning, mathematical, fiercely individual, and extremely competitive. Easterners are intuitive, mystical, allegorical, tribal (from their heritage, especially the Jews), and community oriented. These are broad and expansive (and thus poor and extremely fallible) characterizations, but bear with me.”
This kind of thinking first emerged in a field of study called “Orientalism,” popularized in NT studies by Ernst Renan. Since then, this kind of racial discourse has been widely discredited historically and theoretically. I don’t really think that you need racial stereotypes to make a philological argument.
LXX – predestination – the TK Smoothie Rule helps explain that one. It seems like it was invented as a by-product of attempting to explain Jesus’ “pre-existing” sonship and the early Christian community’s wrestle with election and self-identity. To me, anyway.
This is very logically sound. I was afraid it was going to be another stem on foreknowledge and am grateful it wasn’t.
I do find it amusing that you associate Moggget’s posts with “excessive length and any mind numbing repetition”. Ouch!
“At that council it was determined that Jesus would perform the Atonement and that any individual who did X, Y, and Z would receive access to this atonement and be saved, with X, Y, and Z being faith in Christ, repentance, receiving the ordinances, and enduring in the covenants until the end. You all believe this. I know you do. You must because you are all members of the Church. You believe that by following the above steps that you will receive salvation…”
No I don’t. I never did. I’ve been a member all my life. I’ve always believed that salvation was well-nigh universal and a sheer gift. I’ve always believed that everyone who acknowledges Christ, as everyone will, will be saved. I’ve always believed that there are some who, after being saved, fall from salvation by becoming sons of perdition. I’ve always believed that Ephesians’ references to predestination related to corporate destinty of the faithful saints in the pre-existent Church. I’ve recently come to believe that Paul probably didn’t write Ephesians. I’ve always read Roman 9 to refer to the salvation of Israel and and to the Church as the New Israel that replaces the old one based on birth and national identity. Does mean I’m not Mormon?
Great post. And don’t worry about length. Some posts deserve it.
To add, one of the biggest challenges I think LDS face in reading the scriptures is the whole individual vs. group character. Most scriptures are group oriented. Yet we, because of our American culture which is even more individualistic than Europe, tend to focus on the individual. It ends up twisting a lot of scriptures.
Thought this fit in nicely with this post.
LXXLuthor, this is the first time I have read anything by you or anything like this.
Thanks for delving into monumental issues in regards to soteriology.
Highly interested in your interpretation of Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1. Will you cover Romans 11 as well?
I see both individual and national predestination. It is pretty tough to separate both concepts in Paul’s words.
But to give you a heads up on my view, LXX, I clearly see individual and group election to eternal life and no teaching of election to damnation.
LXXL, very interesting. I think this gets a bit more nuanced in light of baptisms for the dead–that is, it seems that the Mormon idea that everyone will receive an opportunity to receive the gospel (I don’t know how scriptural this idea really is…) implies that everyone will receive the ordinances you mention, and so we’re back to faith-and-works issues. . . . Like Todd, I’m anxious to see a careful Mormon reading of Paul’s election-of-grace writings, so I look forward to your next installments.
I once had a similar idea about Paul’s meaning of predestination that was motivated by quantum mechanics. One can predict the future for groups of particles but not for any individual particle. Asimov had the same idea about predicting human destiny in his Foundation series.
Nevertheless, predestination was a Helenistic idea and central to Stoicism.It doesn’t appear in the pre-Helenistic Old Testament. The teaching that men are the offspring of God was also a Stoic teaching. Paul demonstrates his thorough knowledge of Helenistic thinking when he says we are the offspring of God to a Helenized audience at Mars Hill (Acts 17) and references the Helenistic poets as the source. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when he uses the word “predestinate” for a Helenistic audience in his epistles that he means to convey a Helenistic meaning? He knew what the word would mean to the Greeks. Anyway, so what if Paul did believe in predestination? He wasn’t inerrant.
Everyone, thanks for your comments. Fishing was only mediocre today, hopefully better luck tomorrow.
David J.: Not sure I’m following all of what you are saying, mind elaborating a bit?
Matt: Great article. I’ve never seen it before. The only thing it lacked was the aspect of community thinking vs. individualism.
Todd: I’ll look at Romans 11 before I post, I haven’t done that passage in any detail before. As for no election to damnation, we’ll see what we see when we cover vessels of wrath.
Rob: I don’t see how everyone receives the ordinances. We perform them but do they count for anything other than a chance to receive them if they choose not to? I see community minded predestination as being largely outside the issue. The focus is community and not on what one must do to enter the community. That’s another subject entirely for Paul. And I hope you’ll like the next post.
SeptuagintLuthor — what happened to my response? Did you find it objectionable and so removed it? Why?
Rob: I address Paul’s issues of predestination, election, salvation by grace and works in three chapters in the second volume of my Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God.
Wow, new posts have popped up where they weren’t before. Sorry if I haven’t responded to your comments.
TT: I’d be interested in reading something on the rejection of this kind of stereotyping. It might change the way I view things. Also, I’m not sure that this is meant to be a racial stereo-type, it’s more of a cultural stereotype. I think.
Blake: Sorry about the comment problems. I don’t clean the trap out and I never edit or delete comments. I’m curious though; I’m still relatively new to the bloggernacle scene and I don’t know what books you have written that you refer to occassionaly. Care to fill me in?
Jake, good points. And nice reference to Foundation, I loved that series. It’s true that Paul could be all things to all people (or he thought he could) but I don’t know that it necessarily changes the core of how he thinks. I could of course, but not necessarily. Thanks for calling me on the over generalization though, I make too many of those and I’m always trying to catch myself.
Blake: It doesn’t mean you aren’t Mormon, it just means that you are an exceptional one.
Matt: I realized after I typed that comment up that it might come across that way. Only the comparisson to length was intended. Mogget doesn’t needlessly repeat herself. I, however, do. And frequently.
LXXLuthor: Have you touched upon the New Perspective of Paul debate in your classes? Have they pointed to studies by E.P. Saunders, N.T. Wright and James Dunn regarding the focus of Paul’s writings on justification by grace?
Slightly. We did brief book reports on Saunders, Wright and others but not Dunn as I recall. Anything specific you are refering to?
Aye yi yi. I always regret it when I get involved in debates here without the time to really participate. Nevertheless.
If you do not grok the issues behind the so-called New Perspective, even if the term itself is unfamiliar, you’ve not really seen much of the power of pauline studies. James Dunn is a major, major figure in this aspect, building on E. P. Saunder’s work.
Having said that, our LXXLuthor is an undergrad, and at BYU. ‘Nuff said. His day will come and he’ll love it when it does.
There’s a new book out by Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, which looks to provide good insight into his work, as well as answering some of his conservative critics who’ve accused him of gutting Christianity. Next time I surface from dissy-hell for more than a day or two, it’s gonna be part of the reading list.
Blake, thanks for the reminder to go back and read these chapters in your book. If I don’t see anyone else take up the task first, I’ll start a discussion of these chapters on the new Feast blog.
LXXLuthor: See here and for Blake’s two volumes of Exploring Mormon Thought. I heard the third volume is due out soon, and I trust someone like the New Cool Thang blog will make an announcement when it’s available.
The foundational text in the critique of these stereotypes is Edward Said’s, Orientalism. The rise and decline of Orientalism as an academic discipline happened during the last half of the 19th c. and first half of the 20th. In biblical studies, postcolonialism has influenced the decline of the use of this kind of rhetoric, but in general a greater sensitivity was cultivated after WWII to these stereotypes.
As for the racial/cultural distinction, Tomoko Masuzawa’s critique of the origins of the classifications of various religions and cultures in The Invention of World Religions is quite astonishing, even though I think her assessment of contemporary religious studies is off the mark. She traces a very interesting connection between philology and racism by early religious studies scholars.
Thaks for the comment Moggs, I always look forward to hearing what you have to say when I tackle Paul.
Thanks for the catch up Robert, I hate being out of the loop on these things.
I agree that there are problems with racism in religious scholarship. Pick up any commentary from the early 20th century and you’ll think you’re in another world! But for the record, Edward Said had his own challenges down that road, as well. I haven’t read Mazuzawa yet, but look forward to doing so.
Sorry TT that I didn’t respond to your last comment when I did the others. It wasn’t showing when I did. It didn’t come up in the post but I’ll ask now: why do you think that I found so many scholars who are opposed to individual predestination taking this view when I did my research. This includes people like W.D. Davies and Fitzmyer who ought to know better (though I am aware they are not the most current authors, they are just the two that came to mind). Are they really willing to sell out to a racist idea that they know is false just because it provides the best defence for their theology? I guess it is possible but I’m sceptical. Also, I’m not a fan at all of racial and cultural stereotypes but to some degree these things can be accurate on a broad level. Is this a case of modern over-sensitivity to racial and cultural issues clouding what might otherwise be a fair conclusion?
Thanks Robert! I look forward to the discussion.
I am not arguing that your interpretation of collective salvation is wrong per se. I was simply raising questions about stereotypical divisions between the “East” and the “West”. Paul was as Greek as anyone in my view and arguably Western individualism doesn’t begin until Augustine, so I am not sure that these cultural stereotypes are either accurate or productive.
In any case, arguments about interpretation should be rooted in close readings of texts, not unsubstantiated broad claims about culture.