Without a doubt, predestination is one of the most argued about doctrine. This is partially due to the fact that predestination seems to challenge a key concept that most people deem necessary for moral responsibility, namely the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). The PAP, which states that one must have alternate possibilities in order for one to be morally responsible, seems incompatible with the doctrine of predestination. Since the PAP, which seems intuitive to most, seems to be incompatible with moral responsibility, some argue that this doctrine is unjust. Some believe that it is unjust for God to make demands on people without those people having alternate possibilities as to whether to accept or reject those demands. Over the next few days I’m going to try to show why Calvin thinks that predestination is not unjust. Tomorrow I will begin by explaining what predestination is according to Calvin. I will conclude by explaining why Calvin thinks that this doctrine is actually beneficial. I will end this short series by outlining some of the benefits of the doctrine.
Published by cwoznicki
Chris Woznicki is an Assistant Adjunct Professor of Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. He works as the regional training associate for the Los Angeles region of Young Life. View more posts