I
attend a
I
believe it was in between chapters 6 through 8 that predestination floated into
my mind.
-- Amen…those chapters, especially 8 and 9 will do it J Before proceeding, here is just a quick word about the word "predestination." The word "predestination" itself can be used to describe God's foreordaining of all events in space-time history. However, as J.I. Packer points out in his book Concise Theology (http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/2757/nm/Concise_Theology_A_Guide_to_Historic_Christian_Beliefs) predestination more precisely refers specifically to God's choosing (election) or passing by (reprobation) individuals for salvation before time began.
In terms of the former sense (God's foreordination of all things) I think you will find that though the Bible only uses the word "predestination" or some other variation of it a handful of times, the Bible is nevertheless jammed packed with the concept of predestination (or foreordination), and I think that this is something that most Christians just take for granted without really giving it much thought. In other words, we all know intuitively that God is absolutely sovereign, and that there is nothing that transpires on earth that God did not foreordain to take place.
The difficulties arise when we try to factor in other considerations such as the will of man and human responsibility (and this difficulty is only a difficulty because we have a preconceived idea of the will of man that has largely been informed by humanistic philosophy instead of God's Word, which I will speak to a bit more later). Unfortunately, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with our preconceived ideas of man's will and human responsibility, we end up either denying the concept of God's absolute sovereignty and the fact that He has ordained all things that come to pass, or we modify God's sovereignty in such a was as to seriously blunt and undermine the truth that is so clearly seen in Scripture concerning such things as God's sovereignty, predestination, and even God's omniscience.
Some people go so far as to deny God's full omniscience by denying that He has exhaustive knowledge of future events. This view is called Open Theism. It is called "open" because to them, God has left the future "open," so that not even God knows what will transpire in the future. The primary reason people adopt such a view is because they are trying to hold on to the concept of man's absolute free will. They maintain, rather consistently I might add, that it is impossible to speak of man as being "free" or having a "free" will if God is truly omniscient (meaning that He already knows exhaustively what will transpire in the future), because those choices must happen of necessity. So, if God already knows that I am going to make a choice to type this response to you, how can my will be absolutely free if God already knows what I am going to do (and even more, if He already knows my thoughts before I think them!). I couldn’t agree more with the Open Theist at this point. The problem with them though is that instead of submitting to the truth of Scripture regarding God's absolute sovereignty and omniscience, and instead of adopting a view of man and his will and responsibility that is biblically informed, they continue to hold their faulty view of man and his will, and they try to conform everything around that, and in the process end up creating a god in their own image.
So, while many in the Church today have a tendency to sweep these matters under the rug of "these things are too difficult to figure out," the fact of the matter is that there is much at stake with regard to these matters. The nature God, the nature of man, and even the nature of grace and our understanding of the Gospel is directly impacted by these things.
Anyway, though the words "predestination," foreordination," and "sovereignty," may not appear often in Scripture (and depending on which translation you read, foreordination and sovereignty in particular do not appear at all!), the concept of those things is taught cover to cover in the Bible. A.W. Pink, in his classic book The Sovereignty of God (you can read the entire book on-line here: http://www.lgmarshall.org/Pink/pink_sovereignty.html) goes right to the very first verse of the Bible, (in the beginning God…) and provides an overwhelming Scriptural analysis of these truths.
As
for Genesis 1, when we read through the creation
account, we see how God created each sphere of creation precisely the way He
wanted to, and endowed each sphere with the attributes that He determined they
would have. A.W.
Pink states:
“He (God) might create or not create according to His own good pleasure….Learn this basic truth, that the Creator is absolute Sovereign, executing His own will, performing His own pleasure, and considering nothing but His own glory…The Lord hath made all things for Himself (Prov 16:4)…If then we see the sovereignty of God displayed throughout all creation why should it be a strange thing if we behold it operating in the midst of the human family? Why should it be thought strange if to one God is pleased to give five talents and to another only one? Why should it be thought strange if one is born with a robust constitution and another of the same parents is frail and sickly? Why should it be thought strange that…some be born idiots and others with high intellectual endowments; some born lethargic and others full of energy…Why should it be thought strange that some are qualified by nature to lead and rule, and others only fitted to follow and serve? Heredity and environment cannot account for all these variations and inequalities. No; it is God who maketh one to differ from another.”
One note concerning that book though: it can be a bit difficult read due to some of the archaic language (the first edition was published in 1930. That’s relatively recent when we’re talking about landmark theological writings, but even given how relatively recent it is, it is still difficult in some places; however, it is much easier than other writings (try reading Francis Turretin sometime! J).
Secondly, Pink was a product of his time in terms of certain side issues related to reconciling biblical data with the theory of evolution, hence he was a proponent of the gap theory (back then, this was very common, but today it really is not held in high regard by the conservative Evangelical scholars. This link provides some info: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=gap%20theory&site=default_collection#q=gap%20theory&site=default_collection).
Having mentioned the term “conservative evangelical” let me define what I mean by that, particularly since that term has come up in the secular media due to politics, and is given to a great deal of confusion. One who is theologically conservative is a person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith, such as the divine origin and inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, the historicity of the persons and events related in the Bible, the affirmation of the person and work of Christ (Jesus was 1 person with 2 distinct natures (fully God and fully man), his miracles, bodily resurrection, etc.), and various other truths along those lines.
The term "Evangelical," historically, was a phrase coined to describe those that were bringing about the Reformation of the 16th century, and they were so called because of their emphasis on the true nature of the Gospel, specifically, that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, all to God’s glory alone, over and against the overwhelming move away from the Gospel by the Roman Catholic church by the time of the 16th century.
Anyway, these "alone" statements that the Reformers used to summarize the Gospel came to be known as the "Sola's" of the Reformation (along with "Scripture alone"). Please note that the word "sola" is Latin meaning "alone," and the Sola's are all given in Latin. Hence, Scripture alone is "Sola Scriptura." Christ alone is "Solus Christus." Grace alone is "Sola Gratia" and Faith alone is "Sola Fide. The reason these are in Latin is because Latin was the universally accepted language of discourse, so to speak, back in the 1500's. Also, another key "alone" phrase was "justification by faith alone" which falls under the Faith Alone category. Anyone who claims the name "Protestant" owes it to themselves to know those things. As a matter of fact, all of these issues are directly related to the issues you have questions about. Anyway, you can read more about the "Sola's" here: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/Five-Solas-of-the-Reformation/ )
On a historical note, one should keep in mind that the Reformers were not
trying to create a whole new church; rather, they were trying to reform Roman
Catholicism (all of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), just like 99%
of everyone else in the West (Europe), belonged to the Roman Catholic Church.
Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were both actually Roman Catholic
priests prior to their break with Rome, and John Calvin had been studying to
become a priest before he embraced the doctrines of the Reformers (Calvin was a
bit younger than Luther and Zwingli).