As stated for instance [here](https://christianpure.com/learn/protestant-christian-vs-reformed-christian/) and many other places, Reform Christianity has as one of its central precepts predestination, i.e. Gd has already chosen some of us for salvation and some for damnation. Logically, this would lead me to be a fatalist: nothing I can do will change my fate. How does Reform Christianity so vehemently argue against fatalism at the same time? This is not a smug rebuttal (which would be naive) but rather a genuine request for the details. The way I see it, this is all a side effect of the I suppose well meaning starting point of the sovereignty of Gd, logically leading to predestination - from here, there is either some nebulous cop-out or indeed an elaborate reconciliation of this and avoiding fatalism which I would find great intellectual satisfaction in learning.

Years ago I heard or read something to the effect that when God in His sovereignty wants to cause something to happen, though he could do that thing directly (and often does), he instead causes his people to pray for that thing to be done, then answers their prayer. The context may have been Holy Spirit revival. **What Christian writers have said things to that effect? What quotes from their writings speak about this?** The way I remember it being said was, “When God wants something done, first he makes his people pray.” Of course I heard this about thirty years ago and my memory is not what it was, so the words could be quite different. It is likely that the originator lived in the early 20th century, but he may have been quoting someone from the 19th century. I ask this question here because my trusty AI Chat agrees that the concept is an acceptable one in Reformed, Arminian and Catholic traditions but can’t pin down a particular writer or quote. For the sake of curiosity, here is what Google Gemini Flash Thinking 2.0 had to say: —— **Thoughts** > Here's a thinking process to arrive at the answer about theologians discussing God initiating prayer: > * Deconstruct the Core Question: The central idea is about reversed causality in prayer. Instead of believer → prayer → God's action, it's God's will → causes prayer → God's action (in line with his pre-existing will). The key phrase provided is "When God wants something done, first he causes his people to pray." > * Identify Keywords and Concepts: Extract the crucial terms to guide the search for relevant theological concepts: > * God's initiative/sovereignty: This is the driving force. God is not passively waiting for human prayer; he actively works. > * Prayer: The means by which God's will is carried out, in this specific reversed causal framework. Prayer isn't just asking; it's a divinely orchestrated action. > * Causality/Reversed Causality: The core of the question. The typical cause-and-effect relationship is flipped. > * God's will/desire: The ultimate origin of the action. > * Believers/People of God: The instruments God uses in this process. > * Theologians: The specific domain to explore for answers. > * Brainstorm Theological Themes and Doctrines: Connect the keywords to broader theological concepts: > * Divine Sovereignty/Providence: God's ultimate control and governance over all things. This is a strong starting point. If God is sovereign, he can initiate prayer. > * Divine Grace/Prevenient Grace: God's grace precedes human action, enabling it. Prevenient grace (especially in Arminian theology) could be relevant here – God’s grace before the prayer. > * The Holy Spirit's work in prayer: The Spirit is often seen as the one who inspires and guides prayer. Romans 8:26 ("Spirit intercedes") is a key verse here. The Spirit's role could be the mechanism by which God "causes" prayer. > * The Economy of Salvation/Divine Economy: God's plan and methods for working in the world. Prayer could be part of this divine economy. > * Inspiration/Illumination (related to Scripture and prayer): God can inspire thoughts and desires, which could include the desire to pray. > * Consider Theological Traditions: Think about which traditions might emphasize God's initiative more: > * Calvinism/Reformed Theology: Strong emphasis on God's sovereignty and predestination. Likely to affirm God's initiative in prayer. > * Arminianism/Wesleyan Theology: Emphasizes prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit's work. Also potentially relevant. > * Catholic Theology: Also emphasizes God's grace and the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer. > * Formulate Search Strategies and Keywords for Research (if needed for a real research task): If you needed to actually find theologians who said this, you'd use keywords like: > * "God initiates prayer" > * "Divine initiative prayer" > * "Sovereignty and prayer" > * "Holy Spirit inspires prayer" > * "Prevenient grace prayer" > * "Theology of prayer divine initiative" > * (Combine with names of theologians known for sovereignty or pneumatology – e.g., "Calvin prayer," "Edwards prayer," "Wesley prayer," "Barth prayer," "Rahner prayer"). > * Recall Specific Theologians and Texts (Internal Knowledge): Draw upon existing knowledge of theological figures. Think about theologians who are known for: > * Sovereignty: Calvin, Edwards, Augustine (to some extent). > * Pneumatology (Holy Spirit): Wesley, Pentecostal theologians, Eastern Orthodox theologians (though Eastern Orthodox might frame it differently, closer to theosis and divine energies). > * Grace: Augustine, Aquinas, Reformers, Wesley. > * Focus on Key Theological Themes and Refine the Answer: Based on the brainstorming and recall, structure the answer around these core points: > * Affirmative Answer: Yes, this idea is present in Christian theology. > * Central Doctrine: Divine Sovereignty: Frame it within God's sovereignty. This is the overarching theological umbrella. > * Mechanism: Holy Spirit: Highlight the Holy Spirit as the agent who inspires and enables prayer according to God's will. Connect to Romans 8:26 and the Spirit interceding. > * Specific Theological Traditions: Point out that Calvinism and Reformed theology strongly affirm this because of their emphasis on sovereignty. Also mention Arminianism and Wesleyan theology due to prevenient grace and Spirit's work. > * Examples (even if not direct quotes in this instance – you could search for quotes if necessary, but the prompt is more about the concept): Think of theologians associated with these traditions (Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, etc.). > * Nuance and Balance: Acknowledge that this isn't always the only or dominant way of thinking about prayer in all Christian traditions. Maintain a balanced perspective and recognize the importance of genuine human agency in prayer as well. Avoid presenting a deterministic view where humans are mere puppets. > * Vocabulary: Use theological terms appropriately (sovereignty, providence, grace, Holy Spirit, etc.). > * Review and Refine the Answer: Read through the formulated answer. Is it clear, concise, and accurate? Does it address the prompt fully? Does it provide helpful examples and context? Make any necessary adjustments to improve clarity and completeness. Ensure it directly answers the original question and provides sufficient supporting information and nuance. For instance, make sure to highlight why these theological traditions would affirm this concept (sovereignty, grace, Spirit's work). > **Response** Yes, this is a recognized concept in Christian theology, though it might not be the most frequently emphasized aspect of prayer in popular piety. The idea that God initiates prayer as part of his plan is definitely present in the writings and thoughts of various theologians across different Christian traditions. Here's a breakdown of theologians and theological concepts that speak to this idea: **Key Theologians and Theological Concepts:** * John Calvin and Reformed Theology: Calvin and the Reformed tradition strongly emphasize God's sovereignty. For Calvin, God's will is primary, and everything, including human actions and even prayers, occurs within the scope of his sovereign plan. While Calvin certainly believed in the sincerity and importance of human prayer, his theology of providence suggests that God can and does work to bring about his purposes, which might include prompting his people to pray. While I can't find a direct, quotable statement from Calvin saying "When God wants something done, first he causes his people to pray," his theology leans heavily in this direction. Consider his emphasis on God's initiative in salvation and in all things. If God initiates salvation, it's consistent to think he might also initiate prayer related to his purposes. * Jonathan Edwards and Puritan Theology: Edwards, a major figure in American Puritanism and Reformed theology, also stressed God's sovereignty. Puritan theology often emphasized God's active role in all aspects of life, including spiritual life. They would have seen prayer as a means appointed by God, and that God himself might move people to pray in accordance with his will. Again, while a direct quote matching your phrasing might be hard to find, the overall thrust of their theology supports this idea. Edwards and Puritans frequently discussed the Holy Spirit's work in prompting and enabling prayer. * Karl Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy: Barth, a 20th-century theologian, also placed a strong emphasis on God's initiative and sovereignty. His theology is Christocentric, meaning everything is understood in light of Christ and God's self-revelation in Christ. For Barth, God is always the initiator in the relationship with humanity. While Barth talks about prayer as human response, it is always response to God's prior action. It's plausible to see in Barth's thought that God, desiring a certain outcome, could move people to pray as part of enacting his will. Barth's emphasis on revelation preceding response implies God is always first. * The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology): Across many Christian traditions, the Holy Spirit is understood as the agent of God who works within believers. The Holy Spirit is often seen as the one who inspires prayer, guides prayer, and intercedes in prayer. Romans 8:26 says, "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words." This verse is often interpreted as the Holy Spirit prompting and shaping our prayers, aligning them with God's will. If the Holy Spirit is inspiring prayer, it is ultimately God working to cause prayer. * Augustine of Hippo and the Doctrine of Grace: Augustine's theology of grace emphasizes God's prevenient grace – grace that comes before human action, enabling it. Augustine's view on prayer in relation to grace could be interpreted as God's grace moving people to pray, which is a prerequisite for God to act in response. Augustine’s idea that even the desire to pray is a gift from God aligns with the concept you're asking about. * Mystical Traditions: Mystical traditions within Christianity often emphasize a more passive and receptive posture in prayer. In these traditions, the initiative in prayer is often seen as coming from God. Contemplative prayer, for example, is about opening oneself to God's presence and allowing God to work within, which could include God initiating the very desire and movement towards prayer. **Phrases and Concepts Used:** * Divine Initiative: This is a broad term that encompasses the idea that God is the first actor in all things related to salvation and the divine-human relationship, including prayer. * Prevenient Grace: As mentioned with Augustine, this emphasizes God's grace coming before human action, potentially including the action of prayer. * The Holy Spirit Inspiring Prayer: The concept of the Holy Spirit as the one who guides, prompts, and enables prayer naturally leads to the idea that God is initiating prayer through the Spirit. * God "Stirring Up" Hearts to Pray: This is a more common, less theological phrase but captures the idea of God actively moving people to prayer. * God "Burdening" People to Pray: This phrase, often used in intercessory prayer circles, suggests a sense of divine prompting and urgency to pray for a specific matter, implying God's initiative. **Important Nuances and Considerations:** * Balance with Human Agency: While emphasizing God's initiative is important, it's crucial to maintain a balance and not negate human agency and sincerity in prayer. Christians believe in genuine human prayer that expresses real desires and petitions to God. The idea of God initiating prayer doesn't necessarily make human prayer insincere or merely mechanical. Instead, it suggests that even our sincere prayers can be, in some sense, divinely prompted and aligned with God's purposes. * Mystery of Divine-Human Interaction: The relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom, and between divine initiative and human response in prayer, is ultimately a mystery. Theologians attempt to articulate these concepts, but there is a limit to human comprehension of how these things work together. * Not Always the Primary Focus: While the idea of God initiating prayer is present, it's not always the dominant or most common way prayer is discussed in Christian contexts. Often, the emphasis is on the believer's responsibility to pray, to bring needs to God, and to seek his will. However, understanding God's potential initiative adds a deeper dimension to the theology of prayer. In conclusion, yes, the idea that God initiates prayer as part of enacting his will is a theologically sound concept supported by various theologians and theological traditions within Christianity. While a direct quote matching your exact phrasing might be difficult to pinpoint, the underlying theological principles, particularly those related to divine sovereignty, the work of the Holy Spirit, and prevenient grace, strongly suggest that this understanding of prayer has been and continues to be present in Christian thought.

I've been studying the topic of Open Theism in comparison to other perspectives on God's sovereignty, omniscience, and man's free will. As I understand it, on a scale spanning from full on deterministic fatalism to fully libertarian freedom, Hyper-Calvinism is on one extreme end and Pelagianism is on the other extreme. Since Calvinism allows for a form of free will, it is obviously not deterministic fatalism, but it's obviously close by. Also, as I understand it, Augustinianism is very similar to Calvinism (or, rather, vice versa since the former came first chronologically), and Semi-Pelagianism is approximately halfway between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. My question, therefore, is two-fold: 1. Does the above scale provide an accurate structure from which to understand the perspectives listed above? 2. Where does Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism fall in comparison to the things listed above? In particular I've heard people effectively say that Arminianism is halfway between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism. Is that true, or is it closer to one than the other? I've also heard people describe Molinism as a variant of Arminianism. If true does it shift it towards Calvinism or away from it? Finally, it seems like Open Theism and Pelagianism are similar in that they exclusively focus in on either the nature of God or nature of man in ways fundamentally contrary to Scripture, and make vague statements on the nature of man or God. Ultimately, I'm trying to get a big-picture overview of all these things and how they relate to one another, so if part of all of my understanding above is way off base, I'd appreciate an explanation of where I went off the rails, and how you would explain the relationship between all these things.

What was God’s role in the Fall (if He had one)? I’m learning about the Calvinist (or perhaps hyper-Calvinist) view of Pre-determinism, and respectfully, it causes me great concern. Perhaps I’m concerned because I misunderstand Pre-determinism altogether. However, if I understand it correctly (which I probably don’t; hence why I’m asking), wouldn’t the Pre-determinist’s natural conclusion of God’s involvement in the Fall be that, because God has willed all events to happen He Himself is responsible for their occurrence? Would the line of reasoning be something like this: 1. Results of events have been determined (or willed) from eternity past. 2. The rebellion (or fall) of spiritual and physical beings were events. 3. Therefore, God determined (or worse, willed) the rebellion of spiritual and physical beings.

In Hebrews 8, the author discusses the two covenants God has made. Why the need for two? Surely God knew that the first could not be kept by man. Why didn’t He just start with the covenant of Christ?

If God is sovereign and our destiny is determined before the foundation of the earth, has God allotted a measure of sins for each of the doomed? Prov 16:4 says God made the wicked for the day of doom. Rom 9 talks about the potter making a vessel for dishonor. Did God cast out the Amorites only after they each individually filled up their measure of sin.

In Matthew 4:8-9 we read about the temptation of Christ by Satan: > Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and > showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said > to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and > worship me.” In Christ's response, he did not challenge Satan's authority to make such a claim. Taken together with 2 Cor 4:4 where Satan is described as "the god of this world" it seems we can conclude that Satan is the ruler of the world. How can we reconcile this with God's sovereignty?

Edit: The proposed duplicate cannot possibly be a duplicate, because I attempted to clarify the answer to this question in the proposed duplicate's comments, but was told to ask another official question. ----------------------------------------------- [This answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89637/56378) follows temporal logic to reason that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is logically impossible: >Logically, it would be impossible for Jesus to be holding in his hand a piece of bread that had become his broken, sacrificial body, prior to that body having died in sacrifice. This is a defense of the statement [here](https://normangeisler.com/does-the-nt-support-the-rc-view-of-communion/) by [Norman Geisler](http://normangeisler.com/about/) : >It is not *possible* since Jesus would be holding himself in his own hand (when He said, “this is my body”). We know that Jesus is not bound by the physics that would prevent a man from walking on water (Matthew 14:25). Who teaches, and where can one find a defense, that Jesus is bound by the physics of time?

I am aware of Romans chapter 9 and it’s eternal implications for eternal destinies, especially given the Reformed interpretation of it. I am also aware of the doctrines of “Original Sin” & “God’s Sovereignty” by which He makes all people: > **But now, O Lord, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our > potter; And all we are the work of Your hand**. Isaiah 64:8*** We also read: > “For as ***through the one man’s disobedience the many were made > sinners***, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be > made righteous.” Romans 5:19 **My question** is: According to the **reformed** tradition, why does God even bother to continue to give people breath & life (**1 Tim 6:13**) to those who are already sinners **in Adam**? (**Ephesians 2:3**, **Rom 5:19**) My mind thinks of **Acts 17:22-31**, yet this seems confusing to me ***even as a Reformed person myself***. Put it another way, a **reformed confession** states in relation to the Fall: > “Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of > Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, **God was > pleased**, according to his wise and holy counsel, **to permit**, having > purposed to order it to his own glory.” What are we to make of God’s design of such a permission? What is God’s end goal in Creation/Providence/The Fall, etc? **NOTE**: Please **only** answer if you are also Reformed, it would help answer my question better. Or if you are knowledgeable enough in the Reformed tradition.

In the *Diary* of Saint Faustina, entry **(586)**, Our Lord says--- >**And know this, too, My daughter: all creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill My will.** I have gone through all 1828 entries of St. Faustina's *Diary* on multiple occasions and have found no contradictions (save one insignificant date). Therefore, I am convinced of its truth, albeit I am having difficulty understanding what the above quote means. From a Catholic perspective, what might this mean? For clearly, God does not *will* the sinner's sin, but rather, permits it (for a greater good, I believe, known to Him. Perhaps this is an answer.)

Disclaimer: This question is not intended to suggest that God is not sovereign under Arminianism. It is simply a question for clarification, as I haven't really found a detailed description. Also, I have read [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3563/how-does-the-arminian-view-of-salvation-account-for-gods-sovereignty) but it's not quite what I'm asking. When I ask "What is the Arminian view of God's providence", I am not referring to soteriology (specifically, at least - it would be included) but to how God brings about His plan, or any given part thereof. Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome? For example, a Reformed Christian might say that God determines things and need not take into account free will so can easily bring about X, while a Molinist would say God arranges the circumstances so humans will freely act in a way that brings about X. Is this within the scope of Arminianism? What level of detail do Arminians say God's plan has? Does it include individual human actions? I realize that's several questions but they all fit within this one/are details that I would hope to be included in the answer to the main question.

I am looking for an overview of the major historical approaches to the following question/group of questions: Since God has given us this body to do good or bad, then does he share at all in the praise or blame we incur for particular acts? And if he does, why is it that we are judged to heaven or hell based on those acts? I realize the general philosophical nature of this question, but I assume that there will be a relatively small number of historically well-represented or well-supported approaches to the question. **An overview of the top two or three approaches would suffice.**

I have noticed a version of this question (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/901/does-god-have-free-will ) however I would like to ask it in a slightly different way: What are the most significant biblical and other (patristic, scholastic) arguments for God's free will from the Catholic perspective?

The Scriptures tell us: > The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now **he commands all people everywhere to repent**, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. – Acts 17:30–31 ESV (emphasis mine) And yet: > ...the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. – Matthew 7:14 ESV The unavoidable conclusion is that most people that hear the call to repentance, either ignore, resist or reject it (this sadly, also accords with our experience). A common Reformed argument* (e.g. ) against the doctrine of General Atonement , is that a non-efficacious (in terms of its intended *scope*) Atonement is not consistent with the Sovereignty of God – on the surface, a reasonable argument, particularly from a Reformed perspective of the Sovereignty of God that rests on Unconditional Election and Irresistable Grace. From a Reformed perspective, how is a non-efficacious (again, in terms of its intended *scope*) call to repentance any different in this respect? Why isn't that equally inconsistent with the Sovereignty of God? If a King bids a man to come, and the man comes not, is this not an affront to the King's sovereignty? ---------- ***Edit**: Ok, so maybe it's not as common as I thought, and possibly not strictly logical, but here is some evidence that it *is* advanced by people who *should* be able to articulate a consistent position: - "Unlimited atonement is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God." - Rev. Steven Houck, Immanuel Protestant Reformed Church Lacombe, Alberta. source - "Proponents of limited atonement often make a fifth argument, which is that unlimited atonement cannot be reconciled with God's sovereignty." - p200 Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach By Kenneth Keathley. source

A.W Pink in "The sovereignty of God" says in the introduction- "Two things are beyond dispute: God is sovereign, man is responsible". That compatibilist point of view is compared to Libertarian thinking in Scott Christensen's book "What about Free Will?" page 238. Is there a book which challenges both compatibilist and libertarian thinking by putting forward a third possibility, namely hard determinism? Hard determinism- all human choices are necessarily determined by prior conditions, which in this Christian context would include God's sovereignty. Libertarianism- Freedom of choice is the ability to choose contrary to any prior factors that influence the choice including one's motives, desires and even God Himself. Compatibilism-God determines human choices, yet every person freely makes their own choices.

Does Calvinism (and those who believe in Unconditional Election) teach that Cain was elected to Salvation? This is my source for defining Unconditional Election. >Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21). Source: https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm My question is sincere, as I struggle with many of the doctrines of the Protestant Revolt, and find countless objections to the new teachings of especially Calvin. How do you resolve the issue of Cain in Gen 4:6-7? >“The Lord said to Cain, “why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? ***If you do well***, will you not be accepted? And if you ***do not do well***, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” In my understanding of Protestant doctrine of Election, God would have created Cain for destruction, or else he would have created him for Salvation. God says that if Cain does well he will be accepted and if he does not well he will be consumed by sin? If God created Cain for destruction, would not he have said, “I have molded you for destruction, it is not in your power to do well, rather, I have made you this way for my Glory.” or something to that effect? It seems rather that the dispensation of Cain resides entirely on his own free will, at least on the surface. Why would God offer to him something directly opposite to the purpose for which God created him, making it sound as if he could do otherwise than what he has done. If the tradition of Unconditional Election is Truth, then Cain must have been a member of the Elect of God. Otherwise, God would not have told him that he would be accepted if he did well. I struggle with these Protestant doctrines because they seem to go against the grain in every case, like a jigsaw puzzle piece jammed into the wrong space. When I hear sermons or teachings by the likes of James White or R.C. Sproul I hear what they are saying and unlike onlookers who nod in agreement having what appears to be a shared understanding that they too are fortunate to be part of the arbitrarily chosen elect, unlike myself destined for eternal damnation. Which leaves me, if I was somehow convinced of Unconditional Election, to be the only person who accepts the Doctrine with the understanding that I’m not one of those elect! Please explain how Cain might not be the Elect of God if his acceptance is subject to what he does.

In John 14:13-14, Jesus says the following to his disciples: > And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be > glorified in the Son. You may ask Me for anything in My name, and I > will do it. It is my understanding that this passage (see also Matthew 7:7 ) does not teach that God answers any and all petitions we might ask in the name of Jesus (as if God is merely a cosmic vending machine). Rather, it indicates that as we nurture our relationship with Him, our petitions will be more and more aligned with His sovereign will, which He will accomplish anyway. As an example of this, consider Jesus' petition in the garden in Luke 22:42: > Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, > but yours be done. So it seems clear to me, again based on how I've been taught, that God answers those prayers that align with His sovereign will. Am I thinking about this correctly?

I have many Calvinist friends, and when we discuss matters of theology or doctrine, almost inevitably, the conversation turns to them saying something like "That's because of God's sovereignty," or "That undermines God's sovereignty." In fact, most (if not all) of the 5 points of 5-point Calvinism hinge on the sovereignty of God as their cornerstone, either directly, or as they build on the other points. I have my own idea of what God's sovereignty means, but it must be quite different than what Calvinists mean by this phrase, because when they throw that phrase at me to support their views, I usually see my concept of God's sovereignty contradicting their view. So... what is the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty, and where is it based in scripture?

Numbers 23:19 is very clear that God cannot change his mind and when He says He will do something He will do it. And yet in Judges 10:13 we see God saying : > But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you. and then He saves them. I do not want answers from a Open Theist perspective.

Is the concept of God's sovereignty disputed outside of Reformed theology, and is God's sovereignty a label for God that is exclusively used in the context of Reformed theology?