Stonewall Predestination and motivation

[FarawayFriend]

I'm sorry if this question has already been discussed, but I was just contemplating about Jackson's calm during battle and his strong belief that whatever happens is predestined. That belief made him calm when he came under fire and let him also forgive the poor soldier who was unfortunate enough to wound him (which ultimately even lead to his death). Probably many of us know his famous quote:
"My religious belief teaches me that I am as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time of my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave."

My question is:
Why was Jackson motivated to fight if he believed that no matter what man does, the Lord has already set the fate of everything? Why fighting if nothing can be achieved, nothing can be changed? And even if he saw himself as an instrument of the Lord's will, he must have thought that his opponents were also. So why for example hurrying his "Foot cavalry" when the outcome was already set?
To me this is a contradiction. What do you think?

 

[ole]

On the surface, it might appear to be, but there is a difference between predestination and doing your uttermost in the face of it.

 

[James B White]

I think the quote in your post has the seeds of the answer. One might ask, if all was predestined, why did Jackson need to do anything to be ready for his death? God would have preordained that he would either be ready or not.

I just don't think it's possible for a normal human being to believe that he is so useless that he takes no action whatsoever. One could believe that one was predestined to take action and still take action.

 

[unionblue]

He just might have been unbalanced mentally.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Thank you, I have meanwhile searched a bit and found this thesis:

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1925&context=etd

(another one I would love to add to our virtual bookshelf, should there ever be one)

The author is also aware of the contradiction (page 188):

But to me, what seems to be an answer only raises more questions ... even if he himself could live with that contradiction, how could he inspire his men (and from all I have read, they were indeed inspired by him)?
Does anyone know of a quote of Jackson, where he explains his thoughts?

 

[CSA Today]

He just might have been unbalanced mentally.

Blue, are you saying Calvinists are mentally unbalanced? Tsk-Tsk

 

[unionblue]

Blue, are you saying Calvinists are mentally unbalanced? Tsk-Tsk

No, just certain generals throughout history.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

I highly recommend this book to the believer and the non-believer.

God bless,
Bill

 

[nitrofd]

I'm sorry if this question has already been discussed, but I was just contemplating about Jackson's calm during battle and his strong belief that whatever happens is predestined. That belief made him calm when he came under fire and let him also forgive the poor soldier who was unfortunate enough to wound him (which ultimately even lead to his death). Probably many of us know his famous quote:
"My religious belief teaches me that I am as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time of my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave."

My question is:
Why was Jackson motivated to fight if he believed that no matter what man does, the Lord has already set the fate of everything? Why fighting if nothing can be achieved, nothing can be changed? And even if he saw himself as an instrument of the Lord's will, he must have thought that his opponents were also. So why for example hurrying his "Foot cavalry" when the outcome was already set?
To me this is a contradiction. What do you think?

Faraway friend, I thought you might like to know that your question made one of the highlights of notifications on "Network Blogs" today.

 

[Private Watkins]

Thank you, I have meanwhile searched a bit and found this thesis:

View attachment 72513

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1925&context=etd

(another one I would love to add to our virtual bookshelf, should there ever be one)

The author is also aware of the contradiction (page 188):

View attachment 72516

But to me, what seems to be an answer only raises more questions ... even if he himself could live with that contradiction, how could he inspire his men (and from all I have read, they were indeed inspired by him)?
Does anyone know of a quote of Jackson, where he explains his thoughts?

Me thinks that perhaps it has something to do with distinguishing between Effort and Result in one's mind and approach to life, especially in big things (like a war), but some small things too (like growing a garden). In other words, one may put total focus and strength into one's efforts and actions, doing one's best in all things (one's duty), but accept that the results, or outcomes, are often out of one's hands, influenced by many other things, and thus governed by something greater, such as Providence, as it was often called during the 19th century.

 

[Private Watkins]

Me thinks that perhaps it has something to do with distinguishing between Effort and Result in one's mind and approach to life, especially in big things (like a war), but small things too. In other words, one may put total focus and strength into ones efforts and actions, but accept that the results, or outcomes, are out of one's hands, influnced by many other things, and thus governed by something greater, such as providence as it was often called during the 19th century.

Maybe that would be considered "unbalanced" by some, but it sort of makes sense to me...

 

[alexjack]

I would imagine that even someone who believed in predestination knew that you had to 'live' your life otherwise it would be like thinking, ' I am not going to eat. If God wants me to live He will keep me alive without food.'

 

[diane]

It does make sense for a soldier, or a warrior. Some of the most fearless and ferocious people in the world believed that way. In Jackson's case, he truly believed not only was God in complete charge of all things but that he was an instrument of God's will. That he came to by way of believing God supplied a way and a method - which might be you if you were submitted to that will. This is why Jackson could stand in a road during the Mexican war with cannonballs bouncing between his legs and encourage his men to come on down! If that cannonball was meant by God to kill him, he could be twenty miles away and it would come sailing around forty corners, over river through dell, to smack him in the head.

 

[James B White]

Here's a different spin on Jackson's religion, implying he was reluctant to adopt predestination. No idea if this has been corroborated.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Oi2gAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA625&lpg=PA625&dq="repugnance+to+predestination+was+long+and+determined."&source=bl&ots=5mp2Bbbkdm&sig=9ec4_TpAY9e8HQvwVKRtRVYtdxg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CrCWVZf1KIH3sAXWlIjwDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q="repugnance to predestination was long and determined."&f=false


Jackson had been baptized in the Episcopal Church, but not confirmed. His leanings, however, were toward that church. One day I read him the definition of sin given in the Assembly's "Shorter Catechism." Its brevity and comprehensiveness impressed him very much. Knowing his great admiration for sententiousness, I read him the answers to several other questions. He became so much interested that he borrowed the little book, which he said he had never seen nor heard of before. He kept it a week or more, and on returning it said that he had read it very carefully, that it was a wonderful production, a model of fine English, as well as of sound theology. I then gave him the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. This, too, he had never seen. He kept it a much longer time than the catechism, and compared the foot-notes with his Bible. He professed himself pleased with everything except predestination and infant baptism. His scruples about the latter did not last very long. In the last years of his life he was regarded as a fatalist; but his repugnance to predestination was long and determined.

John B. Lyle of Lexington, one of the holiest of men, was instrumental in first arousing a religious interest in Jackson's mind. But even after he had become an earnest Christian, and wished to connect himself with the church, he had no special predilection forPresbyterianism. This was determined by a potent influence, unconscious, I doubt not, to himself. He fell in love with the daughter of a Presbyterian clergyman.

 

[ForeverFree]

The concept of predestination presents a paradox. On the one hand, everything that happens is predestined. On the other hand, a person has no idea of what that "pre-destiny" is until it happens. Thus, people wind up acting on their own free will, and ultimately it is their own free will that decides their fate.

I think the real "problem" that such men would have had is: if, for example, I fight and lose... what does that say about God's plan for me? If God "decided" that my desire a new country should fail... does that mean my desires were wrong? Does that mean that God is punsihing me for doing something wrong? The notion of predestination does not lead one to deliberate over his actions and decisions. Rather, it causes one to be reflective and introspective about the results of those actions and decisions. That's how I see it.

But I don't know if that is how Jackson looked at it.

- Alan

 

[FarawayFriend]

In that thesis the author said that Jackson considered even his sins were sent from God for him (Jackson) to learn from.

Thank you all for your thoughts! And I have read somewhere that Jackson's first contact with predetermination was after the Mexican War, when US forces were still lingering in Mexico City. If that is
true it was maybe the experience that he lived through that war that led him to the belief that his time had not come yet. Which might be the source of his strong belief in predetermination. But this is my own thinking and I am by far no Jackson expert.

 

[diane]

The concept of predestination presents a paradox. On the one hand, everything that happens is predestined. On the other hand, a person has no idea of what that "pre-destiny" is until it happens. Thus, people wind up acting on their own free will, and ultimately it is their own free will that decides our fate.

I think the real "problem" that such men would have had is: if, for example, I fight and lose... what does that say about God's plan for me? If God "decided" that my desire a new country should fail... does that mean my desires were wrong? Does that mean that God is punsihing me for doing something wrong? The notion of predestination does not lead one to deliberate over his actions and decsions. Rather, it causes one to be reflective and introspective about the results of those actions and decisions. That's how I see it.

But I don't know if that is how Jackson looked at it.

- Alan

I think you're right in your assessment of Jackson's core belief about predestination, and also James B White's post that Jackson's views were not pure Presbyterian. He joined that faith because it most closely lined up with his own beliefs but not entirely. For instance, when Jackson's daughter was born he was elated but also warned his wife that they must not be overly attached to the child or it might be taken from them. So he did have the element of free will, which is his viewpoint was free will to follow or not follow God's will, whether that was clear or not. Jackson would be praying in order to know God's will then doing the best to follow it as it was understood by him. Further enlightenment would come when he was spiritually ready. If something seemed to go awry, Jackson would meditate and pray about it to see where he had gone wrong in understanding and/or executing God's will. He had no doubt his fighting for the Confederacy was that will and he also had no doubt that when he was shot, that was God's way of saying your part here is finished. When asked why he thought Napoleon lost Waterloo, he promptly replied, "God stopped him right there!"

 

[FarawayFriend]

Faraway friend, I thought you might like to know that your question made one of the highlights of notifications on "Network Blogs" today.

Wow! That is great... if only I knew what "Network Blogs" is...
*shame*

 

[CSA Today]

I would imagine that even someone who believed in predestination knew that you had to 'live' your life otherwise it would be like thinking, ' I am not going to eat. If God wants me to live He will keep me alive without food.'

As a young age, I had predestination explained to me as since God is all powerful and he knows all things –including an individual's future.

 

[Allie]

To answer your question, it's necessary to explain the concept of predestination as understood by Presbyterians. Modern Presbyterians, with the modern advantages of language developed by science-fiction authors, have a little easier time explaining this, but as I understand it their beliefs on the subject have not substantially changed since the Civil War.

It's a matter of being inside or outside the flow of time. Living human beings are inside the flow of time; God is outside it. Imagine you have a book. You can look at the whole thing and see it as a whole, or you can look at it from the perspective of a character in the book and see what happened moment by moment. What happened in the book is fixed; there's no point in you, the reader, saying, "I really hope Bob managed to save the dog." But the characters in the book aren't aware of your perspective. From their perspective, everything is happening in a line, and Bob has to struggle to save the dog. You can also compare it to a record. If you had the ability to read the scratches on the record and the record were big enough, you could look at an entire vinyl record and see what happened throughout an entire symphony at one time. Or you could play it, moment by moment.

This sort of discussion used to be limited to philosophy and religion, but more recently the theory of relativity suggests that something like this may be what is actually happening to us, since time does not really work the way humans perceive it to work. There's very real scientific discussion about whether free will really exists or is only an illusion. If our behavior is determined by the neurons in our brain, and we have no ability to control our own neurons, then what are we really controlling?