Questions about Predestination

[Ignatios]

How is God just when He supposedly predestined the fate of some of His image-bearers to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, before they were created? Did God predestine their fate before He created them?

If all men sin because Adam sinned, and Adam's sin came from Satan's influence, then why did Satan sin? Did Satan have free will? If Satan had free will, how were his actions predestined by God? If Satan didn't have free will, what or who made him sin?

If we, according to Reformed Theology, sin because we have a sinful nature, and a nature that is sinful necessarily produces sinful actions, then why did Adam sin when, according to Reformed Theology, he had a perfect nature? Was Satan able to change Adam's nature? If so, why is Adam responsible for his actions when they are the necessary product of his nature? Did Adam have the ability to sin and the ability to not sin? Does this mean that his nature simply had the capacity to sin or not, but that his actions were predetermined by another, or does this mean that he had free will?

Is God responsible for our regeneration, all the good we do and our whole salvation? Why should we believe that God does everything in salvation? Should we believe in the Reformed understanding of God's Providence so as to give him all the glory in our salvation because he predestined it and controls it from start to finish? If he gets all the glory for our salvation, then why doesn't he get the shame of our damnation from start to finish, since he predestined it? Is there any distinction between God's relationship to the saved and the damned in his predestination? We could say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". We could also say that God's will is beyond our comprehension, that his ways are not our ways. I think that is a plausable place to end, except for the fact that there's no discernable reason why God would put his people into a position where we are asking ourselves, "why did God predestine so many people we love to eternal torment and save only a few when, if it were up to us, we would forgive and save our loved ones?" Is it because God is just and holy and can't let sin go? If he can't let sin go, then how did he pardon sin when he punished his Son instead? Why didn't he predestine all men to be saved in Christ when it would still show his power? In fact, wouldn't it show his power more to overcome death and bring eternal life to all men, instead of raising only some to eternal life, and then pouring out eternal wrath upon others? Wouldn't that make Christ's honor for his sacrifice even greater?

It has been said by some of the Reformed that the good end of heaven and eternal life for the just surpasses the suffering in this age and in the age to come, which is why it's okay to say that God predestined most of humanity to damnation and yet still look forward to the glory of the future age. In other words, it's all worth it. This is not a sufficient justification for us to abandon our understanding of mercy and forgiveness. If God is so loving to forgive some on the basis of his cross, why does his love not extend to all? And how are we to stand idly and worshipfully by while God annihilates most of the human race according to his plan before the foundations of the earth? The real problem is that the problem is constantly staring us in the face. Humanity is broken down into two groups, one much larger than the other, which are predetermined to salvation or damnation. Why? "We can't know God's will." Okay, but why would he let this knowledge out to us in the first place? It's awful to think that our friends and family members are against Christ because God determined them to be. His commandments for everyone are superfluous since he already has everything predestined. No one commands inanimate objects to worship, and then destroys them when they don't.

I'll stop there.

 

[wnwall]

.deleted.

 

[bradfordl]

Rom 9:18-24 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (24) even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

 

[kj7gs]

How is God just when He supposedly predestined the fate of some of His image-bearers to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, before they were created? Did God predestine their fate before He created them?

If all men sin because Adam sinned, and Adam's sin came from Satan's influence, then why did Satan sin? Did Satan have free will? If Satan had free will, how were his actions predestined by God? If Satan didn't have free will, what or who made him sin?

If we, according to Reformed Theology, sin because we have a sinful nature, and a nature that is sinful necessarily produces sinful actions, then why did Adam sin when, according to Reformed Theology, he had a perfect nature? Was Satan able to change Adam's nature? If so, why is Adam responsible for his actions when they are the necessary product of his nature? Did Adam have the ability to sin and the ability to not sin? Does this mean that his nature simply had the capacity to sin or not, but that his actions were predetermined by another, or does this mean that he had free will?

Is God responsible for our regeneration, all the good we do and our whole salvation? Why should we believe that God does everything in salvation? Should we believe in the Reformed understanding of God's Providence so as to give him all the glory in our salvation because he predestined it and controls it from start to finish? If he gets all the glory for our salvation, then why doesn't he get the shame of our damnation from start to finish, since he predestined it? Is there any distinction between God's relationship to the saved and the damned in his predestination? We could say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". We could also say that God's will is beyond our comprehension, that his ways are not our ways. I think that is a plausable place to end, except for the fact that there's no discernable reason why God would put his people into a position where we are asking ourselves, "why did God predestine so many people we love to eternal torment and save only a few when, if it were up to us, we would forgive and save our loved ones?" Is it because God is just and holy and can't let sin go? If he can't let sin go, then how did he pardon sin when he punished his Son instead? Why didn't he predestine all men to be saved in Christ when it would still show his power? In fact, wouldn't it show his power more to overcome death and bring eternal life to all men, instead of raising only some to eternal life, and then pouring out eternal wrath upon others? Wouldn't that make Christ's honor for his sacrifice even greater?

It has been said by some of the Reformed that the good end of heaven and eternal life for the just surpasses the suffering in this age and in the age to come, which is why it's okay to say that God predestined most of humanity to damnation and yet still look forward to the glory of the future age. In other words, it's all worth it. This is not a sufficient justification for us to abandon our understanding of mercy and forgiveness. If God is so loving to forgive some on the basis of his cross, why does his love not extend to all? And how are we to stand idly and worshipfully by while God annihilates most of the human race according to his plan before the foundations of the earth? The real problem is that the problem is constantly staring us in the face. Humanity is broken down into two groups, one much larger than the other, which are predetermined to salvation or damnation. Why? "We can't know God's will." Okay, but why would he let this knowledge out to us in the first place? It's awful to think that our friends and family members are against Christ because God determined them to be. His commandments for everyone are superfluous since he already has everything predestined. No one commands inanimate objects to worship, and then destroys them when they don't.

I'll stop there.

How is God just when He supposedly predestined the fate of some of His image-bearers to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, before they were created? Did God predestine their fate before He created them?

- You are describing hyper Calvinism, not Calvinism. Your premise that he predestined some to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, is closer to Arminianism. If we have free will, and God knew who would choose him, then by definition he created them in spite of this knowledge, and therefore for the purpose of eternal torment which would have made God the author of evil and the double predestination you are referring to.


If all men sin because Adam sinned, and Adam's sin came from Satan's influence, then why did Satan sin? Did Satan have free will? If Satan had free will, how were his actions predestined by God? If Satan didn't have free will, what or who made him sin?

- Satan did indeed influence Adam and Eve's decision to disobey, but free will has to do with the ability to maintain fellowship with God, not just make a decision for right or wrong. Satan lost that fellowship, and so did Adam. Neither Satan nor Adam's heritage deserve salvation. The ability to lose fellowship does not necessarily mean the ability to regain it.


If we, according to Reformed Theology, sin because we have a sinful nature, and a nature that is sinful necessarily produces sinful actions, then why did Adam sin when, according to Reformed Theology, he had a perfect nature?

- Already discussed above.

Was Satan able to change Adam's nature?

- You are implying that Satan caused Adam's sin, and he did not. Adam caused Adam's sin.

If so, why is Adam responsible for his actions when they are the necessary product of his nature?
- If Adam caused Adam's sin, then wouldn't Adam be responsible for that sin, and all others following? He was guilty and stood condemned before the Lord, as we all do.

Did Adam have the ability to sin and the ability to not sin? Does this mean that his nature simply had the capacity to sin or not, but that his actions were predetermined by another, or does this mean that he had free will?
- Adam have the ability to sin and while in fellowship with God, he most definitely have the ability to not sin. Once he lost that fellowship, though, his sin nature clouded his ability to look to God without God's direct intervention. He had free agency, i.e. the ability to make day-to-day decisions, but none of those decisions would ever again lead to God. Adam needed salvation, as we all do.

Is God responsible for our regeneration, all the good we do and our whole salvation?
- Yes, God is responsible for our regeneration. We cannot do it ourselves. All of the "good" we do, again, without the Lord, is worthless. And yes, God is responsible for our whole salvation, from beginning to end.


Why should we believe that God does everything in salvation?
- Because man can do nothing for his salvation.

Should we believe in the Reformed understanding of God's Providence so as to give him all the glory in our salvation because he predestined it and controls it from start to finish?
- This is the only logical way to look at it, in my opinion.

If he gets all the glory for our salvation, then why doesn't he get the shame of our damnation from start to finish, since he predestined it?
- Because we are not talking about double predestination here that has to do with man's capability to look to God for salvation, he cannot, and therefore if God leaves him in his sins, he is punished for those sins.

Is there any distinction between God's relationship to the saved and the damned in his predestination?
- Of course there is a distinction. Out of all of humanity that cannot merit heaven at all, God chooses some, a remnant, to have a relationship with, for his glory. While God does not will that anyone should perish, this does not mean that he sits on the sidelines, crying and hoping that the reprobate will come to him. No, he is glorified in his election and his reprobation.

We could say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". We could also say that God's will is beyond our comprehension, that his ways are not our ways. I think that is a plausable place to end, except for the fact that there's no discernable reason why God would put his people into a position where we are asking ourselves, "why did God predestine so many people we love to eternal torment and save only a few when, if it were up to us, we would forgive and save our loved ones?"
- As I indicated above, God is glorified either way. We have nothing to say about who deserves heaven and who does not, because no one deserves heaven.


Is it because God is just and holy and can't let sin go?
- He doesn't let sin go. It must be atoned for, and his son has paid the price for those that will come to him.

If he can't let sin go, then how did he pardon sin when he punished his Son instead?
- Because this was a payment, the law fulfilled.

Why didn't he predestine all men to be saved in Christ when it would still show his power?
- For that matter, why is the Old Testament about Israel as God's chosen people, and not about the entire world? God gave instructions to the people that he called his own, and forgave them through the propitiation of animal sacrifices, blood spilled, death by proxy, for their sins. Non-Israelites did not do this, they did not deserve heaven either, and the fact that God chooses some rather than all, is his prerogative. He would have been just as glorified in condemning all of mankind to hell, or not even letting Adam and Eve live once they lost fellowship with him.

In fact, wouldn't it show his power more to overcome death and bring eternal life to all men, instead of raising only some to eternal life, and then pouring out eternal wrath upon others? Wouldn't that make Christ's honor for his sacrifice even greater?
- God owes man nothing.

It has been said by some of the Reformed that the good end of heaven and eternal life for the just surpasses the suffering in this age and in the age to come, which is why it's okay to say that God predestined most of humanity to damnation
-Double predestination again, no need to discuss this.

and yet still look forward to the glory of the future age. In other words, it's all worth it. This is not a sufficient justification for us to abandon our understanding of mercy and forgiveness. If God is so loving to forgive some on the basis of his cross, why does his love not extend to all?
- I think the opposite of this is true, why does his wrath not extend to all? That we have the possibility of once again gaining fellowship with God, even while we still sin, is a love that surpasses understanding.


And how are we to stand idly and worshipfully by while God annihilates most of the human race according to his plan before the foundations of the earth?
- Because we have nothing to say in our own defense. We deserve annihilation.

The real problem is that the problem is constantly staring us in the face. Humanity is broken down into two groups, one much larger than the other, which are predetermined to salvation or damnation. Why?
- Two groups, yes, and double predestination aside, it has been this way from Adam. God has chosen to save a remnant, Israel and the Old Testament, and the "new Israel" in the New Testament.


"We can't know God's will." Okay, but why would he let this knowledge out to us in the first place?
- Good question, there is no reason why he should.

It's awful to think that our friends and family members are against Christ because God determined them to be.
- You mean they are simply true to their sin nature and shake their fists at God, as we all would without his intervention.

His commandments for everyone are superfluous since he already has everything predestined. No one commands inanimate objects to worship, and then destroys them when they don't.
- If we had the capability to maintain fellowship with God, you would be correct.

I'll stop there.
- Hope my responses helped.

 

[pippa]

Rom 9:18-24 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (24) even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

ok i wont say God is unjust, because that makes my question more complicated. i will agree that its just to punish sin. what i dont understand is why we say God is good, kind and loving, when he created us KNOWING that so many would end up in hell. wouldnt it have been kinder not to create us at all?

how can it be kind to the 'damned' people, to have created them? it would have been better not have been born at all than to go to hell.

please dont just reply that its their own choice, or that its because God didnt want robots to love him, or that God has the right to do whatever he wants. that isnt my question. my question is , how can God be called kind for creating them regardless. if a human did such a thing, or a govt, we'd consider it cruel. he didnt need us, it will only benefit a minority, it will be horrific for the majority, so how was it nice of God to create? it wasnt nice at all. it was cruel of God. it doesnt make sense to say hes kind.

i go to a calvinist church now, but when this came up in a ladies bible study a few months ago, it was the start of me losing my love for God.

i wish there was some other christian who could understand what i'm saying. non believers do, but other christians dont seem to have any problem with God's cruel act of creating people he knew would end up in hell. (even if its their own fault).

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I'm not a Calvinist, but I think the Calvinist would respond, more or less, thusly:




These questions are best left to the dark counsels of the inscrutible will of God.

We humans can't possibly understand why God chooses some and not others, nor can we possibly understand the logic of it all. These things are beyond human comprehension, and are hidden behind the skirtails of the Shekinah glory.

We just have to say that God chose to create a race of people knowing in advance they would fall, and that he predetermined to save some, while assuring that others would not even have the opportunity for salvation.

And if anyone objects to this analysis on logical grounds or even on the character of God, we hide behind those extremely long skirttails of God's inscrutible, sovereign counsels, which are beyond question.

 

[pippa]

These questions are best left to the dark counsels of the inscrutible will of God.

We humans can't possibly understand why God chooses some and not others, nor can we possibly understand the logic of it all. These things are beyond human comprehension, and are hidden behind the skirtails of the Shekinah glory.

We just have to say that God chose to create a race of people knowing in advance they would fall, and that he predetermined to save some, while assuring that others would not even have the opportunity for salvation.

And if anyone objects to this analysis on logical grounds or even on the character of God, we hide behind those extremely long skirttails of God's inscrutible, sovereign counsels, which are beyond question.

thanks for understanding my question. what i object to is re God's character. because even if all people do have the chance salvation, even if they refuse it knowingly, God knew that they would. and he is willing for them to go to hell, for the sake of the others who wont. even knowing one person would go to hell would be a good reason not to create the world. for that reason, i can't help thinking God must be very cruel, and there'd be no point in putting trust in him. the best i could do is hope its not true, that theres been some mistake, maybe the bible's not true.it really doesnt make any sense.

pippa

 

[bradfordl]

These questions are best left to the dark counsels of the inscrutible will of God.

We humans can't possibly understand why God chooses some and not others, nor can we possibly understand the logic of it all. These things are beyond human comprehension, and are hidden behind the skirtails of the Shekinah glory.

We just have to say that God chose to create a race of people knowing in advance they would fall, and that he predetermined to save some, while assuring that others would not even have the opportunity for salvation.

And if anyone objects to this analysis on logical grounds or even on the character of God, we hide behind those extremely long skirttails of God's inscrutible, sovereign counsels, which are beyond question.

Benny Boy, this forum is "ask a Calvinist". Are you now a Calvinist? I figured you'd come around to our point of view. You need to change your denom icon so nobody'll be confused.

Unless.... no.... say it ain't so, Benny.... you wouldn't actually be decieving this poor gentle questioner into thinking you are a Calvinist while you actually are not?!? You wouldn't be that deceitful, now would you Ben? No... that couldn't be.... so I'm gonna think the best of you, m' man, and welcome you into the ranks of us Calvinists. Glad to have you here!

 

[pippa]

Benny Boy, this forum is "ask a Calvinist". Are you now a Calvinist? I figured you'd come around to our point of view. You need to change your denom icon so nobody'll be confused.

Unless.... no.... say it ain't so, Benny.... you wouldn't actually be decieving this poor gentle questioner into thinking you are a Calvinist while you actually are not?!? You wouldn't be that deceitful, now would you Ben? No... that couldn't be.... so I'm gonna think the best of you, m' man, and welcome you into the ranks of us Calvinists. Glad to have you here!

oh i see. haha. good one.

 

[bradfordl]

Oops... my mistake.... this is "Debate a Calvinist", not "Ask a Calvinist". Well... my apologies, Benny, but then it still looks like you're presenting yourself as one of us, so I still welcome you to the fold.

 

[bradfordl]

thanks for understanding my question. what i object to is re God's character. because even if all people do have the chance salvation, even if they refuse it knowingly, God knew that they would. and he is willing for them to go to hell, for the sake of the others who wont. even knowing one person would go to hell would be a good reason not to create the world. for that reason, i can't help thinking God must be very cruel, and there'd be no point in putting trust in him. the best i could do is hope its not true, that theres been some mistake, maybe the bible's not true.it really doesnt make any sense.

pippa

Pippa, this is a very difficult subject, and one that in all honesty has troubled me greatly in the past. The only answer I can give you, as a layman, is that what I finally came to see is that as much as I can come up with scenarios that would seem to have been better than the one God has ordained, I am just a speck of dust before Him, and my wisdom and understanding is less than minuscule before His. I see and know from creation that He is all-powerful and all-wise. That kind of immeasurable intellect must necessarily be holy and righteous; it would be completely illogical for Him not to be. As ugly as parts of reality are, since He created it all, it must have an over-arching good purpose... even if we can't see it, and even if it makes no sense to us.

From what I can discern from scripture and just plain logic, the very best purpose of anything is that God be glorified in all His holiness, so I must assume that to be the main intent of all we see. That it is incomprehensible to us now doesn't change that.

Isa 55:6-11 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; (7) let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (8) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. (9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (10) "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, (11) so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[pippa]

Pippa, this is a very difficult subject, and one that in all honesty has troubled me greatly in the past. The only answer I can give you, as a layman, is that what I finally came to see is that as much as I can come up with scenarios that would seem to have been better than the one God has ordained, I am just a speck of dust before Him, and my wisdom and understanding is less than minuscule before His. I see and know from creation that He is all-powerful and all-wise. That kind of immeasurable intellect must necessarily be holy and righteous; it would be completely illogical for Him not to be. As ugly as parts of reality are, since He created it all, it must have an over-arching good purpose... even if we can't see it, and even if it makes no sense to us.

From what I can discern from scripture and just plain logic, the very best purpose of anything is that God be glorified in all His holiness, so I must assume that to be the main intent of all we see. That it is incomprehensible to us now doesn't change that.
(Emphasis mine)

thanks for the honest reply. i have the awful feeling that God's idea of loving kindness must be different from mine. the implications of that are horrendous. if God's harshness is kindness, like letting people go to hell is kind, then my concept of kindness i thought i got from the bible, cant be applied to God. why would he necessarily look after me in the sense that i want to be looked after, if hes like that? how can i love a God i see as cruel? should i myself start to think cruel is kind? even if the bible is not correct, and the God of the bible is not the true God, then the God we have must be very cruel, and not likely to let everyone go to heaven. because he doesnt seem to mind that people and animals suffer horribly. well he doesnt mind enough to have set things up differently. anyway these are the troubling thoughts that have come to me over the last few months. when i pick up the bible and flick through for somewhere to start reading, i just see horrible rantings of God about what hes going to do to people, and i quickly shut the book and put it back on the shelf. i've been a christian for 20 years now. i never thought i would come to this state of mind. it doesnt leave much.

 

[Ignatios]

Pippa,

You hit the nail right on the head. God, according to Calvinism, reveals himself in the Bible as loving, longsuffering and forgiving to anyone who repents. The problem with this is, contrary to claims of God's ways being mysterious, Calvinists talk all the time about how God controls everything. He supposedly gets all the glory for human goodness, but doesn't get the shame of human sin, despite that human history has been one big monenergistic (single-willed) play from start to finish, with the characters being simply the manifestation, the emanation if you will, of God's will. This doctrine is identical with that of several dualist, gnostic religions present in the Church's early history. So, is God so mysterious that he acts in a way that is, to us, completely insane throughout all human history, and we can't even draw a comparison between his infinite mercy and self-sacrificing love, and his predetermined destruction and torture of most of humanity?

I believe the problem here is that, according to the biblical writers, they witnessed that acts and words of a wonderful, loving God who gave his Son out of his mercy toward all men. The Calvinist cosmology, soteriology, anthropology, and theology (triadology), the whole Calvinist system, must be mapped onto this biblical revelation, and so there going to be some inconsistencies where they don't overlap and match up. That's why we can't look at God's commands to forgive everyone and love our enemies at the same time we look at his predestined destruction of most people, including people we love.

The Orthodox view is that God doesn't predetermine the free choices of His people, but that He only knows them beforehand (since He transcends time) and that He sent His Son to give His life for all men, since He is the second Adam and in Jesus, all men will be given eternal life whether they choose to accept God's love or deny it. God's anger and wrath doesn't contradict His mercy, because His wrath isn't for its own sake, but is only a product people's rejection of God. God didn't cause Adam to die when he sinned, as Augustine taught, but Adam died as a natural consequence of his sin. Likewise, all will be made alive in Christ, even if they don't love Him. God doesn't predestine the destruction and eternal torment of people, they achieve that themselves of their own choice.

 

[bradfordl]

Pippa, we judge things according to our own perspectives and presuppositions, which can be completely at odds with reality. I guess that falls under His thoughts being above our thoughts and His ways our ways. I know it can be very disheartening from a perspective that it is cruel to send people to hell, or to allow the incomprehensible amount of suffering to happen throughout history. This all falls into the subject of the problem of evil, or theodicy. Here's an article that may help. Others here will have more links that will help.

 

[Reformationist]

How is God just when He supposedly predestined the fate of some of His image-bearers to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, before they were created?

How is it that you have the arrogance to question the holiness of God simply because He created people for reasons that you may not agree with? Are you in the place of God? For the sake of argument, assume we are right. What light does that cast upon your own judgment of God's actions?

I'll stop there.

Should've stopped long before you ever got to this point.

 

[Reformationist]

- You are describing hyper Calvinism, not Calvinism.

Actually, double predestination is a Calvinistic view. It is the view of equal ultimacy that is unbiblical and that is often referred to as hyper-Calvinism. Taking the track of the Lutherans, which you appear to do above, is to acknowledge the necessary and efficacious grace that leads the elect to everlasting felicity yet deny that withholding that necessary grace is tantamount to reprobation, i.e., double predestination. The distinction that needs to be made to avoid this trap is to acknowledge that God's method of predestination is not the same in dealing with the elect as with the reprobate. God actively intercedes, ensuring that the elect are born again. He is, however, passive in regards to the reprobate, who are left in their unregenerate state.

Anyway, not arguing with you. I'm sure you understand the difference. I'm just clarifying for those who may not differentiate between the Calvinistic notion of double predestination and the heinous and unbiblical view of equal ultimacy.

God bless

 

[Ignatios]

How is God just when He supposedly predestined the fate of some of His image-bearers to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, before they were created? Did God predestine their fate before He created them?

- You are describing hyper Calvinism, not Calvinism. Your premise that he predestined some to eternal torment before they could choose for themselves, is closer to Arminianism. If we have free will, and God knew who would choose him, then by definition he created them in spite of this knowledge, and therefore for the purpose of eternal torment which would have made God the author of evil and the double predestination you are referring to.

I'm pretty familiar with the different soteriological systems throughout the Medieval period and Protestant history, including Calvinism, so called Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism. However, I'm not understanding what you're saying here. I understand your comment about double predestination, although for God to create people knowing beforehand that they would sin is not equivalent with God creating evil when human persons choose evil freely of their own accord apart from God's will that they do so. Let's say that God predestines only the "elect" and that he "passes over" the others, a la infralapsarianism. This still doesn't absolve God of the charge of creating evil if we maintain that he "predestines whatsoever comes to pass". If I throw two puppies into the fire before they have the choice to jump into the fire themselves, and then I take one puppy out and save her and "pass over" the other puppy, that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for that puppy's death OR that I'm not responsible for throwing both puppies into the fire in the first place. Calvinistic Predestinarianism is insane logic, and obviously so, when God sent His Son to sacrifice His life for ours. According to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of the puppies jumping in the fire by their own accord, and me jumping in and smothering the whole fire with my body, thereby receiving burns everywhere. But all I care about is saving the puppies. That's how Christ's love for us is. He didn't cause our sin in the first place and then come to save us from it. Or did God not predestine everything, including sin?

If all men sin because Adam sinned, and Adam's sin came from Satan's influence, then why did Satan sin? Did Satan have free will? If Satan had free will, how were his actions predestined by God? If Satan didn't have free will, what or who made him sin?

- Satan did indeed influence Adam and Eve's decision to disobey, but free will has to do with the ability to maintain fellowship with God, not just make a decision for right or wrong. Satan lost that fellowship, and so did Adam. Neither Satan nor Adam's heritage deserve salvation. The ability to lose fellowship does not necessarily mean the ability to regain it.

I'm talking about the hypostatic ability to choose between various alternatives as a hypostatic faculty inherent in the hypostasized will of each hypostasis. This is what all the Church Fathers believed, that man, in order to have freedom in the image of God, is able to choose between alternatives (varying possibilities of good or even evil). At any rate, how did Satan sin? Did God predestine it?

If we, according to Reformed Theology, sin because we have a sinful nature, and a nature that is sinful necessarily produces sinful actions, then why did Adam sin when, according to Reformed Theology, he had a perfect nature?

- Already discussed above.

It wasn't sufficiently discussed above. If, according to Reformed Theology, natures produce actions (because every Reformed Theologian identifies nature with person), then why did Adam's perfect nature produce sinful actions?

Was Satan able to change Adam's nature?

- You are implying that Satan caused Adam's sin, and he did not. Adam caused Adam's sin.

If so, why is Adam responsible for his actions when they are the necessary product of his nature?
- If Adam caused Adam's sin, then wouldn't Adam be responsible for that sin, and all others following? He was guilty and stood condemned before the Lord, as we all do.

You're not dealing with the Reformed understanding of nature and person. By identifying nature and person, you have subsequently moved to assume nature back into person. Why is Adam responsible for his sin if it is the product of an inanimate nature? To give an example, I am not morally responsible for my hunger because it is a natural desire. I am responsible if I use that natural desire to do something unnatural, such as eat the fruit of a tree of which I wasn't supposed to eat.

Did Adam have the ability to sin and the ability to not sin? Does this mean that his nature simply had the capacity to sin or not, but that his actions were predetermined by another, or does this mean that he had free will?
- Adam have the ability to sin and while in fellowship with God, he most definitely have the ability to not sin. Once he lost that fellowship, though, his sin nature clouded his ability to look to God without God's direct intervention. He had free agency, i.e. the ability to make day-to-day decisions, but none of those decisions would ever again lead to God. Adam needed salvation, as we all do.

How did Adam have the ability to sin when he had a perfect nature? How did Adam have the ability to not sin when God predestined him to sin? If Adam had the ability to sin with a perfect nature, how are we not able to choose righteousness with a sinful nature? I'm not actually saying that we have the ability to be righteous with a sinful nature (our nature is not sinful in the Calvinistic sense).

Is God responsible for our regeneration, all the good we do and our whole salvation?
- Yes, God is responsible for our regeneration. We cannot do it ourselves. All of the "good" we do, again, without the Lord, is worthless. And yes, God is responsible for our whole salvation, from beginning to end.
Why should we believe that God does everything in salvation?
- Because man can do nothing for his salvation.
Should we believe in the Reformed understanding of God's Providence so as to give him all the glory in our salvation because he predestined it and controls it from start to finish?
- This is the only logical way to look at it, in my opinion.
If he gets all the glory for our salvation, then why doesn't he get the shame of our damnation from start to finish, since he predestined it?
- Because we are not talking about double predestination here that has to do with man's capability to look to God for salvation, he cannot, and therefore if God leaves him in his sins, he is punished for those sins.

So, God doesn't predestine whatsoever comes to pass?

Is there any distinction between God's relationship to the saved and the damned in his predestination?
- Of course there is a distinction. Out of all of humanity that cannot merit heaven at all, God chooses some, a remnant, to have a relationship with, for his glory. While God does not will that anyone should perish, this does not mean that he sits on the sidelines, crying and hoping that the reprobate will come to him. No, he is glorified in his election and his reprobation.

I'm sorry, I didn't state my question very well. I'll rephrase it in different terms. If God predestines all things, and he gets glory for predestining the salvation of some and, in fact, gets glory for their righteousness because it is his righteousness by the Holy Spirit in the elect, then why doesn't God take responsibility for the predestination of the sinners' lives? More simply, If God, who predestines everything, takes responsibility for goodness, then why doesn't he take responsibility for evil?

We could say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated". We could also say that God's will is beyond our comprehension, that his ways are not our ways. I think that is a plausable place to end, except for the fact that there's no discernable reason why God would put his people into a position where we are asking ourselves, "why did God predestine so many people we love to eternal torment and save only a few when, if it were up to us, we would forgive and save our loved ones?"
- As I indicated above, God is glorified either way. We have nothing to say about who deserves heaven and who does not, because no one deserves heaven.

This goes all the way back to my first question. You say that we all deserve hell, and that no one deserves heaven. Did God predestine everything? How does everyone deserve hell when God predestined them to hell (either directly according to supralapsarian double-predestination or indirectly according to infralapsarianism)? According to Calvinism, sin happens in time after God's predestination outside or before time. How does everyone deserve hell before they were even created?

Is it because God is just and holy and can't let sin go?
- He doesn't let sin go. It must be atoned for, and his son has paid the price for those that will come to him.
If he can't let sin go, then how did he pardon sin when he punished his Son instead?
- Because this was a payment, the law fulfilled.
Why didn't he predestine all men to be saved in Christ when it would still show his power?
- For that matter, why is the Old Testament about Israel as God's chosen people, and not about the entire world? God gave instructions to the people that he called his own, and forgave them through the propitiation of animal sacrifices, blood spilled, death by proxy, for their sins. Non-Israelites did not do this, they did not deserve heaven either, and the fact that God chooses some rather than all, is his prerogative. He would have been just as glorified in condemning all of mankind to hell, or not even letting Adam and Eve live once they lost fellowship with him.
In fact, wouldn't it show his power more to overcome death and bring eternal life to all men, instead of raising only some to eternal life, and then pouring out eternal wrath upon others? Wouldn't that make Christ's honor for his sacrifice even greater?
- God owes man nothing.

This necessitates that God's choice of some over others is arbitrary, and that he actually doesn't will the salvation of all men. If he willed the salvation of all men, and predestines everything, then all men would be saved. It's incoherent to say that he wills the salvation of all and, despite that he predestines men's lives, still wills that some men die in their sins, either through His predestination of their damnation or, as you propose, His neglect of their salvation despite his supposed will for them to be saved.
Your explanation of Israel as opposed to the Gentile nations is exactly on target. This is what St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is all about (including chapter 9).
Unfortunately, you go back to making God's mercy a completely arbitrary thing when you say that it would have glorified him just as much to let all people go to hell. Salvation, particularly Christ's suffering and death, is quite a light matter when we maintain that God is equally glorified either way. One must ask, "what's the point?" The biblical witness to God's eros toward Israel and the world is an obvious repudiation of this idea.

It has been said by some of the Reformed that the good end of heaven and eternal life for the just surpasses the suffering in this age and in the age to come, which is why it's okay to say that God predestined most of humanity to damnation
-Double predestination again, no need to discuss this.

Okay, how about since God predestined everything, as the Reformed would have it, why is he not responsible for somehow "passing over" people that would later "deserve" hell because of his predestination? He would know very well what the consequence would be.

and yet still look forward to the glory of the future age. In other words, it's all worth it. This is not a sufficient justification for us to abandon our understanding of mercy and forgiveness. If God is so loving to forgive some on the basis of his cross, why does his love not extend to all?
- I think the opposite of this is true, why does his wrath not extend to all? That we have the possibility of once again gaining fellowship with God, even while we still sin, is a love that surpasses understanding.
And how are we to stand idly and worshipfully by while God annihilates most of the human race according to his plan before the foundations of the earth?
- Because we have nothing to say in our own defense. We deserve annihilation.

This is only possible to maintain if God doesn't predestine everything in the first place. We don't deserve annihilation before we are created.

The real problem is that the problem is constantly staring us in the face. Humanity is broken down into two groups, one much larger than the other, which are predetermined to salvation or damnation. Why?
- Two groups, yes, and double predestination aside, it has been this way from Adam. God has chosen to save a remnant, Israel and the Old Testament, and the "new Israel" in the New Testament.
"We can't know God's will." Okay, but why would he let this knowledge out to us in the first place?
- Good question, there is no reason why he should.
It's awful to think that our friends and family members are against Christ because God determined them to be.
- You mean they are simply true to their sin nature and shake their fists at God, as we all would without his intervention.

This, again, is assuming the Reformed conception of predestination.

His commandments for everyone are superfluous since he already has everything predestined. No one commands inanimate objects to worship, and then destroys them when they don't.
- If we had the capability to maintain fellowship with God, you would be correct.

Could you explain how this answers my objection? How does God predestine everything and then put the responsibility of his choices onto objects when they are unresistant and, in infancy and before creation, unconscious manifestations of his will?
Thank you for your response.

 

[Ignatios]

How is it that you have the arrogance to question the holiness of God simply because He created people for reasons that you may not agree with? Are you in the place of God? For the sake of argument, assume we are right. What light does that cast upon your own judgment of God's actions?



Should've stopped long before you ever got to this point.

This is the same judgment of your type of interpretation in all the Church Fathers. Yes, all the guys who formulation Orthodox Christology and the Trinity. I don't assume your view is correct.

Assume my view, that Reformed Theology mirrors Manicheaism, Origenism and other dualist religions and heresies, and that I don't think God would like to be held responsible for the absolute predestination of everything, including the destruction of most of the human race, before they even existed.

How dare you?!! (I'm not serious, but you know what I mean)

 

[BenjaminRandall]

Actually, Brafordl, I thought I had given a perfectly good Calvinist reply.

 

[wnwall]

He supposedly gets all the glory for human goodness, but doesn't get the shame of human sin.

Do you blame the sun for night time and coldness? God is the source of light and all things good, and sin is the result of him withholding his light, not the result of any active agency on his part. The Reformed catechisms are clear on this.

1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Westminster Confession chapter III, emphasis mine).
​