Did God create any creature with the plan to hate it?

[ViaCrucis]

So what is the Lutheran view of the idea that only because of the special grace of God the Holy Ghost convicting us of sin do we have the ability, or perhaps I should say the opportunity, to chose to repent and have faith, and to respond to that faith by being grafted on to the Body of Christ through baptism, but some people, due to misanthropy, misotheism, hardness of heart or addiction to the sinful passions will refuse the opportunity to repent and thus of their own stubborn volition will not be saved, whereas others will be saved because the grace of God made it possible for them to have faith?

This is the core mystery or question that is at the heart of what Lutheran theologians call the Crux Theologorum. The Crux Theologorum is this question: Cur alii alii non? "Why some, but not others?" More expansively, why are some saved but not others? Why do some, when they hear the Gospel, when the seed of the word is sown as in Jesus' parable, does it grow and blossom into faith by the power and watering of the Holy Spirit, and people believe; but for others when that seed is sown it is plucked by birds, or withers in the heat of the sun, or etc.

In one sense, the question is unanswerable. We don't know. In another sense, the only reason offered to us, at least in Scripture, is that not all believe, "But not all have obeyed the Gospel" (Romans 10:16). Now the word here translated as "obey" is an interesting one, the Greek here is ὑπήκουσαν (hypokousan, literally "under-hear"). For, immediately the Apostle will write that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17), so it is this "hearing" that is critical. For those who believe, the Holy Spirit through the instrument of the word, the Gospel, causes faith; and yet not all believe. The word has not, as it were, penetrated them.

Consider the many times where it is said, "They have ears to hear, but do not hear" (Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2). Paul himself, in Romans refers to this in Romans 11:8.

So we are left with this: The reason of "why not others" is because of their resistance, rejection, and unhearing ears.

What is, however, unanswerable, is how can one person hear, and hear to faith; and another hear, and not hear to faith. For the one who hears to faith does nothing of themselves, for the will is passive and God works the miracle and gift of faith; and for the other they do not believe.

And you can see why this becomes a frustrating and troublesome burden, a cross, which a theologian carries.

The Calvinist has no such burden, obviously, because they have introduced things which seem to resolve the Crux Theologorum, so they have no Crux Theologorum. Lutherans have no such luxury, we consider the Crux Theologorum a necessary burden to carry because to do otherwise would be a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its depth and power--that this Gospel is for every sinner because God loves and wills to save EVERYONE. If there is even a single person who is outside the Cross of Jesus Christ, then it is not Good News, because that person could be you or me. Thus the hope, and the assurance, the very promises of God which are in the Gospel would fall flat and powerless.

That's why Lutherans insist that, even if we can't resolve the question neatly, even if we cannot answer it well, even if we see this problem we simply have to say, "Even so, Your word O Lord endures forever."

The Crux Theologorum is answered unsatisfyingly and unanswered. And that's just how it is. Perhaps God, in His immeasurable wisdom shall, when all is said and done, show us that answer and how it was truly glorious--for He works all things toward the good--but as of now, on this side of the Eschaton, we only "see through a glass dimly".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So what is the Lutheran view of the idea that only because of the special grace of God the Holy Ghost convicting us of sin do we have the ability, or perhaps I should say the opportunity, to chose to repent and have faith, and to respond to that faith by being grafted on to the Body of Christ through baptism, but some people, due to misanthropy, misotheism, hardness of heart or addiction to the sinful passions will refuse the opportunity to repent and thus of their own stubborn volition will not be saved, whereas others will be saved because the grace of God made it possible for them to have faith?

Wisdom speaks to the issue, misotheism does not exist, it is a product of human imagination, perhaps a part of our own inexplicable misanthropy. Consider the thinking of the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom in his words, and the obvious truth of them -

For great power always belonged to thee alone: and who shall resist the strength of thy arm? For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon the earth. But thou hast mercy upon all, because thou canst do all things, and overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance. For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. And how could any thing endure, if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: because they are thine, O Lord, who lovest souls.​

Wisdom 11:22-27 DRB

What does it imply?

For God to create a world hateful to himself implies that, that which is hateful came from within God himself, that he has in his eternal and unchanging nature that which he himself hates; in short that there is self-hatred in God, in his very nature. If this were so sin would be born from God's own self hating, Satan would accuse because of God's own self accusation, suffering would arise from God's own self loathing suffering, and God would be both the source of sin and repentance, of promises and deliverances as well as punishments and destruction. Such a God is as loathsome to his creatures as he is to himself. This God cannot exist, because one can easily conceive a greater God than this, one who has no self hating and hates nothing that comes from himself. And we, his creatures who conceive such a malformed hideous God, we prove only how deep is the depravation of fallen human nature that it would conceive a God who is at once both Christ and Satan.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is the core mystery or question that is at the heart of what Lutheran theologians call the Crux Theologorum. The Crux Theologorum is this question: Cur alii alii non? "Why some, but not others?" More expansively, why are some saved but not others? Why do some, when they hear the Gospel, when the seed of the word is sown as in Jesus' parable, does it grow and blossom into faith by the power and watering of the Holy Spirit, and people believe; but for others when that seed is sown it is plucked by birds, or withers in the heat of the sun, or etc.

In one sense, the question is unanswerable. We don't know. In another sense, the only reason offered to us, at least in Scripture, is that not all believe, "But not all have obeyed the Gospel" (Romans 10:16). Now the word here translated as "obey" is an interesting one, the Greek here is ὑπήκουσαν (hypokousan, literally "under-hear"). For, immediately the Apostle will write that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17), so it is this "hearing" that is critical. For those who believe, the Holy Spirit through the instrument of the word, the Gospel, causes faith; and yet not all believe. The word has not, as it were, penetrated them.

Consider the many times where it is said, "They have ears to hear, but do not hear" (Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2). Paul himself, in Romans refers to this in Romans 11:8.

So we are left with this: The reason of "why not others" is because of their resistance, rejection, and unhearing ears.

What is, however, unanswerable, is how can one person hear, and hear to faith; and another hear, and not hear to faith. For the one who hears to faith does nothing of themselves, for the will is passive and God works the miracle and gift of faith; and for the other they do not believe.

And you can see why this becomes a frustrating and troublesome burden, a cross, which a theologian carries.

The Calvinist has no such burden, obviously, because they have introduced things which seem to resolve the Crux Theologorum, so they have no Crux Theologorum. Lutherans have no such luxury, we consider the Crux Theologorum a necessary burden to carry because to do otherwise would be a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its depth and power--that this Gospel is for every sinner because God loves and wills to save EVERYONE. If there is even a single person who is outside the Cross of Jesus Christ, then it is not Good News, because that person could be you or me. Thus the hope, and the assurance, the very promises of God which are in the Gospel would fall flat and powerless.

That's why Lutherans insist that, even if we can't resolve the question neatly, even if we cannot answer it well, even if we see this problem we simply have to say, "Even so, Your word O Lord endures forever."

The Crux Theologorum is answered unsatisfyingly and unanswered. And that's just how it is. Perhaps God, in His immeasurable wisdom shall, when all is said and done, show us that answer and how it was truly glorious--for He works all things toward the good--but as of now, on this side of the Eschaton, we only "see through a glass dimly".

This is about as excellent statement of the Crux Theologorum I have come across.

And one would concur it is "is answered unsatisfyingly and unanswered." How then does pastoral theology communicate this to parishioners?

Take for example a real Crux Theologorum issue. Election vs. Apostacy. We take all the election passages of Scripture and place them in one bucket along with texts like John 10:27ff or Romans 8:37ff. Then in another bucket we place all the apostacy texts. We teach the content of both buckets and let the chips fall where they may. But we do not try to reconcile these seemly contradictory teachings. For in doing so, one catagory of teaching may be sacrificed for the other.

The Crux Theologorum is messy and the answers it gives is difficult to understand. We try to teach parishioners the two catagories, state this is what Scripture teaches and then go on to the next subject matter as we are to teach the whole council of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is the core mystery or question that is at the heart of what Lutheran theologians call the Crux Theologorum. The Crux Theologorum is this question: Cur alii alii non? "Why some, but not others?" More expansively, why are some saved but not others? Why do some, when they hear the Gospel, when the seed of the word is sown as in Jesus' parable, does it grow and blossom into faith by the power and watering of the Holy Spirit, and people believe; but for others when that seed is sown it is plucked by birds, or withers in the heat of the sun, or etc.

In one sense, the question is unanswerable. We don't know. In another sense, the only reason offered to us, at least in Scripture, is that not all believe, "But not all have obeyed the Gospel" (Romans 10:16). Now the word here translated as "obey" is an interesting one, the Greek here is ὑπήκουσαν (hypokousan, literally "under-hear"). For, immediately the Apostle will write that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17), so it is this "hearing" that is critical. For those who believe, the Holy Spirit through the instrument of the word, the Gospel, causes faith; and yet not all believe. The word has not, as it were, penetrated them.

Consider the many times where it is said, "They have ears to hear, but do not hear" (Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2). Paul himself, in Romans refers to this in Romans 11:8.

So we are left with this: The reason of "why not others" is because of their resistance, rejection, and unhearing ears.

What is, however, unanswerable, is how can one person hear, and hear to faith; and another hear, and not hear to faith. For the one who hears to faith does nothing of themselves, for the will is passive and God works the miracle and gift of faith; and for the other they do not believe.

And you can see why this becomes a frustrating and troublesome burden, a cross, which a theologian carries.

The Calvinist has no such burden, obviously, because they have introduced things which seem to resolve the Crux Theologorum, so they have no Crux Theologorum. Lutherans have no such luxury, we consider the Crux Theologorum a necessary burden to carry because to do otherwise would be a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its depth and power--that this Gospel is for every sinner because God loves and wills to save EVERYONE. If there is even a single person who is outside the Cross of Jesus Christ, then it is not Good News, because that person could be you or me. Thus the hope, and the assurance, the very promises of God which are in the Gospel would fall flat and powerless.

That's why Lutherans insist that, even if we can't resolve the question neatly, even if we cannot answer it well, even if we see this problem we simply have to say, "Even so, Your word O Lord endures forever."

The Crux Theologorum is answered unsatisfyingly and unanswered. And that's just how it is. Perhaps God, in His immeasurable wisdom shall, when all is said and done, show us that answer and how it was truly glorious--for He works all things toward the good--but as of now, on this side of the Eschaton, we only "see through a glass dimly".

-CryptoLutheran

The Crux Theologorum, closely related to the Theodicy Problem, is something that we are all familiar with from our seminary education, and your post on it is well-written, as @Ain’t Zwinglian asked, but it also isn’t actually relevant to what I was asking. Rather, what I am asking is if Lutherans accept the fairly popular notion among Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox that CS Lewis rather brilliantly summarized when he wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside,” that being, would the Lutherans agree that the grace of the Holy Spirit enables us to be saved through salvific faith actualized in the sacraments, but that someone could refuse this and/or either accept it and at a subsequent time in their life make a conscious decision to commit apostasy, or alternately if that is too Arminian, you could of course say that they were never saved in actuality but only apparently? Since even St. Paul feared the possibility that he might fall away. And we have seen conditions of clearly evident apostasy, the most notable perhaps being Joseph Stalin, who was a seminarian in Georgia when he made the decision to become an atheist communist, and subsequently joined the most violent sect of communists, the Bolsheviks, attaining the highest rank, and then persuing a course of mass murder.

So really my question is twofold: does Lutheranism agree with Orthodoxy that God will not force us to love Him, which is a statement that does not require a departure from the monergism of conversion, but rather simply saying that some people will refuse the offer of salvation or having apparently been saved through reception of the sacraments, renounce the faith and become obvious apostates?

I would also note that the Crux Theologorum does not bother me to the same extent as it bothers you; it used to, but from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s writings and those of certain other Eastern theologians and early Church fathers, I came to accept the idea that God being immutable does not actually become angry with us, but rather His love is a consuming fire, which will burn those who move in a direction contrary to it, this being the wrath of God. And that this life, given to us for repentence, allows us to, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, acquire a salvific faith that causes us to be synergistically aligned with God so that we can receive His love. And furthermore, there is an interesting idea that the Outer Darkness is itself a mercy, since close proximity to God would be torture for those who truly hate him. This also ties in with the idea of St. John Chrysostom that aside from all the punishments that might be inflicted in Hell, the actual worst thing about being damned would be missing out on Heaven. Which is a genuinely terrifying idea, and frankly I doubt Hell is anything like Dante’s Inferno, but is rather people existing in a self-inflicted and self-perpetuated misery having cut themselves off from salvation, much like what we see in CS Lewis’s rather brilliant novel The Great Divorce.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Crux Theologorum, closely related to the Theodicy Problem, is something that we are all familiar with from our seminary education, and your post on it is well-written, as @Ain’t Zwinglian asked, but it also isn’t actually relevant to what I was asking. Rather, what I am asking is if Lutherans accept the fairly popular notion among Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox that CS Lewis rather brilliantly summarized when he wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside,” that being, would the Lutherans agree that the grace of the Holy Spirit enables us to be saved through salvific faith actualized in the sacraments, but that someone could refuse this and/or either accept it and at a subsequent time in their life make a conscious decision to commit apostasy, or alternately if that is too Arminian, you could of course say that they were never saved in actuality but only apparently? Since even St. Paul feared the possibility that he might fall away. And we have seen conditions of clearly evident apostasy, the most notable perhaps being Joseph Stalin, who was a seminarian in Georgia when he made the decision to become an atheist communist, and subsequently joined the most violent sect of communists, the Bolsheviks, attaining the highest rank, and then persuing a course of mass murder.

So really my question is twofold: does Lutheranism agree with Orthodoxy that God will not force us to love Him, which is a statement that does not require a departure from the monergism of conversion, but rather simply saying that some people will refuse the offer of salvation or having apparently been saved through reception of the sacraments, renounce the faith and become obvious apostates?

I would also note that the Crux Theologorum does not bother me to the same extent as it bothers you; it used to, but from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s writings and those of certain other Eastern theologians and early Church fathers, I came to accept the idea that God being immutable does not actually become angry with us, but rather His love is a consuming fire, which will burn those who move in a direction contrary to it, this being the wrath of God. And that this life, given to us for repentence, allows us to, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, acquire a salvific faith that causes us to be synergistically aligned with God so that we can receive His love. And furthermore, there is an interesting idea that the Outer Darkness is itself a mercy, since close proximity to God would be torture for those who truly hate him. This also ties in with the idea of St. John Chrysostom that aside from all the punishments that might be inflicted in Hell, the actual worst thing about being damned would be missing out on Heaven. Which is a genuinely terrifying idea, and frankly I doubt Hell is anything like Dante’s Inferno, but is rather people existing in a self-inflicted and self-perpetuated misery having cut themselves off from salvation, much like what we see in CS Lewis’s rather brilliant novel The Great Divorce.

I suppose I thought I did answer it. But to be clear: Yes, people resist and reject (and, more perplexing, we all resist and reject). So Lewis' statement about the gates of hell locked from the inside is, I believe, an accurate one. And yes, apostasy is quite real.

A person can hear a thousand times, and on the thousandth believe.
A person can believe on the first time they heard, then make shipwreck of their faith--become apostate--and fifty years later be restored to faith.
A person can believe and fall away. A person can deny, deny, deny, then believe. A person can believe, fall away, and then believe again. All of these are very real scenarios.

To get this back on the matter of monergism, there are, we could say, two kinds of monergism:

Divine monergism: Which is saving.
Human monergism: Which is damning.

God alone does the work to save.
Man alone does the work to damn.

Thus man will, given an infinite number of choices, choose hell each and every time without exception.
God, on the other hand, will save each and every person, every time, without exception.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Wisdom speaks to the issue, misotheism does not exist, it is a product of human imagination, perhaps a part of our own inexplicable misanthropy. Consider the thinking of the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom in his words, and the obvious truth of them -

Forgive me, but I must disagree with you on this point, because I have encountered several people, some of whom are misguided, others of whom are morally perverse, who I would have to describe as misotheistic, including many militant atheists and some adherents of Gnosticism, who like the escapist idea that whatever God has done to them is because this world’s creator is an incompetent demiurge, and they must place their faith in a real God existing in a pleroma outside of this world and hope to escape into that, much like the Matrix, with the Creator being like the incompetent Architect who is forced to allow people to exit in order to get them to even accept his poorly designed, inconsistent universe (the Matrix films are widely derided for being pop philopsophy, and they had little to do with the complex political and legal thought of my father, who was a practicing philosopher specializing in areas like history, politics and international law as opposed to the work of someone like Ballard, whose Simulacra et Simulation greatly inspired the Matrix, but deconstructionism is rubbish philosophy - however, the one useful thing about the Matrix is that it is an easy way to explain Gnosticism). This is not to say all Gnostics are misotheists, but rather some misotheists use it for escapism whlle others embrace various Nihilistic philosophies such as Hedonism, Communism, and other materialist perspectives.

Also relieving the Crux Theologorum to a large extent is the Orthodox belief that the eschatological statement of the deceased as well as any suffering they are presently experienced can potentially be alieviated through prayer for them, including intercessory prayer, which I would think as a Roman Catholic you would have commented on since Catholics have a similiar belief as far as suffering is concerned, if not extending to the eschaton. In Orthodox soteriology, there is no Purgatory, and I believe Purgatory is a scholastic idea to simplify soteriology by avoiding the idea that the otherwise damned might be saved through the prayers of the living and also because of the terrifying nature of the Eastern Orthodox concept of the soul after death enduring something like a series of passport control checks at an airport where demons will accuse them, often falsely, of sins, and angels will defend them, which is an idea some people on the basis of Western rationalism dismiss as ludicrous, and which is not universally accepted even in Orthodoxy, particularly Oriental Orthodox, but it is the case that there is a strong Patristic backing for the idea. I personally hope it to not be the case and consider that it sounds rather like Hell, but I have to admit it might well be the case and for this reason I believe praying for God’s mercy and for the intercession of the Theotokos, and performing charitable actions to help others, without which I would have nothing, as St. Paul said, or to put it the way St. James did, faith without works is dead, is particularly important, since we cannot know exactly what happens after death. As I see it, the Good News is that we have a hope for salvation and resurrection for Jesus Christ, but not a guarantee, and that’s actually good, because if we had a guarantee there would be no reason for us to repent, to seek to align ourselves with God’s love, and to seek theosis so as to participate in God’s uncreated energies such as love and grace, which we believe is uncreated and radiates from the Divine Essence like light from the Sun.

This also addresses an idea that use to terrify me, that being that I was both terrified of being damned and of existing forever, since they are both potentially dreadful ideas, but as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware points out, the process of theosis is a good way to engage oneself eternally, in pursuit of higher perfection and more knowledge of God, entering higher realms of heavenly love and godliness.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Crux Theologorum, closely related to the Theodicy Problem, is something that we are all familiar with from our seminary education, and your post on it is well-written, as @Ain’t Zwinglian asked, but it also isn’t actually relevant to what I was asking. Rather, what I am asking is if Lutherans accept the fairly popular notion among Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox that CS Lewis rather brilliantly summarized when he wrote “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside,” that being, would the Lutherans agree that the grace of the Holy Spirit enables us to be saved through salvific faith actualized in the sacraments, but that someone could refuse this and/or either accept it and at a subsequent time in their life make a conscious decision to commit apostasy, or alternately if that is too Arminian, you could of course say that they were never saved in actuality but only apparently? Since even St. Paul feared the possibility that he might fall away. And we have seen conditions of clearly evident apostasy, the most notable perhaps being Joseph Stalin, who was a seminarian in Georgia when he made the decision to become an atheist communist, and subsequently joined the most violent sect of communists, the Bolsheviks, attaining the highest rank, and then persuing a course of mass murder.

So really my question is twofold: does Lutheranism agree with Orthodoxy that God will not force us to love Him, which is a statement that does not require a departure from the monergism of conversion, but rather simply saying that some people will refuse the offer of salvation or having apparently been saved through reception of the sacraments, renounce the faith and become obvious apostates?

I would also note that the Crux Theologorum does not bother me to the same extent as it bothers you; it used to, but from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s writings and those of certain other Eastern theologians and early Church fathers, I came to accept the idea that God being immutable does not actually become angry with us, but rather His love is a consuming fire, which will burn those who move in a direction contrary to it, this being the wrath of God. And that this life, given to us for repentence, allows us to, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, acquire a salvific faith that causes us to be synergistically aligned with God so that we can receive His love. And furthermore, there is an interesting idea that the Outer Darkness is itself a mercy, since close proximity to God would be torture for those who truly hate him. This also ties in with the idea of St. John Chrysostom that aside from all the punishments that might be inflicted in Hell, the actual worst thing about being damned would be missing out on Heaven. Which is a genuinely terrifying idea, and frankly I doubt Hell is anything like Dante’s Inferno, but is rather people existing in a self-inflicted and self-perpetuated misery having cut themselves off from salvation, much like what we see in CS Lewis’s rather brilliant novel The Great Divorce.

You ask too many GOOD questions. Far above my pay grade.

A theodicy problem relates primarily to the "Justice of God." Paul states that God is not unjust. (Romans 9:14-16). I believe Christians are to answer theodicies (Alvin Plantinga's materials would be helpful here) however, I firmly believe Christians should never introduce a theodicy into a conversation. Causes too many problems and bypasses God's answer to the theodicy..."I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy."

Baptists are the ones particularly who introduce theodicies when dealing with Original sin and imputed guilt.

 

[The Liturgist]

I suppose I thought I did answer it. But to be clear: Yes, people resist and reject (and, more perplexing, we all resist and reject). So Lewis' statement about the gates of hell locked from the inside is, I believe, an accurate one. And yes, apostasy is quite real.

A person can hear a thousand times, and on the thousandth believe.
A person can believe on the first time they heard, then make shipwreck of their faith--become apostate--and fifty years later be restored to faith.
A person can believe and fall away. A person can deny, deny, deny, then believe. A person can believe, fall away, and then believe again. All of these are very real scenarios.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for clarifying it. I find myself constantly reassured by the fact that Lutheranism has a tendency to be much closer to Orthodoxy than I had hoped, which is meaningful since my godfather was a pastor in the Augustana Synod, and the church it merged into which merged with the other, the ALC and the LCA, I forget which one the Augustana Synod merged into, but they became the ELCA, which is a disappointment to me in many respects in that I feel the ELCA does not do enough to ensure Lutheran orthodoxy across its parishes, with Ebeneezer Lutheran Church also known as herchurch being something that in particular should have been shut down by the bishop. But the problems with the ELCA and the European Lutheran Churches, especially the Church of Sweden, with the exception of the Lutheran Churches of the Baltic States and the Ukraine, are not problems with Lutheran theology, since LCMS and other Lutheran denominations such as the AALC, ELS, WELS, ELDONA and the Mission Province of the Church of Sweden are keeping the dream alive.

The real actual difference seems to me to be limited to the fact that Lutherans generally do not accept the idea that prayers for the dead can change the eschatological outcome or alleviate the suffering of those who might otherwise be destined for salvation, or the idea that we should ask the saints to pray for us, for example, petitioning the Theotokos for her intercession, even though there according to our friend Mark the use of the Hail Mary by some Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, but without the petition. He believes this is the original form once used by the Orthodox; the only two forms of the Hail Mary prayer used by the Orthodox I have found both have petitions, but frankly the lack of intercessory prayer isn’t a huge problem with me, although I engage it myself, since the veneration is clearly present, and as I see it veneration is more important than intercession, although from my perspective I do regard the lack of intercessory prayer as being a wasted opportunity.

 

[The Liturgist]

You ask too many GOOD questions. Far above my pay grade.

A theodicy problem relates primarily to the "Justice of God." Paul states that God is not unjust. (Romans 9:14-16). I believe Christians are to answer theodicies (Alvin Plantinga's materials would be helpful here) however, I firmly believe Christians should never introduce a theodicy into a conversation. Causes too many problems and bypasses God's answer to the theodicy..."I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy."

Baptists are the ones particularly who introduce theodicies when dealing with Original sin and imputed guilt.

On the contrary, I really love your insights and what you have to say. And bear in mind, I have about ten years of theological study and several years of practice in ministry, and consider the priesthood my vocation, although if I had realized what was involved I might have turned it down, since all I really wanted to do was to participate in the celebration of the liturgy.

 

[atpollard]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

Maybe Judas and Esau.
The Scripture has some harsh things to say about them from the "lips" of God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Ebeneezer Lutheran Church also known as herchurch

I was baptized at Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco! Small world.

My mom was on the church site selection committee. My mom could not make the church dedication service on Feb. 19, 1956 because I was born that day.

The interesting fact about the Augustana Synod was there were no real doctrinal conflicts within the Synod until it merged with the LCA. Then everything fell apart.

 

[atpollard]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

"Hate" in the title is an anthropomorphic misnomer. God does not "love" or "hate" as the human emotional state [which would imply a change based on external conditions].

God is unchanging, so His "love" is a settled decision towards those He "foreknew" and who are both "in Christ" and "His Children" ... names written before the foundation, names that will not be blotted out, those that the Father will draw and to whom the Son will give eternal life ... the "whosoever" that will "believe" for reasons of a gift explained in Ephesians 1 and 2.

God's hate is also a settled and unchanging opposition, but it is described in scripture as directed against "sin" .... actions which violate His character and standards ... who He is (something that never changes).

I believe that some may be "hell-bound from eternity", but it is not because of any malice coming from God. If that is the case, it is a consequence of the reality that "God will show mercy on whom He will show mercy" and God exists in the "eternal now" [outside of our pocket of time] ... so God has done what God will do and God will do what God has already purposed to do. As God himself said: He knows the end from the beginning ... because God is the "FIRST CAUSE" of all causes. [Otherwise, Is He really God?].

 

[ViaCrucis]

Maybe Judas and Esau.
The Scripture has some harsh things to say about them from the "lips" of God.

Though, in the case of Esau, we know that the point isn't that God personally hated Esau (or the Edomites); but rather that God's plan and purpose was that through the younger son (Jacob) should spring forth the people of the Covenant. Though Esau had the birthright as the firstborn of Isaac, that was not God's plan, but His was to use the younger. And, this we should know, the Edomites did actually come to worship the one God. The Edomites were converted during the Maccabean period. This is actually how an Edomite (Idumaean in Greek) ended up being the "king of the Jews", though as a puppet king of the Romans.

As for Judas, while harsh things are said about him. I think as we read the text we'll see that the Lord's disposition toward Judas was never malice, but sadness. The story of Judas Iscariot is not the story of a man despised of God, but a story of a man beloved of God who became the very archetype of ultimate betrayal and the tragedy of what betrayal does--what betrayal even does to oneself. For Judas, disgusted with himself, threw the money back at those who payed him off, and then ended his own life.

We do well to remember that none of the Apostles, save John, remained at the Lord's side. The Shepherd was struck, the sheep scattered. And St. Peter, the very rock himself, denied his Master three times. All betrayed Him in His darkest hour. And even when He arose, Thomas refused to believe until he beheld the holes in the Lord's hands and side.

What makes Judas Iscariot's story different, ultimately, than that of Peter or Thomas is that Judas' story ends in tragedy. What would the story of Judas Iscariot had looked like had he remained alive until that Sunday morning? Would we think, truly, a denial of grace toward him? Do we think ourselves somehow more worthy of grace than Judas? St. Paul knew that wasn't the case, "Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners" Paul knew what he was without grace--a Pharisee among Pharisees, a Hebrew among Hebrews, sure, but those were all dung he said; what he really was without grace was a murderer, a coward, and an enemy of God. Judas betrayed the Lord, Paul persecuted the Lord. So Paul could call himself the chief of sinners, the chief sinner that ever did sin. And if God could show him grace, then nobody could be outside of grace.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"
"God consigned all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

The most unworthy who ever lived or we could ever dream up in our darkest imagination: the objects of God's affection through the Cross of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

It sounds like you are talking about predestination which the RCC rejects.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Forgive me, but I must disagree with you on this point, because I have encountered several people, some of whom are misguided, others of whom are morally perverse, who I would have to describe as misotheistic

The word has more than one meaning, I took you to be discussing that which God hates because that is the topic of the thread, but if you intended the meaning "those who hate God" than my apologies. My reply deals with "that which God hates" as the topic indicated.

 

[atpollard]

And if God could show him grace, then nobody could be outside of grace.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"
"God consigned all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."

First, I hope the tongue-in-cheek nature of my response about "Judas and Esau" was clear in the post (sometimes the inflection clear in the spoken message is lost in the written message).

Second, I could not agree more with your post and conclusion that nobody is beyond the reach of His Grace.

Third, I would offer the observation that "all" is more often "all without distinction" than "all without exception" ... we know, sadly, that too many will end their journey on the wide road to destruction so "universal salvation" is not an option that is [biblically] on the table. Thus God will not have mercy on ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION ... we must warn them that there is both life and judgement available through Christ [per John 3:18].

 

[bbbbbbb]

The word has more than one meaning, I took you to be discussion that which God hates because that is the topic of the thread, but if you intended the meaning "those who hate God" than my apologies. My reply deals with "that which God hates" as the topic indicated.

Out of curiosity, do you categorize indifference as a form of hatred or of love, or neither?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Out of curiosity, do you categorize indifference as a form of hatred or of love, or neither?

Indifference is not hatred and it is not love but it is unkind and lacks compassion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indifference is not hatred and it is not love but it is unkind and lacks compassion.

Thank you. Do you think that God is indifferent about anything?

 

[The Liturgist]

I was baptized at Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco! Small world.

My mom was on the church site selection committee. My mom could not make the church dedication service on Feb. 19, 1956 because I was born that day.

The interesting fact about the Augustana Synod was there were no real doctrinal conflicts within the Synod until it merged with the LCA. Then everything fell apart.

The same one that is now herchurch? I thought it was in Alameda?