Does God predestine some people to disobedience when they hear Jesus' good news?

[tonychanyt]

ESV, 1P 2:

8bThey stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Dr James White said to Steve Gregg:

First Peter, chapter 2, verse 8 speaks of the stumbling of disbelievers at the proclamation of the person of Jesus Christ. Peter says they stumble because as they were destined do.

That's one translation of it.

Given your repeated statement that you see no eternal decree of God relating to salvation,

Is there an eternal decree of God relating to salvation?

This question is overly loaded and needs to be made more precise.

could you please explain what Peter means?

Gregg answered:

I believe that they stumble because of their disobedience. That's a stumbling that God determined that would happen for those who were disobedient. I don't personally believe that they were destinate to be disobedient.

Gregg made a distinction between God-determined stumbling and disobedience as two distinct things here.

Let's examine the Greek:

Actually the word 'because' was not in the Greek. Instead, there were

stumble [because]
προσκόπτουσιν (proskoptousin)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's 4350: From pros and kopto; to strike at, i.e. Surge against; specially, to stub on, i.e. Trip up.

they disobey
ἀπειθοῦντες (apeithountes)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 544: To disobey, rebel, be disloyal, refuse conformity. From apeithes; to disbelieve.

The second verb functioned as an adverbial participle for the first verb.

Berean Literal Bible:

They stumble at being disobedient to the word, to which also they were appointed.

ὃ (ho)
Personal / Relative Pronoun - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 3739: Who, which, what, that.

Grammatically, the disobedient stumbling was a singular unit.

It was wrong for Gregg to separate the two verbs as two distinct units. Certain individuals are destined to stumble disobediently in the context of accepting or rejecting Jesus.

Does this stumbling imply that they will go to hell?

I want to be extra careful when it comes to eternal condemnation. Peter's passage suggests that this is the case to some degree, but I don't think it's a universal 100% implication, as claimed by White. For one thing, the strings 'condemn' or 'hell' are no where in the chapter. See double predestination.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

ESV, 1P 2:


Dr James White said to Steve Gregg:


That's one translation of it.


Is there an eternal decree of God relating to salvation?

This question is overly loaded and needs to be made more precise.


Gregg answered:


Gregg made a distinction between God-determined stumbling and disobedience as two distinct things here.

Let's examine the Greek:

Actually the word 'because' was not in the Greek. Instead, there were

stumble [because]
προσκόπτουσιν (proskoptousin)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's 4350: From pros and kopto; to strike at, i.e. Surge against; specially, to stub on, i.e. Trip up.

they disobey
ἀπειθοῦντες (apeithountes)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 544: To disobey, rebel, be disloyal, refuse conformity. From apeithes; to disbelieve.

The second verb functioned as an adverbial participle for the first verb.

Berean Literal Bible:


ὃ (ho)
Personal / Relative Pronoun - Accusative Neuter Singular
Strong's 3739: Who, which, what, that.

Grammatically, the disobedient stumbling was a singular unit.

It was wrong for Gregg to separate the two verbs as two distinct units. Certain individuals are destined to stumble disobediently in the context of accepting or rejecting Jesus.

Does this stumbling imply that they will go to hell?

I want to be extra careful when it comes to eternal condemnation. Peter's passage suggests that this is the case to some degree, but I don't think it's a universal 100% implication, as claimed by White. For one thing, the strings 'condemn' or 'hell' are no where in the chapter. See double predestination.

They are both wrong. White is wrong in that he thinks they stumble beyond recovery. Gregg is wrong for exactly the reasons you indicated. He failed to look at the Greek text like you did here.

We need to look at other scripture to get the truth of this matter.

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

We need to look at 1 Peter 2:8 in light of other scripture like this. It's not talking about someone stumbling and then falling beyond recovery and ending up in hell. No, God made the unbelieving Israelites stumble and not understand the gospel for a time so that it could go to the Gentiles which would then make the unbelieving Israelites who stumbled envious and want to be saved like the Gentiles were. Paul indicated that he wanted to lead some of those who had stumbled to salvation himself, so they clearly did not stumble beyond recovery with no hope of salvation as a Calvinist like James White believes.

Scripture teaches that God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Does He command all people to repent and then cause some of them to not repent, thereby making His command pointless? Of course not. But, that is what Calvinists like James White believe.