Lutheran Predestination, Single, Double?

[jinc1019]

Yes, that is my view, but only one of the several points I'm trying to make:
1) Whatever the truth of the matter, God is just and merciful. No one will be sent to hell unjustly, nor will God miss an opportunity to show mercy.
2) There are Biblical examples of God reaching people in a variety of ways. Yes, there is only one Gospel message, but there are many ways God can reach people with that message, and we need to be careful not to say things that put God in a box. To me it only seems to lead to confusion and despair.
3) We need to fight our propensity to want to know everything - to think we know everything. I believe there are some questions to which the answer is: We don't know. We don't need to know. And it doesn't matter.



I don't know how common this view is. However, as Mediaeval points out, Luther himself seemed to have a similarly open view.

I don't disagree that God's justice always wins out. I also don't disagree God can reach people in special ways and has done so. I'm not saying I know everything, I'm simply pointing out what Paul points out: Unless they are sent, they can't hear the Gospel. If they can't hear the Gospel, how can they believe? That's all I'm saying. We know from all the historical evidence we have that the Gospel was not preached in certain places at certain times. We know that's still a problem in certain places today, in fact. You're saying that somehow, God is providing the Gospel to them, but that seems to conflict with what Paul plainly says about the need for people to be sent.

 

[jinc1019]

Oi. Back to square one. Therefore, I must ask you to substantiate this. Show me how it is possible for you to know there are people God has never reached.

Further, shouldn't you be the one that needs to prove God has reached everyone? Upon what are you basing this, specifically? The LCMS completely rejects the notion, by the way.

 

[Resha Caner]

I already did. In Romans 10, Paul says they can't hear the Gosepl unless people bring it to them, and we know, from history, certain people never heard it. In fact, we know there are people today who have probably never heard it.

See: “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are sent?

Yet you stop short. What about v.18?

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

Further, you have not substantiated your claim about history. You keep repeating the same claim with no evidence to support it. Substantiate with peer-reviewed scholarly work this claim: "we know, from history, certain people never heard it."

 

[jinc1019]

Yet you stop short. What about v.18?

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

Further, you have not substantiated your claim about history. You keep repeating the same claim with no evidence to support it. Substantiate with peer-reviewed scholarly work this claim: "we know, from history, certain people never heard it."

Hi,

I shouldn't have to substantiate such a widely held historical belief, but since you asked:

In Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures, an academic work by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, the author mentions on numerous occasions the various starting dates of Christianity around the world, including a reference on page 39 of Ireland's "early Middle Ages" conversion date: https://books.google.com/books?id=qh1lrIM5nd4C&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

In A History of the Church England, perhaps the most celebrated work on the subject, the author John Moorman (a bishop in the COE) says the earliest known date of Christians being mentioned in England is 200 AD, with some scholars speculating it could have started as early as 177 AD.

The list goes on and on and on, of course. The only even somewhat reasonable argument you can make is that perhaps God somehow reached them too, but there just isn't any evidence of it. Perhaps God has somehow provided every single person with a knowledge of Christ (to some degree or another). Can I prove God has not done this? No, although I've met many people personally who know absolutely nothing about Christianity, and I've heard many evangelists talk about how Christ is completely unknown in many rural parts of the Middle East, among other places. But it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove that God hasn't revealed himself to everyone at some point or another. It should be yours to show that he has. I have NEVER heard a Lutheran scholar, pastor, or anyone else for that matter (in the Lutheran faith) make such an argument. Maybe someone has, but I've never heard it.

It also flies in the face of what the LCMS plainly teaches (and remember the LCMS is the largest confessional Lutheran body in North America). On its website (http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=572), it says:

Q: I recently attended a Bible study in which we discussed the fate of those who never had the chance
to hear about God. What happens to such people?
A: In his book What's the Answer? (Concordia Publishing House, 1960), LCMS theologian Otto Sohn
raises the question, "What stand does our church take regarding the heathen who have never had the
opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what is the individual's responsibility toward these
people?" His answer follows:

Christ, the Savior of the world, answered the first question in this way: "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). The apostle Peter put
it another way: "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven
given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The same truth is expressed in John 3:16;
18:36; Romans 2:12; Ephesians 2:11-13.

Though such people have not heard the Gospel, they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-23; 2:12). God
has not left Himself without witness (Acts 14:17), but has revealed His existence by the works of nature
and wants men to seek Him, if "haply they might feel after Him and find Him" (Acts 17:27). The Bible
also reveals that people who knowingly and willfully reject the Gospel of Jesus will be more severely
punished than those who never heard it (Luke 12:47, 48).

Because of the horrible doom awaiting all those who do not believe in Jesus, we should seek to reach as
many as possible with our own fearless witness and ardently support the missionary endeavors of our
church on behalf of those whom we cannot reach with our own voice. Nor must we forget our
responsibility toward fellow Christians who are on the verge of erring from the truth, whether by word
or deed (Galatians 6:1; James 5:19, 20). And lest we should preach to others, but ourselves become
castaways, we should be earnestly concerned about our own salvation (Matthew 26:41; 1 Corinthians
10:12; Philippians 2:12).

 

[Mediaeval]

First, just to be clear, at the very least, LCMS does specifically say your view is not valid: www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=572

That's a very interesting quote from Luther, however!

Generally, my understanding is the catechism is the only requirement for joining the confessional Lutheran churches you mentioned, but some statements at confirmation could be construed to suggest one must accept all the LCMS teaches, for instance, to join.

Walther argued that subscription entailed affirming even doctrines only incidentally referred to in the Confessions http://www.lutheranlayman.com/2013/12/unconditional-subscription.html . You have evidently done your research and so have probably noticed that the LCMS to some extent, and to a greater extent the WELS, fancy themselves in complete agreement with the Confessions. But as long as the Confessions (specifically the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles) say our Lord’s mother was a perpetual virgin, and strict Confessionalists do not affirm her perpetual virginity, I wouldn’t take strict Confessionalism all that seriously.

 

[Resha Caner]

I shouldn't have to substantiate such a widely held historical belief, but since you asked:

Your references don't answer the question I asked. It appears you are conflating several things. Establishing a church says nothing about what people know of God. When was the first Christian church established in Israel? I'd say in the AD 30s. So would you say no one had heard of the Christ prior to that time? Was no one in Israel saved until that time?

Establishing churches and the salvation of people are two different things.

Perhaps God has somehow provided every single person with a knowledge of Christ (to some degree or another). Can I prove God has not done this? No...

Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

... although I've met many people personally who know absolutely nothing about Christianity, and I've heard many evangelists talk about how Christ is completely unknown in many rural parts of the Middle East, among other places.

You're inferring many things I haven't said. Are there people alive today who don't know Christ? That's very possible, and that is the reason we need to witness. It may be that we will be the instrument God uses to bring Christ to many of those who have not (yet) heard the Gospel.

But it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove that God hasn't revealed himself to everyone at some point or another. It should be yours to show that he has.

No. I happen to have a degree in history, so I know a thing or two about this. You are again inferring things I didn't say. If you look back at previous posts, you will see I have never made a historical claim as you have. I don't have to substantiate a claim I've never made. I have only made a scriptural claim, and that I substantiated with Romans 10:18 - though you never addressed that verse - just quoted others.

So, I never said anything to the effect of it being historically established that God has reached everyone. I have only said I believe it based on what I read in scripture. Even then, I didn't say God has reached everyone, but only that we must not reject the possibility ... and beyond that it's a question we can't answer and don't need to answer.

I do hope you're reading my posts to understand what I'm saying and not in some attempt to "win" a debate.

It also flies in the face of what the LCMS plainly teaches (and remember the LCMS is the largest confessional Lutheran body in North America).

If the LCMS made a positive claim that they know of people to whom God never reached out, and they know those people have been condemned to hell, I will stand against them as being wrong. But they have never said that to my knowledge, and I think you are misinterpreting what they have said. I read all your quotes from the LCMS and agree with every one of them.

Q: I recently attended a Bible study in which we discussed the fate of those who never had the chance
to hear about God. What happens to such people?
A: In his book What's the Answer? (Concordia Publishing House, 1960), LCMS theologian Otto Sohn
raises the question, "What stand does our church take regarding the heathen who have never had the
opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and what is the individual's responsibility toward these
people?"

Dissect this question carefully. I've already accepted the possibility there are likely people living today who don't know Christ. Given this question speaks of the "individual's responsibility", I assume it refers only to the living. I have no responsibility for the dead. It seemed to me you were lumping in everyone, dead or alive. If I misunderstood, and you were speaking only of the living, then I apologize.

Though such people have not heard the Gospel, they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-23; 2:12).

Yes, but why are they without excuse? Because, as you yourself said ...

God has not left Himself without witness (Acts 14:17), but has revealed His existence by the works of nature and wants men to seek Him, if "haply they might feel after Him and find Him" (Acts 17:27).

And what do these witnesses witness about? Buddha? No. Confucius? No. Mohamed? No. The only true witness is one that points to Christ.

 

[jinc1019]

Your references don't answer the question I asked. It appears you are conflating several things. Establishing a church says nothing about what people know of God. When was the first Christian church established in Israel? I'd say in the AD 30s. So would you say no one had heard of the Christ prior to that time? Was no one in Israel saved until that time?

Establishing churches and the salvation of people are two different things.



Good, I'm glad we agree on that.



You're inferring many things I haven't said. Are there people alive today who don't know Christ? That's very possible, and that is the reason we need to witness. It may be that we will be the instrument God uses to bring Christ to many of those who have not (yet) heard the Gospel.



No. I happen to have a degree in history, so I know a thing or two about this. You are again inferring things I didn't say. If you look back at previous posts, you will see I have never made a historical claim as you have. I don't have to substantiate a claim I've never made. I have only made a scriptural claim, and that I substantiated with Romans 10:18 - though you never addressed that verse - just quoted others.

So, I never said anything to the effect of it being historically established that God has reached everyone. I have only said I believe it based on what I read in scripture. Even then, I didn't say God has reached everyone, but only that we must not reject the possibility ... and beyond that it's a question we can't answer and don't need to answer.

I do hope you're reading my posts to understand what I'm saying and not in some attempt to "win" a debate.



If the LCMS made a positive claim that they know of people to whom God never reached out, and they know those people have been condemned to hell, I will stand against them as being wrong. But they have never said that to my knowledge, and I think you are misinterpreting what they have said. I read all your quotes from the LCMS and agree with every one of them.



Dissect this question carefully. I've already accepted the possibility there are likely people living today who don't know Christ. Given this question speaks of the "individual's responsibility", I assume it refers only to the living. I have no responsibility for the dead. It seemed to me you were lumping in everyone, dead or alive. If I misunderstood, and you were speaking only of the living, then I apologize.



Yes, but why are they without excuse? Because, as you yourself said ...



And what do these witnesses witness about? Buddha? No. Confucius? No. Mohamed? No. The only true witness a witness that points to Christ.

I was ONLY speaking about the living, not the dead. Maybe that resolves this issue, maybe it doesn't. I'm not going to get into a exegesis battle over what Paul says in Romans 10. I think your assessment is easily dealt with using the language Paul espouses immediately after you stopped quoting, but again, I'd rather not go down that road, since that usually just turns a conversation into "here's what I think," and I don't think that's very helpful.

I think the problem here is that I am assuming a person ordinarily comes to faith by hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ here on Earth, not at any other time. I think that's why Paul's language in Romans 10 has a sense of urgency to it. In fact, I think that's why Paul's ministry has a sense of urgency to it. Without going out into the world and preaching, people will never hear and never come to faith. That's what I think Paul meant, and obviously you disagree. Can be 100 percent sure that's what Paul meant? No.

What I am certain of is that the Gospel of Jesus did not reach all people while living on Earth in an ordinary way and that many people today have not heard the Gospel in an ordinary way. I guess if your argument is simply, "There is nowhere in scripture (or using historical sources) that disproves the claim that God could deliver the Gospel to all people (while living) in some way," then I guess you are right that I can't disprove that (because it's impossible to disprove.) God could, I suppose, deliver the Gospel in some special way to all people, even if there are no other Christians around, no church around, and no Bible around, etc.

My question to you is: What, specifically, would make you think that's the case? Other than that one line in Romans 10 you alluded to earlier (which I don't find convincing for a variety of reasons), do you have any other reason to believe this view you have, or are you simply saying, "it's a possibility that can't be ruled out"?

 

[jinc1019]

Walther argued that subscription entailed affirming even doctrines only incidentally referred to in the Confessions http://www.lutheranlayman.com/2013/12/unconditional-subscription.html . You have evidently done your research and so have probably noticed that the LCMS to some extent, and to a greater extent the WELS, fancy themselves in complete agreement with the Confessions. But as long as the Confessions (specifically the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles) say our Lord’s mother was a perpetual virgin, and strict Confessionalists do not affirm her perpetual virginity, I wouldn’t take strict Confessionalism all that seriously.

Very interesting stuff, and your point is well taken!

 

[Resha Caner]

In fact, I think that's why Paul's ministry has a sense of urgency to it. Without going out into the world and preaching, people will never hear and never come to faith. That's what I think Paul meant, and obviously you disagree.

No, no. I absolutely agree that Paul was trying to instill a sense of urgency. Spreading the Gospel is extremely important. If you look back at my original post, all I was challenging was your claims that "history" substantiates the Gospel never reached the many distant corners of the earth.

I was trying to show that in fact, there is some historical evidence that the Gospel had reached all the way to China by AD 86.

My question to you is: What, specifically, would make you think that's the case? Other than that one line in Romans 10 you alluded to earlier (which I don't find convincing for a variety of reasons), do you have any other reason to believe this view you have, or are you simply saying, "it's a possibility that can't be ruled out"?

Baby steps. I'm satisfied with what the discussion has accomplished. I rarely share my full view anymore, but only what I know I can defend. Otherwise the discussion often becomes very confused with details I'm not trying to promote. So, that we agree the possibility must be left open is good enough for me.

Still, since you asked, it'll be fun for me to dump it all out there.

First, I offered more than 1 verse. In addition to Romans 10:18 I pointed out an aspect of Acts 14 & 17. I also offered the examples of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20) and the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40).

Along those same lines, I could also mention the Magi (Matt 2:1-12). When you refer to the "ordinary" way of receiving faith, I assume you mean Word and Sacrament. The examples I've given are not out of the ordinary. The Ethiopian and the Magi were likely familiar with OT scripture due to the Diaspora. In my view miraculous conversions are probably the minority. It was things like the Diaspora (resulting in an ancient version of the Gideons) that spread the Word to the ancient world.

In that regard, it's fascinating to look at Israel as the "chosen" people. The Hebrews often misinterpreted what it meant to be chosen, and seemed to view it as if they were the only ones chosen for salvation (or prosperity). They didn't understand that they had been chosen to fulfill the incarnation of the Christ. Yet, even though the Hebrews weren't known for exuberantly evangelizing, it happened anyway. And the Levant was the perfect place to situate such a people. It was the crossroads of the ancient world. Think about it. Had God "chosen" Egypt, what would have happened to the message after Egypt fell and the power center moved to Persia?

In that regard, another example is Pentecost (Acts 2:1-6). Because of Jerusalem's role both within Judiasm and as a stop on many trade routes, there were "men from every nation under heaven" in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. Think about how that dispersed the Gospel. It wasn't just 12 men who carried the message.

With that in mind, let's back way up ... to the flood. For my undergraduate history degree I had to take several classes in world history. In one there was a brief mention of Gilgamesh, which is the flood story everyone points to as if it somehow disproves the Biblical flood story. The frequency of flood stories in the ancient world is supposed to implicitly mean Moses borrowed from other cultures rather than being inspired. I don't see how it means that at all. Maybe Moses did refer to existing texts when he wrote the Pentateuch. So what. That doesn't mean God didn't guide what he chose to include and exclude. But even further, what I challenged in that undergraduate history class was the assumptions they were making. The extant texts of Gilgamesh are written in Akkadian, a Semitic language. As it happens, Hebrew is also a Semitic language. So, the Mesopotamian story seems to have its roots in the Semitic tribes. Therefore, is there any evidence that the Hebrews borrowed from others, or is it possible Gilgamesh was borrowed from an older Hebrew tradition? The bottom line is: no one can say one way or the other.

So, it can't be ruled out that many of the ancient flood stories eminated from a single event ... and there are a lot of them. There are even ancient flood stories in China. It is interesting to me that the Chinese legend stipulates that China was first settled after a major flood. Therefore, we have a possible example of an event recorded in the Bible that was communicated to all the world.

And it just goes on from there. Israel has interacted with nearly every major empire the world has known: the Egpytians (Joseph), the Phoenicians (David & Solomon), the Assryians (Jonah), the Babylonians (Daniel), the Persians (Nehemiah), the Greeks (Maccabees), the Romans (NT & Josephus).

The message even went out with Islam. Mohamed's first wife was Jewish, and Mohamed was familiar (though erroneously so) with Judiasm and Christianity. That familiarity made it into the Koran, and there are historical examples where it prompted some curious events. I could give you a source that discusses where one of the Ottoman Sultans executed a prominent imam because he had become curious about the contradictions in the Koran, studied scripture, and began preaching that the Messiah was the true savior.

Then there are some curious statements in various ancient texts such as Plato and Virgil that sound very messianic. There are even myths of the Gospel reaching Native Americans (though I'm not aware of any evidence that isn't heavily disputed). Again, unbelievers cite that as evidence that a whole host of people were making up salvation stories, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility it is a sign that God was trying to reach those people.

 

[Resha Caner]

But as long as the Confessions (specifically the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles) say our Lord’s mother was a perpetual virgin, and strict Confessionalists do not affirm her perpetual virginity, I wouldn’t take strict Confessionalism all that seriously.

I'm not very familiar with this issue, so maybe you have some information I don't. However, Hermann Sasse (a Lutheran scholar I deeply respect) leaves it an open question whether Luther actually wrote that or whether it was a scribal error:
http://sassedotalist.blogspot.com/2010/05/marys-perpetual-virginity.html

There is no doubt that at one time Luther was in lock-step with Roman Catholic dogma, including their Mariology. However, over time, he rejected much of it. With that said, Confessional Lutheranism doesn't view Luther or the Confessions as infallible. Though many Lutheran scholars would gag at the suggestion, the Lutheran view of the Confessions is much like Barth's view of scripture.

 

[jinc1019]

No, no. I absolutely agree that Paul was trying to instill a sense of urgency. Spreading the Gospel is extremely important. If you look back at my original post, all I was challenging was your claims that "history" substantiates the Gospel never reached the many distant corners of the earth.

I was trying to show that in fact, there is some historical evidence that the Gospel had reached all the way to China by AD 86.



Baby steps. I'm satisfied with what the discussion has accomplished. I rarely share my full view anymore, but only what I know I can defend. Otherwise the discussion often becomes very confused with details I'm not trying to promote. So, that we agree the possibility must be left open is good enough for me.

Still, since you asked, it'll be fun for me to dump it all out there.

First, I offered more than 1 verse. In addition to Romans 10:18 I pointed out an aspect of Acts 14 & 17. I also offered the examples of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20) and the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40).

Along those same lines, I could also mention the Magi (Matt 2:1-12). When you refer to the "ordinary" way of receiving faith, I assume you mean Word and Sacrament. The examples I've given are not out of the ordinary. The Ethiopian and the Magi were likely familiar with OT scripture due to the Diaspora. In my view miraculous conversions are probably the minority. It was things like the Diaspora (resulting in an ancient version of the Gideons) that spread the Word to the ancient world.

In that regard, it's fascinating to look at Israel as the "chosen" people. The Hebrews often misinterpreted what it meant to be chosen, and seemed to view it as if they were the only ones chosen for salvation (or prosperity). They didn't understand that they had been chosen to fulfill the incarnation of the Christ. Yet, even though the Hebrews weren't known for exuberantly evangelizing, it happened anyway. And the Levant was the perfect place to situate such a people. It was the crossroads of the ancient world. Think about it. Had God "chosen" Egypt, what would have happened to the message after Egypt fell and the power center moved to Persia?

In that regard, another example is Pentecost (Acts 2:1-6). Because of Jerusalem's role both within Judiasm and as a stop on many trade routes, there were "men from every nation under heaven" in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. Think about how that dispersed the Gospel. It wasn't just 12 men who carried the message.

With that in mind, let's back way up ... to the flood. For my undergraduate history degree I had to take several classes in world history. In one there was a brief mention of Gilgamesh, which is the flood story everyone points to as if it somehow disproves the Biblical flood story. The frequency of flood stories in the ancient world is supposed to implicitly mean Moses borrowed from other cultures rather than being inspired. I don't see how it means that at all. Maybe Moses did refer to existing texts when he wrote the Pentateuch. So what. That doesn't mean God didn't guide what he chose to include and exclude. But even further, what I challenged in that undergraduate history class was the assumptions they were making. The extant texts of Gilgamesh are written in Akkadian, a Semitic language. As it happens, Hebrew is also a Semitic language. So, the Mesopotamian story seems to have its roots in the Semitic tribes. Therefore, is there any evidence that the Hebrews borrowed from others, or is it possible Gilgamesh was borrowed from an older Hebrew tradition? The bottom line is: no one can say one way or the other.

So, it can't be ruled out that many of the ancient flood stories eminated from a single event ... and there are a lot of them. There are even ancient flood stories in China. It is interesting to me that the Chinese legend stipulates that China was first settled after a major flood. Therefore, we have a possible example of an event recorded in the Bible that was communicated to all the world.

And it just goes on from there. Israel has interacted with nearly every major empire the world has known: the Egpytians (Joseph), the Phoenicians (David & Solomon), the Assryians (Jonah), the Babylonians (Daniel), the Persians (Nehemiah), the Greeks (Maccabees), the Romans (NT & Josephus).

The message even went out with Islam. Mohamed's first wife was Jewish, and Mohamed was familiar (though erroneously so) with Judiasm and Christianity. That familiarity made it into the Koran, and there are historical examples where it prompted some curious events. I could give you a source that discusses where one of the Ottoman Sultans executed a prominent imam because he had become curious about the contradictions in the Koran, studied scripture, and began preaching that the Messiah was the true savior.

Then there are some curious statements in various ancient texts such as Plato and Virgil that sound very messianic. There are even myths of the Gospel reaching Native Americans (though I'm not aware of any evidence that isn't heavily disputed). Again, unbelievers cite that as evidence that a whole host of people were making up salvation stories, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility it is a sign that God was trying to reach those people.

Really interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing that. I actually don't disagree with your primary argument (at least, that it's a possibility), although I'd still argue not everyone receives any form of the Gospel in that scenario either (but I understand that's not the focus of your point). Have you ever heard of the connection between Buddhism and King Solomon? Some claim a lot of Buddhism comes from Jewish traders spreading the various Proverbs of Solomon. I don't disagree that God is actively working to bring all people to faith, and perhaps he has done this in ways most modern Christians don't recognize. I'm not a Presbyterian precisely because I believe in the efficacious nature of the sacraments and because I believe God is working to save all people; I just believe that God's method for saving people (Word and sacrament) is inherently limited in how many people can be saved, especially initially. Eventually, it's possible for the whole world to be saved in that way, of course, but initially, it was much more difficult.

Despite how it may have appeared in our conversation, my theology is closer to Lutheranism that anything else; I just can't get around the idea that God is not ultimately predestinating all that happens, even as he desires some of it not to happen. I think that's where the true paradox lies, not with the idea that God can predestinate everyone who has faith to faith and not predestinate those who don't have faith (the Lutheran paradox).

I see it like this: God has a hierarchy of desire. God wants to save all people, but more than wanting to save all people, God wants to save people through his appointed means. God's church, where the word and sacrament can be found, is a place where everyone who interacts with it will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to faith. The reason not everyone comes to faith isn't because God is present at some moments in worship for some people (and not others) or because God's sacraments are invalid for some but not others. Rather, I think God is always drawing people, but people are stubborn and they resist. The real question though is "WHY" do they resist. Calvinists take about people resisting the general call and even the Holy Spirit (which often surprises some Lutherans). They say the reason man resists the Holy Spirit is because God hasn't really tried to convert them. If God wanted to convert them, they would be converted. My belief is the reason the Holy Spirit is resisted can't just be some internal issue with man's corrupt nature (which is what I hear many Lutherans saying and is what LCMS says in many of its church resolutions, documents, explanations, etc.) If man resists for some reason internal to the man, then you have to explain why some men are more likely to say "yes" to God than others. Is it genetic? Is it because of personal experiences? Whatever conclusion you come to, it ends up being traced back to God. So, many people often talk about it in an almost arbitrary sort of way. Some people reject God because they want to. There is no real reason for it. They could have just as easily made some other choice.

I think the obvious answer is that people reject God because there are evil forces (forces opposed to God) at work in the world, drawing people away. No one arbitrarily chooses to reject God when God's Holy Spirit is drawing them to Him; they reject God because the forces of evil in their lives are stronger. This isn't because God's powers are weak, it's because evil, especially in the Western world, is everywhere and drawing people away from God all the time. If a person throws himself into the scriptures, the church, the sacraments, that person will never be drawn away (in my view). God will sustain them.

This is basically a semi-Lutheran view. In fact, it may not be incompatible with anything in the Book of Concord, except for the idea that this is all part of God's plan, too. Some people will be drawn away, and although God doesn't want that to occur, he'd rather have that and maintain his ordinary, limited means of saving people.

To be honest, this view is actually much closer to Augustine that Calvin's view or the modern Lutheran view, but I don't know enough about Augustine's theology to know if there are lots of other caveats to his position I don't know about.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd still argue not everyone receives any form of the Gospel in that scenario either

Maybe it would help if you tell me what you think "Gospel" means.

For my part, I'll point out my reference to "Word and Sacrament". In that sense, it is not confined to the NT writings of the apostles or to Baptism / Holy Communion. One thing I love about Confessional Lutheranism is that it steers clear of mysticism. It is a very "earthy" faith, rooted in what we can experience here in this material world.

Since Christ is the Word (John 1), the presence of the Word was felt in the OT (Daniel 3:25, 7). Further there are sacrament-like ritual practices in the OT (anointing with oil, the Seder meal, circumcision of the newborn, etc.).

I just can't get around the idea that God is not ultimately predestinating all that happens

That's a hang up for many people. I'd be happy to discuss it.

I think God is always drawing people, but people are stubborn and they resist.

Yes, I think that's the essence of it. It's not that God hasn't reached out, but rather that people reject him (and I find the word "reject" better than "resist").

I think the obvious answer is that people reject God because there are evil forces (forces opposed to God) at work in the world, drawing people away.

That just creates a regression problem. Where did those evil forces come from? I prefer a combination of several things. The first is similar to C.S. Lewis' take on the origins of evil - that it stems from the fact we are finite. He gives an example of two people walking, and because one is distracted (their finite ability to know another person is present), they collide. No one intended evil, but the hurt caused by the accident begins a chain of events that leads to evil. In addition to that, I view the absence of God not as evil, but chaos - randomness. So, the means by which God gave us a free will was to absent himself from our decisions. Because the result is randomness, he in no way bears responsibility for determining what follows. Therefore, at birth an infant's thoughts are actually quite random. It takes time for them to mature and organize. That doesn't mean, however, that God has abandoned us. He prepared (predestined) a path for each of us. The problem is that we are now broken (original sin, the bound will) and so we can't find that path without his intervention.

 

[jinc1019]

Maybe it would help if you tell me what you think "Gospel" means.

For my part, I'll point out my reference to "Word and Sacrament". In that sense, it is not confined to the NT writings of the apostles or to Baptism / Holy Communion. One thing I love about Confessional Lutheranism is that it steers clear of mysticism. It is a very "earthy" faith, rooted in what we can experience here in this material world.

Since Christ is the Word (John 1), the presence of the Word was felt in the OT (Daniel 3:25, 7). Further there are sacrament-like ritual practices in the OT (anointing with oil, the Seder meal, circumcision of the newborn, etc.).

By Gospel, I mean the good news that through faith alone in God we are saved from the condemnation we rightly deserve for our sins (both personal and original sin).

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. If faith comes apart from baptism, holy communion, and the teachings of the apostles and Jesus contained in the scriptures, then where is it coming from?

That's a hang up for many people. I'd be happy to discuss it.

Ok, I would enjoy that. I don't see how it's possible to separate God's perfect foreknowledge, power, and creation from the results of those things. For the Lutheran position to be correct, God would have to create knowing the results of the creation but not at all desiring some of them. That's impossible.

Yes, I think that's the essence of it. It's not that God hasn't reached out, but rather that people reject him (and I find the word "reject" better than "resist").

Ok, but why? Why is the important question. If you can't answer the "why" question, then you really haven't said anything. Either rejection of God becomes arbitrary at that point, or it's genetic (which would make God the author of sin), or it's caused by some other factor. Why do people reject?

That just creates a regression problem. Where did those evil forces come from? I prefer a combination of several things. The first is similar to C.S. Lewis' take on the origins of evil - that it stems from the fact we are finite. He gives an example of two people walking, and because one is distracted (their finite ability to know another person is present), they collide. No one intended evil, but the hurt caused by the accident begins a chain of events that leads to evil. In addition to that, I view the absence of God not as evil, but chaos - randomness. So, the means by which God gave us a free will was to absent himself from our decisions. Because the result is randomness, he in no way bears responsibility for determining what follows. Therefore, at birth an infant's thoughts are actually quite random. It takes time for them to mature and organize. That doesn't mean, however, that God has abandoned us. He prepared (predestined) a path for each of us. The problem is that we are now broken (original sin, the bound will) and so we can't find that path without his intervention.

I don't think it creates a regression problem at all. It all stems from the fall, which itself was the result of a force of evil pulling people away from God.

Your analysis turns the whole existence of mankind into one giant random, arbitrary event (after creation). Once man is created, everything happens randomly, which is just another way of saying "arbitrarily," or without any meaning. The Genesis account pictures evil as VERY intentional, not random. Further, it still doesn't escape the problem of God's foreknowledge. Even if I agreed with your "randomness" argument, it doesn't change the fact God knew prior to the creation this would happen and chose to create this universe with all of these events when he could have chosen any other universe and creation, which in turn would have resulted in an infinite number of possible outcomes. God knew the result before the creation, so by choosing to create THIS universe over some other universe, he elected it. That's essentially inescapable logically, unless you are an open theist.

 

[Resha Caner]

If faith comes apart from baptism, holy communion, and the teachings of the apostles and Jesus contained in the scriptures, then where is it coming from?

Then how was Abraham saved? That's the question taken up (and answered) in Hebrews.

I don't think it creates a regression problem at all. It all stems from the fall, which itself was the result of a force of evil pulling people away from God.

But where did that evil come from?

Your analysis turns the whole existence of mankind into one giant random, arbitrary event (after creation).

It doesn't, so we'll have to dig into the more nuanced mathematical meanings of "random". A simple example would be an archer shooting at a target. If the target is 120 cm in diameter, the bullseye is 12 cm, and the accuracy of the archer is 15 cm, what are the answers to the following questions:
* Will the archer hit the target? Yes. It is determined he will.
* Will the archer hit the bullseye? It is unknown, but we could venture a probability (say 80%).
* Will the archer be named Steve? Umm. Unknown. That's completely arbitrary.

God knew the result before the creation, so by choosing to create THIS universe over some other universe, he elected it. That's essentially inescapable logically, unless you are an open theist.

I'm not an open theist, but that's not the only alternative. I'll ask the square circle question: Is it possible for God to make a square circle? The answer is no. It is, by definition, impossible. Does that limit God's omni-properties? No. Asking questions about the logically impossible says nothing about God.

Knowing the future of a random event is a logical impossibility.

 

[jinc1019]

Then how was Abraham saved? That's the question taken up (and answered) in Hebrews.

There's a lot being said here, and all of it is important, so starting with just this one part: What are you saying it says?

 

[jinc1019]

But where did that evil come from?

We don't know, exactly. We know God creates all things, so we know it comes from God, in some sense, but the thought has traditionally been the serpent is Satan, a fallen angel.

I'm not an open theist, but that's not the only alternative. I'll ask the square circle question: Is it possible for God to make a square circle? The answer is no. It is, by definition, impossible. Does that limit God's omni-properties? No. Asking questions about the logically impossible says nothing about God.

Knowing the future of a random event is a logical impossibility.

Ok, but we can agree then that it's logically impossible, right? Why then should I believe God doesn't, in the way I described, want all things to occur on some level? Scripture plainly teaches God created everything. It plainly teaches God knows all things before they happen. It plainly teaches God has power over all things. Do you disagree with any of this?

If all those things are true, why can't I synthesize that information to create a conclusion? By your logic, we can't say there is a trinity, because the Bible never says there is specifically. We come to that conclusion by taking truths throughout the Bible and bringing them together to form one doctrine.

 

[Resha Caner]

There's a lot being said here, and all of it is important, so starting with just this one part: What are you saying it says?

Hebrews 1:1-2, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

Hebrews 10:10,14, We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Hebrews 11:1-2, Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. ... The rest of the chapter then lists a host of OT names.

I made a mistake in not mentioning that the capstone of the argument actually comes from Romans 4.

Romans 4:9, For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

 

[Resha Caner]

We don't know, exactly. We know God creates all things, so we know it comes from God, in some sense, but the thought has traditionally been the serpent is Satan, a fallen angel.

I won't accept that God has anything to do with evil. I'm aware of Isaiah 45:7, but maybe I interpret that differently than you for to ascribe evil to God would contradict 1 John 1:5, James 1:13, etc. When there appear to be such contradictions in scripture, I conclude there is something wrong with my interpretation.

But, anyway, tracing evil to Satan leaves the same problem. Where did Satan come from? You see, we're regressing here.

If all those things are true, why can't I synthesize that information to create a conclusion? By your logic, we can't say there is a trinity, because the Bible never says there is specifically. We come to that conclusion by taking truths throughout the Bible and bringing them together to form one doctrine.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying this at all.

Ok, but we can agree then that it's logically impossible, right? Why then should I believe God doesn't, in the way I described, want all things to occur on some level? Scripture plainly teaches God created everything. It plainly teaches God knows all things before they happen. It plainly teaches God has power over all things. Do you disagree with any of this?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, so I can't agree with it.

God knows all things that are logically possible to know. And, yes, he has the power to cause any future event he desires. But he may also choose to let our decisions stand.

 

[jinc1019]

Hebrews 1:1-2, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

Hebrews 10:10,14, We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Hebrews 11:1-2, Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. ... The rest of the chapter then lists a host of OT names.

I made a mistake in not mentioning that the capstone of the argument actually comes from Romans 4.

Romans 4:9, For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

Ok, but that doesn't answer the question, which is ultimately why does Abraham have faith?

 

[jinc1019]

I won't accept that God has anything to do with evil. I'm aware of Isaiah 45:7, but maybe I interpret that differently than you for to ascribe evil to God would contradict 1 John 1:5, James 1:13, etc. When there appear to be such contradictions in scripture, I conclude there is something wrong with my interpretation.

But, anyway, tracing evil to Satan leaves the same problem. Where did Satan come from? You see, we're regressing here.

No, not really. Satan was created by God (at least, according to most interpretations). So, Satan was created by God, Satan rebelled against God, Satan works in the world to draw people away, which led to the fall, which led to sinful natures, which led to more sin, etc. God didn't create Satan to sin, but God gave Satan the ability to choose sin knowing what Satan would choose.

God knows all things that are logically possible to know. And, yes, he has the power to cause any future event he desires. But he may also choose to let our decisions stand.

Yes, but I think you're missing the point. If God, before the foundation of the world, knew what would happen if he chose to create in the way that he did, and he was absolutely opposed to some of the outcomes that came from that choice, he could have chosen to create in a different way. God could have chosen from an infinite number of possible universes, but he chose this one, which means he chose it for a reason. This is akin to election (of everything).

That doesn't mean God is pleased with everything that happens, only that the sum of all events that occur, both good and evil, is more pleasing to God than any other potential universe God could have created.

What you want to do is to say, "Yes, God created the universe, and yes, God knew what would happen before he created it, but God didn't want XYZ things to occur even though he knew they would." What I'm saying is that XYZ isn't as important to God as the sum total of all events that happen.

It goes back to what I said before. God has a hierarchy of desire (at least, that's how he has revealed himself in scripture). God wants NO ONE to sin, yet God creates a world where sin happens. That's because God must want creatures to have the freedom to sin more than he wants a world without sin. If God wanted a world without sin more, he would have created people so that they never sin!