Predestination? Doesn't God want all to be saved?

[Radagast]

And please don't give me the classic,God knows everything......

Well, yes, He does.

As for the Greek word katabolē (καταβολή, G2602). I linked you to the blueletter site which includes Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Read it. "Overthrow" is not one of the meanings of the word.

You obviously have the word mixed up with katastrophē (καταστροφή, G2692), from which the English "catastrophe" derives. That word means "overthrow."

 

[NannaNae]

" wanting all to be saved" that isn't the same as making everyone be saved.. he isn' t going to make anyone do anything..
I want lots of things sometimes , but doesn't mean I will get it.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

" wanting all to be saved" that isn't the same as making everyone be saved.. he isn' t going to make anyone do anything..
I want lots of things sometimes , but doesn't mean I will get it.

You make a good point Nanna. Without a doubt God could (if he chose to) save everyone. But he desires our love and love is not forced. He showed His love for us. It's up to us to return it or reject it. Saying we have no part in the relationship is silly. In that sense we do play a part in our own salvation.

 

[James Is Back]

You make a good point Nanna. Without a doubt God could (if he chose to) save everyone. But he desires our love and love is not forced. He showed His love for us. It's up to us to return it or reject it. Saying we have no part in the relationship is silly. In that sense we do play a part in our own salvation.

 

[n2thelight]

Well, yes, He does.

As for the Greek word katabolē (καταβολή, G2602). I linked you to the blueletter site which includes Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Read it. "Overthrow" is not one of the meanings of the word.

You obviously have the word mixed up with katastrophē (καταστροφή, G2692), from which the English "catastrophe" derives. That word means "overthrow."

Yes He does know everything,however in the context in which He knew Jeremiah,it was intimate

I'll research more on the katabole...

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Lutheran Confessions teach that God genuinely wants all people- each and every individual- to be saved. And we also believe that each and every individual's sins were paid for on the cross.

But we also believe in predestination and in the inability of sinful humans to cooperate in becoming regenerate.

How?

We believe God's eternal will and Christ's death are not automatically applied to all people, but come to people through the church and her ministry of word and sacrament. The preaching of the law kills the old Adam; the preaching of the gospel raises the new person in Christ; the administration of baptism joins us to Christ's death and resurrection. In each of those actions, God, not humans, is the one performing the act. Humans may be able to kill themselves (although this is a 'preface' to salvation, not salvation itself), but they cannot kill themselves in such a way that joins them to Christ, and they certainly cannot raise themselves from the dead to new life in Christ. God does those things in the church's ministry of word and sacrament without cooperation from the sinner. The sinner can resist, and many do, but the success of this divine surgery is dependent on the how, when, where, and whether the person encounters the word preached in its fullness and the degree to which that person resists.

Notice that here predestination could potentially apply to anyone and everyone who is killed by the law (something they could resist by being stubborn) and is raised by the gospel (something they could resist by being in doubt). It is a doctrine of God's victory over human sin, a doctrine of comfort and security, not a doctrine that can keep you up at night. Are you baptized? Then God has chosen you!

Notice, too, that this is less a doctrine of predestination in the distant past than it is a doctrine of election in our present. We speak about predestination because of what God does for us here and now simply because he is outside of time.

But at no point do we fall into the other trap, that humans cooperate in becoming regenerate. What this all means for human cooperation in sanctification is a whole different story (and it really depends on how you look at it, and it may be different in different people).

In terms of TULIP, this means Lutherans believe:

Total Depravity: Yes
Unconditional Election: Yes?
Limited Atonement: Absolutely not.
Irresistible Grace: No, but not because of cooperation.
Perseverance of the Saints: No.

Hmmmmm.

Lutheranism is a good point to consider here. It's not so much 5-point Calvinism I'm concerned with, but double-predestination (if I'm getting my terms right?).

I need to think about your post some more.

The immediate question that comes to mind is that if God ministers to all through the Church (and I'm not disagreeing with you) ... then what about those who never have an opportunity to be in proximity to the Church, or who never hear the Gospel, etc.? Does Lutheranism strictly limit God's ability to save in that case? (Sorry, dear brother, I feel like I am setting a trap for you by asking in those terms, and I'm not even sure of Lutheranism's answer, but I may as well be blunt and lead into the follow-up question if you answer in the affirmative.)

Otherwise I need to think some more. You don't seem to be saying that God chooses some to save and some to damn. And you don't support Limited Atonement either, which at least would make logical sense if God chooses some for condemnation outside of their own will, disposition, actions, or wishes.

Thank you for your post!

 

[~Anastasia~]

And then there's the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. If we accept that . . . which is a big "if" . . . then perhaps we can truthfully say that there are so many alternate versions of each of us that every one of us has versions of us that are saved and versions of us that are lost.

Ummmm ... possible I guess. In that case, I could wish to be a different "me" in some instances, but I'm thankful that this "me" is following the Lord!

 

[~Anastasia~]

That much is traditional orthodox Christian theology. Augustine says something similar, and I think serious Bible-study inevitably takes you to that conclusion.

Thank you, Radagast, that's good to know.

I did assemble the belief (albeit not with a lot of attention to the matter) from reading Scripture and noticing how God and His plans are spoken of at times. It just makes sense to me.

I'm always glad to know when what I come up with turns out to be simply traditional orthodox Christian belief, and so there is no rush to carefully re-examine my positions.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sure.


If God allows free will - man to choose God, or to reject Him - then it is man's decision that leads to salvation or condemnation. God in this case simply knows who will ultimately choose Him.

Which leaves no inconsistency. God may WISH for all to be saved, but if He will not override our free will and force salvation, then His will can be thwarted.

There is no theological problem reconciling this.

I'm looking for the ones that hold that God actually chooses for mankind, truly predestining some to salvation, and some to condemnation.

If I may ask....

Would the aspect of predestining others to salvation also go for those who believe that God predestines ALL to be saved - while ordaining some to be instruments of wrath he redeems later? I was asking due to how it often seems that some apply the aspect of predestination in limited contexts while not understanding the limited context that described Hell or the fate of those who are disobeying to God.

Moreover, as it concerns the ability of God to STILL be God, why would it not be possible for God to freely know all points of the future (including those things which may take place if decisions are made) - and yet still be able to let certain things play out while other events be predestined? One of my good friends had some excellent discussion on the matter which intrigued me, as seen here in Open theism | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith

 

[Johnnz]

God's predestination was for primarily Israel as a nation. In the NT that becomes Jesus through whom we are adopted as family according to God's eternal purposes which were always to be displayed in and through Christ. The biblical account is largely about that collective predestination not about individual pre-selection.

In the transcript of http://www.gci.org/yi/colyer34, Elmer Colyer wrote:There is a debate [Predestination] that has raged through the history of the church, that’s divided theologians and churches into different camps. I’m a United Methodist, so in my Wesleyan heritage, we’ve never been very big on predestination, but I also stand with a foot on the Reformed tradition with my study of Bloesch and Torrance. The problem with predestination is that it’s mentioned in the Bible, so you have to deal with it.

Part of the problem in the whole conversation of double predestination is that oftentimes it has rested in kind of an abstract doctrine of God: a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, absolutely in control of everything. So if you have that kind of a God, and that kind of God knows the end from the beginning, in some respect you’re almost driven to a concept of providence where everything that happens, happens under the purview of God, and double predestination is only a step away from that.

Here I find Torrance’s theology to be especially helpful, because he challenges that whole doctrine of God at the very core – asking, How do we know anything about God, about God’s power, about God’s election or predestination, apart from what God has actually revealed in Jesus Christ? And there, we find something rather difficult, that creates problems for double predestination.

At this point at least, Wesley has enough sense that when he was arguing against predestination, he finally said, “Whatever predestination means, it cannot mean that God, from all eternity wills the damnation of some. Because it’s contrary to the character of God as depicted by the whole scope and tenor of Scripture and pre-eminently in Jesus Christ." What Wesley was saying, in Torrance’s words, is there can be no dark, inscrutable deity, some sinister God behind the back of Jesus Christ who secretly wills the damnation of some and not the salvation of all, which is what we see actually revealed in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. So that kind of theological approach to thinking about double predestination, thinking about providence, is more helpful than the other way of approaching it.

John
NZ

 

[fhansen]

True, but equally the Thomist view on Grace is a valid one for Catholics; Catholics may not call it heretical (in fact, a 1607 decree of Pope Paul V states that explicitly).

Consequently, the Catholic Catechism takes great care in choosing wording that's consistent with both the Thomist and Molinist positions.
Well, the Church hasn't declared officially on or accepted either the strict Thomistic position or the Molinist position-or any other one for that matter besides what she teaches, as cited.


Yes, absolutely. But the sentence you added in your own words was your own opinion; Aquinas would have rejected it.

I think he’d agree with it before he agreed with Calvin. And yet he might also still struggle a bit with the Church positions that I cited.

In Catholic teaching on salvation, man’s will is simply never completely divorced from the picture. And that’s the point; as Anselm said, Adam sinned because he willed to sin, and God’s been at work in His creation, in my understanding, to help us reverse that waywardness, without forcing us any more than he forced Adam, desiring that we will rightly instead. Man simply needs to learn what Adam did not accept: of his absolute need for God. So we cannot possibly be saved without God, and yet God elects not to save us without us, so to speak.

And the CC emphatically denies that God predestines anyone to hell.

I'd like to follow up more on this later, as time allows.

 

[~Anastasia~]

God's predestination was for primarily Israel as a nation. In the NT that becomes Jesus through whom we are adopted as family according to God's eternal purposes which were always to be displayed in and through Christ. The biblical account is largely about that collective predestination not about individual pre-selection.

In the transcript of Elmer Colyer: Predestination and God's Power Over Evil | Grace Communion International, Elmer Colyer wrote:There is a debate [Predestination] that has raged through the history of the church, that’s divided theologians and churches into different camps. I’m a United Methodist, so in my Wesleyan heritage, we’ve never been very big on predestination, but I also stand with a foot on the Reformed tradition with my study of Bloesch and Torrance. The problem with predestination is that it’s mentioned in the Bible, so you have to deal with it.

Part of the problem in the whole conversation of double predestination is that oftentimes it has rested in kind of an abstract doctrine of God: a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, absolutely in control of everything. So if you have that kind of a God, and that kind of God knows the end from the beginning, in some respect you’re almost driven to a concept of providence where everything that happens, happens under the purview of God, and double predestination is only a step away from that.

Here I find Torrance’s theology to be especially helpful, because he challenges that whole doctrine of God at the very core – asking, How do we know anything about God, about God’s power, about God’s election or predestination, apart from what God has actually revealed in Jesus Christ? And there, we find something rather difficult, that creates problems for double predestination.

At this point at least, Wesley has enough sense that when he was arguing against predestination, he finally said, “Whatever predestination means, it cannot mean that God, from all eternity wills the damnation of some. Because it’s contrary to the character of God as depicted by the whole scope and tenor of Scripture and pre-eminently in Jesus Christ." What Wesley was saying, in Torrance’s words, is there can be no dark, inscrutable deity, some sinister God behind the back of Jesus Christ who secretly wills the damnation of some and not the salvation of all, which is what we see actually revealed in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. So that kind of theological approach to thinking about double predestination, thinking about providence, is more helpful than the other way of approaching it.

John
NZ

Thank you, John.

I hadn't read that quote from Wesley, but I must say that I agree with him completely on that. It was precisely the character of God as revealed to us, and of course bolstered by His words that He desires all to be saved, that make it impossible for me personally to believe in a God who simply formed some humans for destruction, condemning them outside of time for the sake of His own glory? I can't wrap my mind around that, and I was strongly rejecting it, which was one of those major points that led me to undertake a reconsideration of all I had been taught.

I guess I'm still looking for the reasoning and how it can be justified. There are educated, serious Christians who hold these beliefs, so I am sure they MUST have a way of explaining it. That was what I was looking for.

But yes, it is the very nature of God Himself as revealed to us that make it incomprehensible for me. And now that I have reconciled what I DO believe, I have much more freedom to see God more clearly, and I treasure that new vision of Him.

So maybe I shouldn't even be looking for this answer. But I'm still curious is all.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[James Is Back]

At this point at least, Wesley has enough sense that when he was arguing against predestination, he finally said, “Whatever predestination means, it cannot mean that God, from all eternity wills the damnation of some. Because it’s contrary to the character of God as depicted by the whole scope and tenor of Scripture and pre-eminently in Jesus Christ." What Wesley was saying, in Torrance’s words, is there can be no dark, inscrutable deity, some sinister God behind the back of Jesus Christ who secretly wills the damnation of some and not the salvation of all, which is what we see actually revealed in Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
John
NZ

This sums up my belief in predestination.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Originally Posted by NannaNae
" wanting all to be saved" that isn't the same as making everyone be saved.. he isn' t going to make anyone do anything..
I want lots of things sometimes , but doesn't mean I will get it.

You make a good point Nanna. Without a doubt God could (if he chose to) save everyone. But he desires our love and love is not forced. He showed His love for us. It's up to us to return it or reject it. Saying we have no part in the relationship is silly. In that sense we do play a part in our own salvation.

I agree with both of you. As I said, if we make it a "choice" or at least a matter of cooperation for mankind, in some sense at least, then there is no longer any inconsistency that needs to be answered. As you said, Nanna - just because God wants something, doesn't mean He's going to force it to be so.

My problem is that some say God wants it, and He does whatever He wants, nothing at all to do with us either way whether we are saved or lost (and I'm not counting Lutheran's pov in this) ... and that doesn't make sense to me. If God wants something and makes ALL the decisions and moves and is 100% responsible ... then why would He go against His own will?

But I personally believe we are responsible at the very least for cooperating with Him, so that takes part of the equation out of His hands, making sense that while He might desire all to be saved, not all necessarily must be.

Thanks for the replies!

 

[~Anastasia~]

My apologies - there are other replies I wanted to follow up on as well, but my time is limited here. I'm away from home. I will be back to this later. Thank you all so much for your thoughts!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hmmmmm.

Lutheranism is a good point to consider here. It's not so much 5-point Calvinism I'm concerned with, but double-predestination (if I'm getting my terms right?).

I need to think about your post some more.

The immediate question that comes to mind is that if God ministers to all through the Church (and I'm not disagreeing with you) ... then what about those who never have an opportunity to be in proximity to the Church, or who never hear the Gospel, etc.? Does Lutheranism strictly limit God's ability to save in that case? (Sorry, dear brother, I feel like I am setting a trap for you by asking in those terms, and I'm not even sure of Lutheranism's answer, but I may as well be blunt and lead into the follow-up question if you answer in the affirmative.)

Otherwise I need to think some more. You don't seem to be saying that God chooses some to save and some to damn. And you don't support Limited Atonement either, which at least would make logical sense if God chooses some for condemnation outside of their own will, disposition, actions, or wishes.

Thank you for your post!

The salvation of people outside of the church, or outside the sphere of the church's preaching, is an issue where Lutheranism calls upon its teaching about the distinction between the preached/revealed God and the hidden God.

God has revealed to us that he kills and makes alive through the preaching of his law and the gospel and through baptism. He has also revealed that we receive the forgiveness of sins through faith. He has also revealed that the faith of infants is sufficient for their salvation, and thus a totally non-reflective is sufficient to receive the salvation.

For the purposes of the church and its ministers, that's as far as we can go. We know there is a hell and that people go there, and we know that people are saved through the grace of God's word and sacraments and the gift of faith receiving that grace. God works through his means of grace and that's all the church, as the church, can really say.

For the purposes of speculative theology and the philosophy of religion, I suppose it is possible that God could work through other means to bring about a non-reflective, passive faith in people apart from his revealed means. But that is not suitable for the church's proclamation in two ways: 1. the preaching of speculative theology is not the commission of the church and 2. all we know about the hidden God, or the God apart form his biblical revelation, is that he is the omnipotent God of the law and its condemnation of sinners. On this second point, it means that even if we're right on that particular speculative point, it would go against everything we actually know about God outside the gospel. That makes it a very unsure and non-comforting teaching, and therefore not part of the church's gospel ministry. Rather, we must focus on our actual task of bringing people to salvation through the proclamation of the revealed word and the application of his duly commissioned sacraments.

 

[98cwitr]

Just curious about something?

For those who believe that God predestines some to be saved, and by default or design chooses condemnation for others, how do you reconcile such verses as the one that says "For God is patient with us, desiring that all men come to a knowledge of the Truth and be saved"?

How can God simultaneously desire all to be saved, while overriding His own desires and choosing some to be condemned?

I realize that to allow free will while equating foreknowledge with predestination will answer this question. But if you believe God actively selects the saved and unsaved Himself, how does that work?

Thank you.

Great question!

Been discussing this exact topic over in the baptist forum for a while now

http://www.christianforums.com/t7767972/

A question I've asked for years and never really got a good answer from a person who believes that God legitimately wants everyone to be saved:

Why then does God create people He knows will never believe?

 

[Lion King]

Did God fail?

Did God fail with the nation of Israel?

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Matthew 23:37

There are two wills at play here; God's will and our own human will. Though it is God's will that all be saved, not all will be saved. Why? Because not everyone is willing to submit to God's will. Not everyone is willing to do the will of the Father in heaven.

 

[98cwitr]

Did God fail with the nation of Israel?

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Matthew 23:37

There are two wills at play here; God's will and our own human will. Though it is God's will that all be saved, not all will be saved. Why? Because not everyone is willing to submit to God's will. Not everyone is willing to do the will of the Father in heaven.

And why aren't they willing?

 

[Lion King]

And why aren't they willing?

Lack of knowledge and understanding.