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

[Radagast]

Well, yes he does, on this point; the RCC expressly denies predestination to hell.

I think you will find that RCC declarations on the subject have been specifically worded not to condemn St Thomas Aquinas. He is a Doctor of the Church, after all. I also think that you misunderstand what he wrote, and that you don't realise that any attempt to condemn him effectively condemns the entire Dominican Order. Such an attempt would tear the RCC apart (it almost did 400 years ago).

I suggest that you read the Catholic Encyclopedia on predestination and on the Congregatio de Auxiliis.

You might also look at Akin's famous "Tiptoe through TULIP" which looks at how close Calvinism comes to falling within the boundaries set by the RCC. The differences are smaller than you might think. I quote part of the section on Unconditional Election:

"What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

Thomas Aquinas wrote, 'God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, "Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err."'

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm 'double-predestination,' a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught."

It all goes to show what I've said on another thread; this is a very complex and subtle theological issue -- which is hardly surprising, given that we cannot presume to understand how God thinks. Simplistic responses on this topic are likely to be wrong.

 

[98cwitr]

Interesting verse.

check mate! God does not love everyone. END THREAD.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I attend about the most liberal baptist church that you will find out there. Safe to say, my theology often times does not line up with theirs. I do teach the youth in sunday school though, so at least I am able to get them thinking....

I invite wholeheartedly your rebuttal!

In our other thread we just brought up this astounding point:

1 Cor. 13:5 says that Love keeps no record of wrongs. So if God loves the damned...why do He send them to hell?

I've actually thought about that verse from 1 Cor 13 in regards to this question.

I have a feeling we could go round and round about whether or not God loves everyone, since both positions can be supported from Scripture - at least to some degree.

I'm not really interested in arguing too much about the point. If I can find the time (I'm very limited online for the next few days), I may be able to give it some attention.

But just a very basic point, I could reply to your previous post - the one I was saying I didn't agree with - in which you said:

God does not love all men. If He did Hell would not exist....there would be zero requirements, including faith, for salvation.

Specifically you point to the existence of hell as proof that God does not love all men. But we are told that hell was created for the devil and his angels, not for mankind. So my disagreement is that the simple existence of hell speaks anything about God's regard (or lack of) for mankind.

He could love all men, want all to be saved, indeed sovereignly save all - and still have created hell for the devil and his angels.


I need to think a bit more about the requirements for salvation involving God's love, or a lack of it. In a way, I think you are right, but not in the way you intend it to mean.

Personally (and I need to give this some more thought) ... I think that the requirements for salvation demonstrate a proof of God's love for us, in fact. Because He does not desire to see us remain in the sickness of sin, in our fallen state. He desires to redeem us, heal us of sin, and save us. I think that is His love at work - to leave us in that condition willfully and call it "salvation" would demonstrate a lack of love, imo.

That's what I've got so far.

 

[Johnnz]

check mate! God does not love everyone. END THREAD.

Pity about this verse - "For God so loved the world". Or these ones:

John 1:29-30 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV

Eph 1:8-10 lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. NIV

Col 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

I find it hard to accept that in spite of those verses some people are created just to be damned.

John
NZ

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One side says, "I want all to be saved" while the other side says, "I only want some to be saved", and the really nasty side says, "I want the rest to burn-eternally?"

I brought this question up earlier...

But in the event it was missed, I wonder - instead of having it where it's either God saying "I want all to be saved" or saying "I only want some to be saved", why not see that our understanding of "Some" or "All" HAS a cultural context that keeps us from seeing things in full.

Specifically, why not consider if the aspect of predestining others to salvation also goes for those who believe that God predestines ALL to be saved - while ordaining some to be instruments of wrath he redeems later? 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

And as said best by another:

Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?–to this question Met Kallistos Ware tenders a qualified yes. God’s love for mankind is unconditional and absolute, but human freedom precludes us from affirming anything stronger than a paradoxical hope:

If the strongest argument in favor of universal salvation is the appeal to divine love, and if the strongest argument on the opposite side is the appeal to human freedom, then we are brought back to the dilemma with which we started: how are we to bring into concord the two principles “God is love” and “Human beings are free”? For the time being we cannot do more than hold fast with equal firmness to both principles at once, while admitting that the manner of their ultimate harmonization remains a mystery beyond our present comprehension. … Our belief in human freedom means that we have no right to categorically affirm, “All must be saved.” But our faith in God’s love makes us dare to hope that all will be saved. (Kallistos Ware, The Inner Kingdom, pp. 214-215)​

 

[Radagast]

Pity about this verse - "For God so loved the world".

A better translation would be: "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (HCSB).

 

[Radagast]

I think one problem here is that we tend to see "all men" as a collection of individuals.

It may be more accurate to say "God loves humanity," meaning humanity as an organic whole.

 

[fhansen]

I think you will find that RCC declarations on the subject have been specifically worded not to condemn St Thomas Aquinas. He is a Doctor of the Church, after all (I also think that you misunderstand him).

They haven't condemned him. But they also simply feel no need to agree on all points. The RCC is heavily Thomistic-always will be. But he didn't teach this as far as I know:
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

I suggest that you read the Catholic Encyclopedia on predestination and on the Congregatio de Auxiliis.

I have read it.

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm 'double-predestination,' a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it.

This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.

The Church doesn't teach predestination of the elect in the sense Calvinism does. She's more in line with Molina, "predestination" being based on man's free choices which God foresees. Man's will, IOW, is still involved:
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

 

[98cwitr]

Pity about this verse - "For God so loved the world". Or these ones:

John 1:29-30 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV

Eph 1:8-10 lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. NIV

Col 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

I find it hard to accept that in spite of those verses some people are created just to be damned.

John
NZ

You keep on preaching your universalism....you and I both know that Christ preached about Hell more than anyone else. If sin is taken away from everyone [the world] then there is no need for hell.

 

[98cwitr]

I've actually thought about that verse from 1 Cor 13 in regards to this question.

I have a feeling we could go round and round about whether or not God loves everyone, since both positions can be supported from Scripture - at least to some degree.

I'm not really interested in arguing too much about the point. If I can find the time (I'm very limited online for the next few days), I may be able to give it some attention.

But just a very basic point, I could reply to your previous post - the one I was saying I didn't agree with - in which you said:



Specifically you point to the existence of hell as proof that God does not love all men. But we are told that hell was created for the devil and his angels, not for mankind. So my disagreement is that the simple existence of hell speaks anything about God's regard (or lack of) for mankind.

He could love all men, want all to be saved, indeed sovereignly save all - and still have created hell for the devil and his angels.


I need to think a bit more about the requirements for salvation involving God's love, or a lack of it. In a way, I think you are right, but not in the way you intend it to mean.

Personally (and I need to give this some more thought) ... I think that the requirements for salvation demonstrate a proof of God's love for us, in fact. Because He does not desire to see us remain in the sickness of sin, in our fallen state. He desires to redeem us, heal us of sin, and save us. I think that is His love at work - to leave us in that condition willfully and call it "salvation" would demonstrate a lack of love, imo.

That's what I've got so far.

Please reference Jude 1 and reply back.

 

[Radagast]

They haven't condemned him. But they also simply feel no need to agree on all points. The RCC is heavily Thomistic-always will be. But he didn't teach this as far as I know:
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

Aquinas taught "passive reprobation," which is an acceptable RCC viewpoint. The wording of #1037 has been very carefully chosen so that it's compatible with Aquinas.

The Church doesn't teach predestination of the elect in the sense Calvisim does. She's more in line with Molina

The Jesuits are more in line with Molina, but even today the Jesuits are not the RCC (I'm guessing you went to a Jesuit school, though).

Officially, the Catholic Church accepts both the Molinist and Thomist viewpoints as valid, and the Thomists teach do predestination of the elect in pretty much exactly the sense Calvinism does, excepting "double predestination" and "perseverance of the saints" (which the RCC has condemned).

And the whole point of the Congregatio de Auxiliis was that the RCC takes no official stand on whether Molina or Aquinas was right.

 

[Johnnz]

A better translation would be: "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (HCSB).

I can't see where those words are in the Greek text.

John
NZ

 

[98cwitr]

Look to John 3:17-20.

see beyond what you have been "taught"

 

[Johnnz]

You keep on preaching your universalism....you and I both know that Christ preached about Hell more than anyone else. If sin is taken away from everyone [the world] then there is no need for hell.

Hmm. I thought I just gave the actual scriptures. Do you have some beef with them?

John
NZ

 

[98cwitr]

I have beef with using Scripture in a context which implies a different meaning. Twist ye scripture if ye are of the devil.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”[f]

 

[Radagast]

I can't see where those words are in the Greek text.

John 3:16: οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The word "οὕτως" (G3779) means "in this way." See also Matthew 1:18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way."

 

[Johnnz]

Look to John 3:17-20.

see beyond what you have been "taught"

John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. NIV

Those verses reinforce my understanding.

Please explain what these Scriptures I gave actually mean.

John 1:29-30 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV

Eph 1:8-10 lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. NIV

Col 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

John
NZ

 

[98cwitr]

John 3:16-21
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. NIV

Those verses reinforce my understanding.

Please explain what these Scriptures I gave actually mean.

John 1:29-30 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! NIV

World of the elect. Obviously if Christ took the sin away from the whole world then everyone is saved. See translation:

κόσμος,n \{kos'-mos}
1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government 2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3 3) the world, the universe 4) the circle of the earth, the earth 5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family 6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ 7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly 7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ 8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort 8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) 8b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Greek Bible


Eph 1:8-10 lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. NIV

Recall that all the dead shall be raised and all face judgement. Every knee shall bow, but that does not mean that everyone is saved

Col 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. NIV

Simply explains the Sovereignty of Christ over not only the church, but the world as well. Reconcile does not mean save.

John
NZ

Comments inline. Sir, are you a universalist?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

My main question from your post though, is that you say this goes against all that we know about God outside the Gospel? Could you elaborate a little on this? I am guessing at a meaning, but I may be wrong. I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.

I think Job's inquiry of God is the best example. Job is not an Israelite, and is not looking for knowledge of God as it has been revealed through the prophets of Israel. The prophets, of course, have revealed God's law as well as God's gospel- God's bad news of condemnation as well as God's good news of consolation. But when Job tries to find answers to his questions from the 'hidden' God- God not as preached by the prophets, God not as we wills himself to be know through the prophets- he simply encounters the terrifying majesty of God in his naked power. God makes no effort to distinguish himself from the calamities caused by "the Satan" (= specifically in Job, the Accuser), because all we find outside God's intended revelation is the "second use" of the law- the law always accusing and condemning. God revealed to Elijah is in the still small voice; God sought out apart from his own revelation is, for Job, indeed in the whirlwind.

(Man, Luther really reads the Old Testament just like the church fathers do; none of this would fly in modern academic biblical studies.)

Now Job's knowledge of God is true knowledge. As another example, lets take the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. There's the cosmological argument (in one form: A. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. B. The space-time universe began to exist. C. The space-time universe has a Cause). This is accurate knowledge of God, and parallel's the revealed truth of God as creator; but while the cosmological argument gets us somewhere, it really gets us to an all-powerful being who could squash us like ants and has every right to. So too, to a lesser extent, the teleological and ontological arguments.

Ultimately, when we go looking for the 'hidden God,' we find the 'naked God'- God in his naked power, condemnatory, and ultimately indistinguishable from the Accuser.

Instead of the naked God, we must seek out the clothed God- God clothed in human nature in Christ, God clothed in a crown of thorns. While we can find the God of accusation and condemnation both within revelation and outside it, it is only in God revealed, or God clothed, that we find grace. Hence, any attempt to find grace outside of God's revealed means of grace- the preached word and the sacraments administers by the church and her ministers- will ultimately lead us to either delusion or despair.

Instead, we look for a king whose throne is the cross. And to bring this back to election (a term I vastly prefer to predestination), note, a king: people don't choose their kings. Kings conquer their subjects, or their subjects are born under the king's rule.

Or another important biblical metaphor: redemption. Redemption is a metaphor of freeing slaves. Obviously under some legal systems slaves could buy their own freedom, but Christ buys our freedom. And not only does he buy our freedom, but he applies through the hearing of the world, the gift of faith, and holy baptism. He not only "acquires the funds" to buy back the whole world (= the cross; no limited atonement here), but actually is the redeemer who buys us back and sets us free. We're not free to begin with; we're not in the business of freeing ourselves by choosing him.

Or the central metaphor with baptism: drowning and resuscitation. In baptism we don't just begin to drown. We are drowned, dead, on the bottom. Dead men make no choices. We simply are brought up to new life by being joined to Christ's resurrection, by being resuscitated by Christ as he breathes the Holy Spirit into us.

These are central biblical metaphors, and they're the reason I can't buy into syncretistic schemes like the semi-Pelagianism of John Cassian in the Greek East or mitigation of Augustinianism of the Council of Orange (529) in the Latin West. At some point the New Testament metaphors lost their force- as all common metaphors tend to do within a generation or two- and when that happened we stopped seeing ourselves as slaves to sin or dead men or as servants of evil (sin, death, and the devil, anyone?) and began buying into Hellenistic philosophy's notions of free rational actors. Ancient and medieval Christianity continued using those dead metaphors as stock phrases, but their actual force- their mind-jarring, world-upsetting, game-changing force- was at least partially lost.

 

[bling]

1 Cor. 13:5 says that Love keeps no record of wrongs. So if God loves the damned...why do He send them to hell?

First off: God does not “send people to hell”, but their thoughts and actions send themselves to hell.

Secondly: you do not understand the meaning of Godly type Love. God does His part in Loving everyone including Adam and Eve, but if that Love is not humbly accepted as a purely charitable gift the transaction does not take place. There is no “Godly type Love” being received by a person refusing to humbly accept God’s help (Love), so the transaction is not completed.

God does provide hell, but not out of “Love” for those that go to hell, but out of Love for those that are helped by the threat of hell and the value placed on transgressions. Hell can help in their free will decision to choose to accept God’s charity (forgiveness and come to the realization of how much they have been forgiven of).

It is not the “wrong they have done”, but the fact they do not want to humble themselves to the point of accepting God’s gifts. People that do not want/like/desire Godly type Love and seek only selfish type love would not be happy in heaven where there is only one huge Love feast of Godly type Love.