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

Radagast · Sep 6, 2014

Johnnz said:
I do understand election. It applied to Israel and ultimately to God's purposes fulfilled by Jesus, not to each and every person, as determinists seem to believe.

Albion has quoted many texts which show that God elects individual Christians. Even Molinist Catholics accept this.

Albion · Sep 6, 2014

Johnnz said:
I do understand election. It applied to Israel and ultimately to God's purposes fulfilled by Jesus, not to each and every person, as determinists seem to believe.

John
NZ

Does this apply only to Israel, John?

John 10: 27-29

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand

~Anastasia~ · Sep 6, 2014

Albion said:
Certainly not. That's a non-sequitur. However, it is exactly what causes Free Will advocates to not be able to understand Election. So for that reason, I'm happy that you posted it.

Would you care to elaborate on this, Albion? (Or anyone else)

Personally, I agree with you that such a statement does not necessarily mean that God is the author of evil.

But can someone please explain to me how a person (God in this case) can be perfectly just if they create a flawed vessel, intended for destruction, and that vessel performs as it is designed - it sins. So then the person punishes the vessel by subjecting it to eternal torment of an extreme nature.

How can this be just? What choice did the one created in such a flawed manner have? How could it be fair if there was never any chance for redemption? And how can we claim this person (God) is the very epitome of agape love such that it equals His essence?

To me this is an impossible scenario.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I buy the "God must punish in order to be just". It sounds like mankind putting our own interpretation of justice onto God and demanding that He conform.

I can imagine giving birth to a child, watching that child get hurt by someone, reacting in anger, and sinning in that anger. And I can imagine having mercy on my child, forgiving them even though they sinned, knowing their frame is weak and knowing they reacted in pain. Am I an unjust parent? MUST I punish them to the fullest extent in order to be "fair"? I won't allow any human being to dictate those terms to me. So how can we as mere human beings judge God's own "children" (creation) and think we have a right to demand that He punish them fully, or else we strip Him of part of His nature? (Justice)

Radagast · Sep 6, 2014

Kylissa said:
How can this be just? What choice did the one created in such a flawed manner have? How could it be fair if there was never any chance for redemption? And how can we claim this person (God) is the very epitome of agape love such that it equals His essence?

Well, there's an official answer to that one (Romans 9:19-24):

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

There are indeed difficult questions here. But the answers do not involve us telling God that He doesn't measure up to what we think He should be.

And we cannot "put ourselves in God's shoes" either, because those shoes are infinitely bigger than we are.

Albion · Sep 6, 2014

Kylissa said:
Would you care to elaborate on this, Albion? (Or anyone else)

The non-sequitur is to say that if evil exists and God is omnipotent, HE caused the evil. Suffice it to say that no respectable theologian would agree to that. You could say that he permits it, but not that he is the "cause" of it.

Personally, I agree with you that such a statement does not necessarily mean that God is the author of evil.

But can someone please explain to me how a person (God in this case) can be perfectly just if they create a flawed vessel, intended for destruction, and that vessel performs as it is designed - it sins. So then the person punishes the vessel by subjecting it to eternal torment of an extreme nature.

Most Christians believe in Original Sin. Even the EO believe there is a consequence that we inherit although not quite as the Western churches think of it. Why wouldn't THAT be just as unacceptable a proposition? Yet we don't hear it advocated here very often, and whenever it is, it is immediately denounced as Pelagianism. When it comes to Election, however, the logic is used without hesitation.

How can this be just? What choice did the one created in such a flawed manner have? How could it be fair if there was never any chance for redemption? And how can we claim this person (God) is the very epitome of agape love such that it equals His essence?

How can it be just that any of us wind up in an eternity of hell when, let's face it, being sure of what God wants of us is very very very hard for us
sin-dimmed humans to discern? No parent would treat a disobedient child that way, but we consider it fair of God to do.

Lion King · Sep 6, 2014

This brings us to the age old question:

"Why did God create Adam and Eve knowing full well they were going to fail Him?"

Johnnz · Sep 6, 2014

Radagast said:
Albion has quoted many texts which show that God elects individual Christians. Even Molinist Catholics accept this.

An individual specific understanding of some NT writings has predominated thinking for centuries. But it is wrong. Paul's use of 'flesh' understood as some inner, competing 'reality' is another example. Nowhere does the NT teach individual pre-selection for every person who exists.

John
NZ

Johnnz · Sep 6, 2014

Originally Posted by Johnnz

I do understand election. It applied to Israel and ultimately to God's purposes fulfilled by Jesus, not to each and every person, as determinists seem to believe.

John
NZ

Does this apply only to Israel, John?

Israel as a nation was elected. Why? According to God's faithfulness to his promise to Abraham and as explained to Israel:

Deut 7:6-9 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. NIV

John 10: 27-29

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand

Spoken to Israel, referring to those who followed him at that time, but now true of all believers by Jesus as the Son of man at that time, utterly dependant of His Father. As eternally Trinity as Son of God all of the Godhead were present at that time and all with the same motives, attitudes and purposes. There was never a God behind Jesus selecting who to allow into salvation. 2 Cor 5:18-19 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. NIV

Determinists who cite such verses in John are not deeply Trinitarian in their theology, failing to distinguish the real theology implicit in the Incarnation, which entails the two aspects of Christ's nature, Son of God, who Jesus is in His eternity, and Jesus as Son of Man, which He became only at the incarnation, but eternally purposed before creation. thereby now being the fulfillment of God's election which we become in Christ as the church. Just as Israel was to be the example to surround nations, so now it is us, the church who has that role. Paul understood this:

Col 1:15-20 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 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. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 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. 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

Col 1:25-27 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. NIV

Col 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. NIV

John
NZ

John
NZ

Radagast · Sep 6, 2014

Johnnz said:
An individual specific understanding of some NT writings has predominated thinking for centuries. But it is wrong. Paul's use of 'flesh' understood as some inner, competing 'reality' is another example. Nowhere does the NT teach individual pre-selection for every person who exists.

That's your opinion, Johnnz, but I notice that you're not backing it up with Scripture.

BobRyan · Sep 6, 2014

Radagast said:
Well, there's an official answer to that one (Romans 9:19-24):

You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is moulded say to its moulder, Why have you made me like this? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

There are indeed difficult questions here. But the answers do not involve us telling God that He doesn't measure up to what we think He should be.

And we cannot "put ourselves in God's shoes" either, because those shoes are infinitely bigger than we are.

It is not a matter of our imposing our rules on God -- it is a matter of God true to His OWN word.

"God is not partial" Romans 2:11. So no arbitrary selection model of Calvinism is in use. Romans 2:6-16 presents a very fair and objective model rather than "arbitrary selection" for the Gospel.

And in Romans 9 God is not justifying "why He cares little for the lost" rather he is justifying why it is "he endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy"

In other words it is the mercy of God toward the finally lost that is being defended in Romans 9.

And the text says that in showing even the finally lost mercy - God is glorified because it demonstrates the riches of his glory.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Sep 6, 2014

fhansen said:
But would it be just for God, or anyone else for that matter, to create a vessel expressly fit for eternal torment, and then send him to hell accordingly because, after all, he's fit for eternal torment? Wouldn't God then be the direct cause of all evil?

If God arbitrarily selects one for hell and another for heaven before they are even born then God cannot be true to His own word that says "God is not partial" -- Rom 2:11.

What is worse is that Calvinism makes God his own Gospel saboteur.

He CAME to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not John 1

Matt 23
37Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

Luke 7
28 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged Gods justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
29 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected Gods purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Is 5:4
What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Response:
Well the Calvinist would have an answer for God on that one. An answer contrived via extreme inference in places like Deut 5:29. Calvinism would inform the world and God Himself of just what God did to cause the lamentable result that God is complaining about.

Conclusion:
If the result is wrong then Calvinism's POV argues He did wrong - sabotaging His own plans or at the very least - being forgetful to "do the necessary" as the saying goes in India.

Radagast · Sep 6, 2014

I notice that there are a lot of non-Calvinists on this thread telling Calvinists what they think. Perhaps Calvinists might be the best people to explain what Calvinists think?

And there are an astonishingly large number of people tossing the phrase "free will" around, without saying whether they mean libertarian free will, compatibilist free will, or something else.

BobRyan · Sep 6, 2014

The best view of the Arminian position is given -- if only Arminians state it and Calvinists never point to any flaw in it.

I think we all can see that clearly.

The same goes for Calvinism -- and that too is easily seen.

As for predestination - I was predestined against my will to point to the flaws in Calvinism.

Paul of Eugene OR · Sep 6, 2014

BobRyan said:
The best view of the Arminian position is given -- if only Arminians state it and Calvinists never point to any flaw in it.

I think we all can see that clearly.

The same goes for Calvinism -- and that too is easily seen.

As for predestination - I was predestined against my will to point to the flaws in Calvinism.

Aww, I think you were quite willing.

ViaCrucis · Sep 7, 2014

Indeed, we have been predestined by God to salvation in Christ Jesus. Unconditionally, apart from our will. Indeed, our will is simply not free, but bound under the constraints and tyranny of sin. The power of human volition is bound, not free--the human will is sinful and desires sinful things.

And, yes, God desires that all be saved. All meaning all, without exception.

So it is that man cannot choose God, but God chooses us.
So it is that our damnation is our own choosing, not the will of God. For, as we've already said, God desires all be saved.

For God desires that none should perish, but all have eternal life. Therefore God has neither chosen any for destruction nor has "passed over" anyone. For as we've already said, God desires that all be saved.

How can this be? If it is that God desires that all be saved, and it is that God has predestined the elect to salvation, then why are some saved and not others?

Enter the Crux Theologorum.

-CryptoLutheran

Radagast · Sep 7, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
And, yes, God desires that all be saved. All meaning all, without exception.
So it is that man cannot choose God, but God chooses us.
So it is that our damnation is our own choosing, not the will of God. For, as we've already said, God desires all be saved.

All those three statements have been accepted by various groups of Christians. However, it seems to me logically inconsistent (depending on your interpretation of "God desires") to accept all three together.

ViaCrucis said:
Therefore God has neither chosen any for destruction nor has "passed over" anyone. For as we've already said, God desires that all be saved.

Which seems to me inconsistent with the second of your three points above.

I also notice that you're making a lot of dogmatic statements here, but not backing them up at all.

Johnnz · Sep 7, 2014

Radagast said:
That's your opinion, Johnnz, but I notice that you're not backing it up with Scripture.

Follow Paul's argument in Romans. It make much more sense when it is understood in broader concepts, given the theme of that book.

Also, how we interpret the Scriptures is not given to us within the texts themselves in specific verses.

John
NZ

Radagast · Sep 7, 2014

Johnnz said:
Follow Paul's argument in Romans.

I have done. I don't think that your interpretation survives engagement with the Greek text.

Johnnz said:
It make much more sense when it is understood in broader concepts, given the theme of that book.

You're basing your argument on the "vibe" of the book? That seems a little... subjective.

fhansen · Sep 7, 2014

Albion said:
Certainly not. That's a non-sequitur.

I think its the the logical conclusion, however, of the reprobate's will playing no role in not only being sinful, but also in remaining sinful, or in receiving forgiveness for their sin. But even if I concede that my point is a non-sequitur, I still ask, "But would it be just for God, or anyone else for that matter, to make a vessel fit for eternal torment, and then send him to hell because he's fit for eternal torment?" To create a being for no other ultimate purpose than to suffer eternally, having no culpability since they have no choice in the matter.

Albion · Sep 7, 2014

fhansen said:
I think its the the logical conclusion, however, of the reprobate's will playing no role in not only being sinful, but also in remaining sinful, or in receiving forgiveness for their sin.

Well, I said that some people don't understand this, didn't I? .

But even if I concede that my point is a non-sequitur, I still ask, "But would it be just for God, or anyone else for that matter, to make a vessel fit for eternal torment, and then send him to hell because he's fit for eternal torment?"

I guess if you judge God...and if you think he must conform to our human standards of justice, you could come up with that conclusion.

To create a being for no other ultimate purpose than to suffer eternally, having no culpability since they have no choice in the matter.

Ok, I 'll now take my turn at accepting your premise for the sake of the discussion. You say that for God to create some people for damnation (which by the way is not necessary for Predestination to be Biblical) is unjust of God. But you have no problem, I take it, with billions of people not figuring out what God wants of us in this life and so wind up in hell.

If you think the first is impossible of God because it's unjust, so is the latter!

As a result, you should be a universalist. If you don't reach that conclusion, you are not being consistent in your argument.

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

comes and goes

Facilitator

† Handmaid of God †

comes and goes

Facilitator

Veni, vidi, vici

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Junior Member

Junior Member

comes and goes

Junior Member

Finally Old Enough

Confessional Lutheran

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

Oldbie

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency