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

[BobRyan]

Thank you.

I'm sure those who believe in this must have a way to deal with what I would see as an inconsistency in their faith.

I was just hoping to hear how that is done? It's something I've never found an answer to and can't figure out on my own.

The most common solution that they use is "all does not mean all in 2Peter 3... whole world does not mean whole world in 1John 2:2" etc.

So, are you a universalist?

No I am not universalist because the Arminian solution for free will and also for accepting that Bible Atonement doctrine of Lev 16 (Day of Atonement where both the sin offering - atoning sacrifice -- AND the work of High Priest are needed to complete the broad scope of atonement) -- fully explains the result of God "not willing that any should perish" 2 Peter 3 and yet "he came to His OWN and His OWN received him not" John 1:11.

Did God fail?

Not at all. He laid out the rules in Romans 2:5-16 for failure vs success saying that "God is not partial" in 2:11.

He wants all to come to repentance - that is His will.

But He still sets up the rules as "whosoever will may come".

Which is why He "draws all mankind unto Himself" John 12:32. But does not force them (though He has the power do so making all of us robots).

He says of that model in Rev 3 "I STAND at the door and knock" not "I burst down the door and force you to accept Me".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[98cwitr]

Lack of knowledge and understanding.

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[c]

 

[Lion King]

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[c]

“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” Acts 7:51-53

 

[BobRyan]

Sure.

What I meant is that I often hear predestination explained as foreknowledge alone. God does not CHOOSE who is to be saved, but He just simply already knows who will be. Which makes "predestination" something of a misnomer and implies something that is not intended (God choosing who is saved and who is damned.).

That is not the Calvinist argument for Predestination. In the Calvinist argument you begin with "God is sovereign" and you also have "God is not influenced at all by choices you may make in the future. That would mean turning his sovereignty over to man in deciding who is saved".

I have spent many years discussing this point with them.

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.

And that is their argument against that view - for them it violates the first principle which is "God is sovereign".

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.

But you are describing the Arminian view - not the Calvinist one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Thank you, GCC.

I do agree that the Church ought to have some caution on what it believes/teaches outside of what we know.

I'm curious ... would that stance be in reaction to the Catholic tendency to expand and explain doctrine? (I don't wish to insult the Catholics here - I admire their desire to have a fully developed doctrine, but I am cautious that speculation may have been codified beyond what is sure.)

There is a fine line. From the Orthodox I am told that God may have mercy on whom He chooses. And I do agree with this. However ... while I believe it to be true that far, I also agree that you are right that it is not within the right action of the Church to widely teach such a thing, because it is speculative (not that God can have mercy, but any results we may assume from such mercy would be speculative) - and further it could be taken by some as comfort apart from the Gospel and possibly very dangerous spiritually.

So while I think it is fine to believe, I don't think it is at all wise to speculate, and I agree that it is not the Church's position to teach. At least as far as "how may man be saved"? I think the Orthodox Church uses it widely to refrain from condemnation, which I do actually also agree with.

Lots of fences to be sitting on, I'm afraid. Still trying to decide about those.

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.

Thank you so much for your post!

 

[BobRyan]

Begs the question of the meaning of elect -- "those foreknown by God" to choose obedience over rebellion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[~Anastasia~]

That is not the Calvinist argument for Predestination. In the Calvinist argument you begin with "God is sovereign" and you also have "God is not influenced at all by choices you may make in the future. That would mean turning his sovereignty over to man in deciding who is saved".

I have spent many years discussing this point with them.



And that is their argument against that view - for them it violates the first principle which is "God is sovereign".




But you are describing the Arminian view - not the Calvinist one.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, I do often hear from Calvinists that "God is sovereign" and that is the bottom line. I can appreciate their desire to attribute all power to God.

What doesn't make sense to me is - God has all power. God wants all to be saved. Some are not. So ... how does this happen? Unless Calvinists are also universalists, which they are not. My guess is that Calvinists (of this type) actually do not believe that God wants all to be saved. It's the only way it can make sense. But I wanted to verify that.

I wasn't attempting to explain a Calvinist view above. I was just explaining a loophole. Interesting if it turned out to be an Arminian one. I actually know less of Arminius than I do of Calvin. I think I got stuck trying to understand Calvin.

My own views I suspect will turn out to be in between, but probably leaning more to Arminianism than to Calvinism. But since I don't completely understand either, I can't say that with surety.

Thanks for the post.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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?

Thanks, I'll try to check out that thread as well. I only have a few minutes at a time here right now, and can't keep up with this thread as it is (more replies I want to make) but that one might have the answers I'm looking for. Thank you!

 

[fhansen]

That is not the Calvinist argument for Predestination. In the Calvinist argument you begin with "God is sovereign" and you also have "God is not influenced at all by choices you may make in the future. That would mean turning his sovereignty over to man in deciding who is saved".

No, it means that it's God's sovereign will that man plays a role, however small, in his own salvation. It's always been that way; that's how/why Adam was allowed to fall to begin with.

 

[Radagast]

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?

The phrase "Will of God" is generally understood in two or more senses, so there is no necessary contradiction here.

And one also has texts like:

Acts 13:48: ... as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans 9:15: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Ephesians 1:4: ... he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. ...

 

[fhansen]

The phrase "Will of God" is generally understood in two or more senses, so there is no necessary contradiction here.

So God is conflicted, split? 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?"

 

[Albion]

Yes, I do often hear from Calvinists that "God is sovereign" and that is the bottom line. I can appreciate their desire to attribute all power to God.

What doesn't make sense to me is - God has all power. God wants all to be saved. Some are not. So ... how does this happen? Unless Calvinists are also universalists, which they are not.

Yes, but this logic applies to the Catholic and other Protestant churches too, Kylissa.

They are not universalistic, so what is their explanation? Obviously, I'd say, we either conclude that God would ideally have a race of people descending from an Adam and Eve who had NOT disobeyed in the Garden and so had to pay a price for that...or else there are some things about God that we are not given to understand fully in this life.

 

[98cwitr]

“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” Acts 7:51-53

Again, doesn't explain WHY they are stiff necked and uncircumcised. I can just point you right back to my previous post.

 

[Lion King]

Again, doesn't explain WHY they are stiff necked and uncircumcised. I can just point you right back to my previous post.

Do you believe God would deliberately make someone blind and punish them for stumbling?

 

[fhansen]

Again, doesn't explain WHY they are stiff necked and uncircumcised. I can just point you right back to my previous post.

So God makes them stiff-necked and then yells at them for being stiff-necked, with nothing of any of it having to do with their own wills? And then sends them to eternal torment for being stiff-necked?

 

[Albion]

So God makes them stiff-necked and then yells at them for being stiff-necked, with nothing of any of it having to do with their own wills? And then sends them to eternal torment for being stiff-necked?

Let's first set aside all these rhetorical questions. If anyone goes to hell it's because of his own sinfulness. That's the bottom line whether any of us leans towards Predestination or, OTOH, Free Will.

 

[98cwitr]

Do you believe God would deliberately make someone blind and punish them for stumbling?

I really see no other way to interpret what is in the Scripture I posted. I think God makes some people for common use and others for noble purposes. Romans 9.

So God makes them stiff-necked and then yells at them for being stiff-necked, with nothing of any of it having to do with their own wills? And then sends them to eternal torment for being stiff-necked?

I think He gives a blanket warning out to everyone...the elect accept the rebuking and the damned do not. It's like if one employee screws up and the boss sends out a blanket email to the whole team.

 

[fhansen]

Let's first set aside all these rhetorical questions. If anyone goes to hell it's because of his own sinfulness. That's the bottom line whether any of us leans towards Predestination or, OTOH, Free Will.

OK, that I can agree with-and also that God can never be the author of sin.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, but this logic applies to the Catholic and other Protestant churches too, Kylissa.

Indeed. The great Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Church, St Thomas Aquinas answers three possible objections to predestination:

Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 23 (Predestination), Article 3: Whether God reprobates any man?

Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man.

Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me." God does not, then, reprobate any man.

Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): "Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised." Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.

On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): "I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau."

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good--namely, eternal life--He is said to hate or reprobated them.

Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined--namely, glory--and of what is received in this life--namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present--namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future--namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true--namely, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel."

Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.

 

[98cwitr]

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