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

[Johnnz]

Sure. In Exodus 4 and 7, God foretells that He will harden Pharaoh's heart. How does God harden a heart though and what happens to a person when that occurs? The heart is the nature of a man, it provides him ability or inability to do something. By hardening Pharaoh's heart, the man then had the ability to continue hardening his own heart further. Under the persecution of the plagues lies about letting the Israelites leave, and again his heart is hardened as God ensures that His Will is carried out. This continues through the rest of Exodus (Im sure you are quite familiar with the story).

Read the whole story. There you will see how many times Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God's final. judicial hardening. His opportunity had run out.

See what Isaiah asks here:

Isaiah 63:17 Why, Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance.

Now, is Isaiah in the wrong about understanding God? And if so, why trust what he says in the rest of the book at all?

Also with that passage in Isaiah
Isa 63:15-19
Look down from heaven and see
from your lofty throne, holy and glorious.
Where are your zeal and your might?
Your tenderness and compassion are withheld from us.
16 But you are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us
or Israel acknowledge us;
you, O Lord, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is your name.
17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways
and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes that are your inheritance.
18 For a little while your people possessed your holy place,
but now our enemies have trampled down your sanctuary.
19 We are yours from of old;
but you have not ruled over them,
they have not been called by your name.
NIV

The prophet laments Israel's ongoing captivity due to their sin. V 19 states that rebellion. The Hebrew word connotes a lack of feeling i.e. they had no love for God. There is nothing in that text to remotely suggest an individual election. It was addressed to the nation.

John
NZ

 

[deepthink]

That's my line of thinking too. But as someone said those who go to hell chose to go to hell for rejection of salvation and their sins that they not ask for forgivness and those who go to heaven go to heaven because they accepted salvation and become spiritually alive in Christ.

What you say is true but what I reject is the Calvinist position that the only ones who acept Jesus as their Lord and savior are those that were predestinated to do so. The ones who reject salvation do so because they were not predestinated to be saved. This means salvation is more a matter of luck.
Were you lucky enought to have been predestinated to be a receiptent of
God's grace. If so your salvation was never in doubt because God predestinated the save to be saved.

Since the bible says that only a few will find their way through the narrow gate that leads to the kingdom of Heaven it follows that the vast majority of people who have ever lived will go through the wide gate that leads to destruction all because they had the missfortune of not being predestinated for salvation.

Calvinist maintain that those that go to heaven get what they don't deserve and those that perrish get what they deserve. This contradicts the very deffinition of justice.When ever people get what they don't deserve an injustice has been done. Those that go to heaven get what they deserve because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them. Therefor they are deserving of heaven.

Calvinst maintain that God has a perfect right to make some people to be honorable and others to be dishonorable and to reward the honorable and punish the dishonorable. I have trouble accepting their view point. Wherein is it just to create a person to be dishonorable and then punish this person for acting the way this person was created to act. For God to do so in my opinion would make God unjust not good and unloving. Therefor I reject the calvinist position on predestination because for God to do as the calvinist claim would require God to act out side His characeter for the bible declares God to be loving just and, good.Therefor to the calvinist I challenge tell me something good, something just and something loving about making a dishonorable person and then punishing the person for acting the way it was created to act?

We are suspose to beable to give thanks to God for everything. Can we then exspect a mother whose adult children died before her upon ariving in Heaven and finding her children not there says to Jesus,Thank you, thank you, thank you. Even now as I enter into my eternal bliss with you I know my children are wailing and nashing their teeth in endless torment for you good pleasuer. Thank You Jesus for not predestinating them to salvation.

I entertain sometimes the doctrine of universal salvation because God word declares that it is not his will than any should perrish and he also says that He shall purpose a thing and it shall stand and who can disanul it? Since it is not God's will that any should perrish and none can disanull
His will than all should be saved. Jesus also said upon the crooss forgive them for they know not what they do Anyone rejecting Christ has to be ignorant of what that means and since God is no respector of person and did forgive those that nailed him to the cross he must also forgive those the reject him.

He Jesus also said If I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself and that has to be the begining of the work of salvation. Paul tells us that god is able to finish the work he has begun. therefor a case can be made for universal salvation. When Jesus died He did indeed die unconditionaly for
all His creation. Of the three universal salvation sovereign election and free will universal salvation is the the most loving good and just. In my opinion. Deep Think

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Well, unless you place ALL the responsibility for salvation in God's hands, there is no need for an explanation. Sure, God wants man to be saved. But if you allow that man can refuse, then you don't have to explain it.

But if God alone controls salvation and man plays no role, then you have the problem of God choosing not to save everyone, even though He wants to.

I'm not looking to pick on any particular Church, but trying to understand how that theology works. And the only place I see it being a problem is with double predestination.

But certainly, there can also be answers we may not have. I can accept that too. But really, these appear to me to be doctrines, and they were arrived at somehow. So that's why I'm interested.

 

[Albion]

But if God alone controls salvation and man plays no role, then you have the problem of God choosing not to save everyone, even though He wants to.

Right. But my answer is that this is the paradox that every church faces. Either God's sovereignty is not absolute or he doesn't choose to save everyone. There is no middle ground, and that also goes for those who think God chooses but we can turn him down. That is still a gap in God's wanting all to be saved and/or his sovereignty. It doesn't matter if we're talking about EO, RC, Protestants, whatever, they all face the same dilemma in explaining this.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fact?

You don't support the doctrine of Limited Atonement, obviously. Which leaves two other options: Universalism (all men are saved); or the idea that God tried to save all men but failed.

Interesting. So from your pov, the position of God wanting to save all has it's own inconsistencies.

I believe this can lead into quite a rabbit-trail. The easy answer to God having "failed" is that God did not fail, but allowed free will instead, so that man could choose destruction / resist salvation and so fail to be saved.

Interesting.

Which also reminds me that I have seen some Orthodox question free will, but I hadn't had a chance to pursue that one yet, so I'm not sure if the Orthodox Church teaches that or what it means.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Right. But my answer is that this is the paradox that every church faces. Either God's sovereignty is not absolute or he doesn't choose to save everyone. There is no middle ground, and that also goes for those who think God chooses but we can turn him down. That is still a gap in God's wanting all to be saved and/or his sovereignty. It doesn't matter if we're talking about EO, RC, Protestants, whatever, they all face the same dilemma in explaining this.

There is middle ground Albion, it is found in the humble admission that we do not know what God knows and hence we do not know more than God has revealed; namely that God does want all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and that some men will not be saved (Revelation 22:15).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I fully admit that the Calvinist position for sovereign election is very powerful and, the case for free will is also very powerful.
Realizing that neither side has an air tight case I decided to embrace the free will advocacy position by using the character test. The character test declares that we can never believe that God has done or is doing anything that would require God to act contrary to His character. Everyone agrees that God is Good,Loving,and just. If then what we are being asked to believe requires that God is violating any of of his character traits than we know we shouldn't believe it.
Therefor lets pretend that I am one of the non elect. God created me a dishonorable vessel. My destiny is to spend an eternity in Hell where I will wail and gnash my teeth in endless torment. Can anybody tell me something good about me being created a dishonorable vessel? Can anyone tell me how God creating me a fit vessel for destruction is an me for behaving dishonorably?
Unless some one can establish that God did not act outside of His characeter in making me a dishonorable vessel than He did no such thing.In fact sing Jesus said that only those that do God's will will into heaven and I was doing God's will when I sin then God has to let me into heaven for it was his will that I should sin if he made me a fit vessel for destruction.
Was it not.Calvinist stand the gospel on its head.Therefor I reject it.
Deep Thinkk

Something similar to this line of thought is what led me to have such a hard time with double predestination.

I kept putting myself in the shoes of those who are simply "non-elect". And I pit that against God's revealed nature as a good and loving God. It's difficult to make it fit.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Right. But my answer is that this is the paradox that every church faces. Either God's sovereignty is not absolute or he doesn't choose to save everyone. There is no middle ground, and that also goes for those who think God chooses but we can turn him down. That is still a gap in God's wanting all to be saved and/or his sovereignty. It doesn't matter if we're talking about EO, RC, Protestants, whatever, they all face the same dilemma in explaining this.

Well, what is sovereignty? What is free will?

By the common definition of both, sovereignty must necessarily choose to limit its control if free will is to be allowed.

That may be simplistic, but it's a logical necessity as far as I can see. If God chose to actively control every element, free will would be an illusion at best, and essentially nonexistent.

There are dilemmas all around perhaps, but this particular one is not shared equally.

All one has to do is to say that predestination is merely foreknowledge and it disappears. Or to say that God allows people to reject Him. Or that all are in fact saved. Any of these will avoid this particular inconsistency. (And maybe other answers not immediately coming to my mind.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

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

Thank you.

May I ask whether this is an official position of your church? I'm just curious.

It seems to be the only way to answer the question that I can see.

I don't agree, but since you are kind enough to give me an answer, I don't wish to debate it with you either. At least not uninvited.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Albion]

Well, what is sovereignty? What is free will?

I'll put it another way. If God chooses who is to be saved, he is in charge--just as we say he's in charge of everything else. If we say Man has Free Will, we're saying Man is in charge, at least of that much. There is little argument that if we have Free Will and this determines whether we will be saved or not, this implies that some won't be saved.

It's an unanswerable problem, and it doesn't matter which church we're talking about.

By the common definition of both, sovereignty must necessarily choose to limit its control if free will is to be allowed.

True. The question then is "Can the sovereign voluntarily cede some of his sovereignty and still be sovereign? Most would say "no."

If God chose to actively control every element, free will would be an illusion at best, and essentially nonexistent.

At least so far as us being saved or not goes.

All one has to do is to say that predestination is merely foreknowledge and it disappears.

Except that Foreknowledge is just a way of making Predestination into Free Will. Salvation would be based on what WE do, and God would merely be ratifying it.

Or to say that God allows people to reject Him. Or that all are in fact saved. Any of these will avoid this particular inconsistency.

Not really. The first still negates sovereignty and the second, although theoretically possible, flies in the face of so much that we are taught in the Bible that it isn't a realistic answer.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'll put it another way. If God chooses who is to be saved, he is in charge--just as we say he's in charge of everything else. If we say Man has Free Will, we're saying Man is in charge, at least of that much. There is little argument that if we have Free Will and this determines whether we will be saved or not, this implies that some won't be saved.

It's an unanswerable problem, and it doesn't matter which church we're talking about.


True. The question then is "Can the sovereign voluntarily cede some of his sovereignty and still be sovereign? Most would say "no."


At least so far as us being saved or not goes.


Except that Foreknowledge is just a way of making Predestination into Free Will. Salvation would be based on what WE do, and God would merely be ratifying it.



Not really. The first still negates sovereignty and the second, although theoretically possible, flies in the face of so much that we are taught in the Bible that it isn't a realistic answer.

Well, you are speaking of another problem. And I agree that you have points.

The idea of sovereignty is a little stickier, IMO.

So, some would say that God cannot cede certain points and still be sovereign. The flip side of that coin would seem to be, do we demand that God maintain full control of all in order to maintain His sovereignty? Meaning, if He is sovereign, does He lack the freedom to exercise that sovereignty as He wills?

I am unaware of it, but I'd be willing to bet this is a much-wrestled question. It has that flavor.

But offhand, it sounds to me as if we're talking about dictating the very terms of God's sovereignty to Him, and that doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

[Radagast]

And here Aquinas disagrees with his Church.

Well, no, he doesn't. The Catholic Church has always considered the Thomist view on Grace and predestination one of the valid points of view. See the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In fact, in 1607 the Pope specifically said that it was wrong to call this point of view heretical.

 

[Albion]

Well, you are speaking of another problem. And I agree that you have points.

The idea of sovereignty is a little stickier, IMO.

So, some would say that God cannot cede certain points and still be sovereign. The flip side of that coin would seem to be, do we demand that God maintain full control of all in order to maintain His sovereignty? Meaning, if He is sovereign, does He lack the freedom to exercise that sovereignty as He wills?

By definition, if he gives up sovereignty, he ceases to be sovereign. In theory he might have the ability to give it up, but it that happened (in theory) he wouldn't be sovereign anymore and, therefore, not God. Obviously, all this hypothesizing shows that God cannot cease to be God as we have understood the nature of God, not any more than he could decide to become absent from all that he's created.

But offhand, it sounds to me as if we're talking about dictating the very terms of God's sovereignty to Him, and that doesn't seem quite right to me.

I absolutely agree. That's what I was saying above. We can posit this or that change in God when we're speaking hypothetically, but God must remain God, so those changes cannot be anything other than hypothetical.

 

[98cwitr]

Thank you.

May I ask whether this is an official position of your church? I'm just curious.

It seems to be the only way to answer the question that I can see.

I don't agree, but since you are kind enough to give me an answer, I don't wish to debate it with you either. At least not uninvited.

Thank you for your post.

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?

 

[98cwitr]

Also with that passage in Isaiah
Isa 63:15-19
Look down from heaven and see
from your lofty throne, holy and glorious.
Where are your zeal and your might?
Your tenderness and compassion are withheld from us.
16 But you are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us
or Israel acknowledge us;
you, O Lord, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is your name.
17 Why, O Lord, do you make us wander from your ways
and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes that are your inheritance.
18 For a little while your people possessed your holy place,
but now our enemies have trampled down your sanctuary.
19 We are yours from of old;
but you have not ruled over them,
they have not been called by your name.
NIV

The prophet laments Israel's ongoing captivity due to their sin. V 19 states that rebellion. The Hebrew word connotes a lack of feeling i.e. they had no love for God. There is nothing in that text to remotely suggest an individual election. It was addressed to the nation.

John
NZ

And why do they have no love for God?

God was the first to harden Pharaoh's heart...and therein lies the ability. Individual election is quite apparent in the NT, Im sure you are well familiar with the verses, even as much as you may try to ignore them.

 

[Lion King]

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?

Interesting verse.

 

[Johnnz]

And why do they have no love for God?

God was the first to harden Pharaoh's heart...and therein lies the ability. Individual election is quite apparent in the NT, Im sure you are well familiar with the verses, even as much as you may try to ignore them.

You did not include my first comment. That's an easy way to try and make your point.

John
NZ

 

[BobRyan]

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.

In a free will model it is easy to see that if anyone goes to hell it is because they chose it --not because they were predestined to go there in some sort of arbitrary selection model.

But in the arbitrary selection model of Calvinism it is not so clear that those who go to hell had the same opportunity to go to heaven as the saved - and have only themselves to blame for not being among the redeemed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Radagast]

In a free will model it is easy to see

There is no "free will model." Calvinists also believe in free will.

The debate is about how exactly free will and predestination are to be reconciled.

 

[fhansen]

Well, no, he doesn't. The Catholic Church has always considered the Thomist view on Grace and predestination one of the valid points of view. See the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In fact, in 1607 the Pope specifically said that it was wrong to call this point of view heretical.

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