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

[fhansen]

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

Yes, it can be difficult for some to understand illogical conclusions.

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.

He's the author of justice, and sets the standards for all His creation, which man is meant to recognize. This is how we may know that a particular act is unjust; this is the source of our moral outrage for injustices recently committed in the Middle East, for example,

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.

No, we believe God judges based on what we've done with what we've received. This is the essential message of the Parable of the Talents; this is the principle behind Luke 12:48; this is why Baptism wasn't necessary for the thief on the cross, for example.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Because "all" has been contextualy reduced from a universal "all" to a particular "all" by the decisive election of those who get placed "in Christ", and by default, those who don't.
Thus God is responsible for(has jurisdiction over) but not guilty of, our sin.

I don't pretend to speak for "Calvinism, so you shouldn't pretend that I do either.
His soteriology is the only part I agree with.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it can be difficult for some to understand illogical conclusions.

He's the author of justice, and sets the standards for all His creation, which man is meant to recognize.

Then, we ought to be able to recognize that He is God and that his ways are not necessarily our ways...and that this is not only Biblical but also obvious.

 

[fhansen]

Then, we ought to be able to recognize that He is God and that his ways are not necessarily our ways...and that this is not only Biblical but also obvious.

And likewise man should be able to recognize the injustice of creating a being, even an insect, for no other final reason than to suffer eternally.

 

[Albion]

And likewise man should be able to recognize the injustice of creating a being, even an insect, for no other final reason than to suffer eternally.

Is this a confirmation of what I said--that to be consistent with your line of argument it is necessary to believe in universal salvation (insects included, if you wish)??

 

[fhansen]

Is this a confirmation of what I said--that to be consistent with your line of argument it is necessary to believe in universal salvation (insects included, if you wish)??

Probably not.I'll clarify. It means that its not God's purpose that any should perish, but man, having been left to his own counsel, plays his role in the decision.

 

[Albion]

Probably not.I'll clarify. It means that its not God's purpose that any should perish, but man, having been left to his own counsel, plays his role in the decision.

That reading of the verse can also be used to prove Predestination, you know.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

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.

It is logically inconsistent. It's completely unreasonable.

And yet Scripture very clearly says,

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." -2 Peter 3:9

"[God]who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 1 Timothy 2:4

"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." - 1 Timothy 4:10

While also saying,

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." - Romans 8:29

We must therefore say, with Scripture, that God loves all, Christ died for all, and God desires all to be saved. And we must also say that God has predestined those whom He has chosen to salvation in Christ.

It's not either/or, it's both/and. And yes, it is logically inconsistent. But nevertheless it is what Scripture says.

It's not called the Crux Theologorum because it's easy.

The great problems with both Calvinism and Arminianism, from the position of a Lutheran, is that to be one or the other is to choose one side of Scripture and wave away the other. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are more logically consistent than the Lutheran position. But they are logically consistent at the expense of being thoroughly and consistently biblical. The Calvinist must sacrifice the universality of God's grace and love, the cross, and of Christ in favor of monergistic election. The Arminian must sacrifice monergistic election in favor of the universality of God's grace and love, the cross, and of Christ.

So, absolutely, the Lutheran position is not logically consistent, nor is it very reasonable. But I maintain that it is biblical. And is why I'm a Lutheran, and neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rick Otto]

The "universality of God's love".
I see what you did there.

 

[fhansen]

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.

It’s great to find common ground, of course. While I don’t pretend that the answers to this question are necessarily easy ones, I agree with Catholic doctrine that maintains that man’s will is simply never completely separated from his justification/salvation, even as he absolutely requires God's help (grace) in turning to Him. Anyway, if Calvinism can agree with the following RC teachings, some of which have already been cited, then better yet:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

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.

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":

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

2106"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

 

[bbbbbbb]

It’s great to find common ground, of course. While I don’t pretend that the answers to this question are necessarily easy ones, I agree with Catholic doctrine that maintains that man’s will is simply never completely separated from his justification/salvation, even as he absolutely requires God's help (grace) in turning to Him. Anyway, if Calvinism can agree with the following RC teachings, some of which have already been cited, then better yet:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

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.

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":

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

2106"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

I had actually hoped for a much better explanation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As it is, it is a set of dogmatic explanations without any mention concerning their source. If they had been pronouncements based on biblical teachings, as we have observed in many of the posts on this thread, then I would have something to discuss. As it is, however, this is a set of statements which one either accepts or does not, primarily based upon one's relationship to the Catholic Church.

 

[98cwitr]

The thief breaks the Law by stealing, the judge is not allowed to do whatever he wants with the thief, the law and the thief determines what the judge is to do with the thief and since the law does not change the thief is the determining factor.
Those in prison need to know it was not the judge that put them there, but their actions put them there.

Judges place people in jail because of their actions. Last I checked...we all deserved Hell and are sinners. Your point is moot.

God does not have to “catch” those that go to hell they all come to him, nor is there any courtroom procedure to determine the fate of a nonbeliever. The nonbeliever is just going to the judge for “sentencing”/ his reward, their actions have convicted them.

Um actions dont convict, people convict based on actions. Your logic is severely flawed there sir.

This goes back to the definition of Godly type Love.

Godly type Love is pure charity in that no one deserves such Love and it is a huge gift.

If this Love is offered and accepted the person receiving this Love will have to react positively to such a huge wonderful gift

Did Jesus Love everyone while on earth, yet not everyone reacted positively to Jesus so is that Jesus’ fault?

Jesus did not love the money changers, the Pharisees, nor the Sadducees.

Jesus did His part in Loving others but the transaction of Love only took place among those that received Christ Love as pure charity. So some people were not “loved” by Christ and changed by that Love, because they did not accept Christ’s Love as charity, even though Christ was doing his part in Loving them.

Forgiveness is an act of Love, yet if you do not accept forgiveness as pure charity you are not forgiven (Matt. 18: 23-36)

Agreed.

 

[Radagast]

I had actually hoped for a much better explanation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As it is, it is a set of dogmatic explanations without any mention concerning their source. If they had been pronouncements based on biblical teachings, as we have observed in many of the posts on this thread, then I would have something to discuss. As it is, however, this is a set of statements which one either accepts or does not, primarily based upon one's relationship to the Catholic Church.

It's a deliberately vague set of statements, because there are radically different Catholic beliefs on this topic. These sections of the Catholic Catechism (apart from 2106, which seems irrelevant) have been very carefully worded so that Thomist and Molinist theologians can both agree to them.

If you go to specifically Thomist or Molinist sources, you will find more detail and engagement with Scripture. I've quoted from St Thomas Aquinas, for example.

 

[fhansen]

I had actually hoped for a much better explanation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As it is, it is a set of dogmatic explanations without any mention concerning their source. If they had been pronouncements based on biblical teachings, as we have observed in many of the posts on this thread, then I would have something to discuss. As it is, however, this is a set of statements which one either accepts or does not, primarily based upon one's relationship to the Catholic Church.

The Church has debated the very issues presented by this thread centuires ago, referring to or utlizing Scripture, Tradition, and reason-and continues to do so to one degree or another. The teachings I cited for consideration are the relatively condensed product of that dialogue. Arguments from Scripture as well as writings of theologians have already been presented and discussed here.

 

[fhansen]

It's a deliberately vague set of statements, because there are radically different Catholic beliefs on this topic. These sections of the Catholic Catechism (apart from 2106, which seems irrelevant) have been very carefully worded so that Thomist and Molinist theologians can both agree to them.

The real question for this thread is: Can a Calvinist agree with them?

 

[Radagast]

The real question for this thread is: Can a Calvinist agree with them?

Calvinists, on the whole, don't really worry much about what the RCC Catechism says. And there are also differences in the meaning of several theological terms.

Calvinists would certainly agree with that "without God's grace, [man] cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight."

The words "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace" are masterful, because they sit on the fence as to whether "each person's free response to his grace" is a result or a condition of predestination.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's a deliberately vague set of statements, because there are radically different Catholic beliefs on this topic. These sections of the Catholic Catechism (apart from 2106, which seems irrelevant) have been very carefully worded so that Thomist and Molinist theologians can both agree to them.

If you go to specifically Thomist or Molinist sources, you will find more detail and engagement with Scripture. I've quoted from St Thomas Aquinas, for example.

Yes, I thought as much. There is so much nuanced writing within Catholicism that most of us non-Catholics do not understand or appreciate.

 

[fhansen]

Calvinists, on the whole, don't really worry much about what the RCC Catechism says.

Well, yes, that pretty much describes the problem with their theology.

Calvinists would certainly agree with that "without God's grace, [man] cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight."

Yes, all Christians would.

The words "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace" are masterful, because they sit on the fence as to whether "each person's free response to his grace" is a result or a condition of predestination.

No, that would satisfy Molina far better than Aquinas or a determinist in any case. Knowing everything already from the eternal perspective, "predestination" in quotes, "each person's free response": quite Molinist.

But there should be more points in those paragraphs that a Calvinist could agree or disagre with.

 

[bling]

In a sense that would be true because one of the attributes of God is perfect justice. Because it is His inherent nature, then He would cease to be God if justice were not implemented.

God is not to blame.


I do not know your theology, so under your belief why would God’s perfect “justice” not require everyone to go to hell?

If you feel God’s perfect justice allows Christ to take your place, what kind of “justice system” would have an innocent person be tortured, humiliated and murdered and allow the guilty person to go free?

I do belief in God’s perfect justice, but I also believe in God willingness to forgive everyone that will humbly accept God’s forgiveness as pure charity (as God overs it). Forgiveness is not atonement and Christ was the atonement sacrifice.

 

[bling]

Our God is a just God. He PUNISHES those who do evil and REWARDS those who do good. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

Does God “punish” or forgive those that repent of their sins, seek His forgiveness and humbly accept His forgiveness before Christ went to the cross?

What “good” do we “do” or is the only “good” we can do is allowing the Spirit to work through us to do what he does?

I have not been “punished” nor do I blame on being punished for my sins.