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

[James Is Back]

Nevermind it's gone. Must be seeing things!

 

[seeingeyes]

Have posts been deleted from this thread?

 

[James Is Back]

It might have been. It was on page 22 when I started the post above yours now we're on 23.

 

[seeingeyes]

It might have been. It was on page 22 when I started the post above yours now we're on 23.

Yeah, Rick Otto and I had an interaction that is no longer there. I don't think I dreamed it, so we've been ninja'd. :/

 

[James Is Back]

Yeah, RickOtto and I had an interaction that is no longer there. I don't think I dreamed it, so we've been ninja'd. :/

Well glad I'm not losing my mind

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, RickOtto and I had an interaction that is no longer there. I don't think I dreamed it, so we've been ninja'd. :/

I can't imagine the two of us having anything to say to each other that would require deletion.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That makes for one powerful pastor. Can't get to heaven without the church/pastor?

No one ever said that baptism can only be performed by a baptism. In fact, historic churches specifically deny that. And anyone can proclaim the condemning force of the law and the salvation that comes through the hearing of the gospel.

But pastors are the church's specifically appointed ministers who have that as their primary responsibility. That's their primary earthly vocation, and it's an awful and terrible responsibility, but it's what they do week in and week out- proclaim the law to kill the old Adam and proclaim the gospel to raise up the new person in Christ, and seal the deal by officially bringing a person into the church through baptism.

And, in any case, I'm pretty sure I explained the whole "what about salvation outside the church" in all of my subsequent posts.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

The Scripture of the clay is a good response. I don't have an answer for you there. Not sure I will have one if I consider the context. Still terribly behind, but I do plan to get to that.

I just wanted to say - I'm not trying to tell God whether He measures up. My post was in response to someone who said essentially that "God cannot be God (perfect justice) if He fails to punish those who deserve it". I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly. THAT (imo) is man telling God what He must do in order to remain God.

So essentially I think I am agreeing with you, if I understand you correctly. I do not advocate that we have any business or right to tell God what we think He should be or how He must measure up.

As far as putting myself in God's place for the sake of explanation, I will admit that I did so. And of course we cannot do that in terms of making an argument or "proving" anything. I was only trying to illustrate my point in a way that hopefully would be understood. But it certainly does not stand as "proof" .... only illustration/explanation.

Have to make a note on the clay. That one has actually bothered me. But I think there's an answer in there somewhere.

Thanks for your post!

 

[seeingeyes]

I can't imagine the two of us having anything to say to each other that would require deletion.

One thing I've learned around this place is that "requiring deletion" and "being deleted" are two very different things.

Though I suppose it could just be a server snafu of some sort. I'll try not to be paranoid.

At any rate, I had said that the problem with the idea that God does not love everyone was that Jesus told us to love our enemies. You asked why that was. (I didn't dream that part, right? )

My response was that that would mean that Jesus was commanding us to do something, in the name of the Father, which the Father Himself is unwilling or unable to do.

And if that is the case, if one can say of the Father "do what He says, but do not do what He does", then by Jesus' definition, the Father would be a Pharisee.

Jesus is the fly in every theological ointment.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

True. I was agreeing with you. I will not argue that God created evil.

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.

Well, I don't agree that it is just as unacceptable a proposition. The world is fallen. Things are not perfect. Mankind sins. That's "the way things are". We can say it's "unfair" but it goes back to the blame of evil. We can consider mankind victims of Satan's machinations if we want, but it was not orchestrated by God, nor do we find ourselves enmeshed with no possibility of salvation.

So no, I don't think it's the same thing at all.

I'm speaking of those ones supposedly created just for the sake of condemning them to hell, who have no hope of salvation, ever. That is a very different scenario than I consider the world as a whole to be subjected to. I realize not everyone teaches this, but my original intent was to understand those who do.

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.

Is it so hard? I suppose it depends on who you ask. Some teach it is fabulously easy. Some even teach that if you are just chosen, it will be, apart from anything you do or don't do, and you can't avoid being saved. Others teach that it IS hard. Varying degrees of works-based salvation enter in as well. That's an entire discussion or three in itself.

My point was that, in my opinion, God makes it POSSIBLE for mankind - every individual - to be saved. God can choose to be merciful in conditions at His own whim. God loves mankind and WANTS man's salvation. (How could anyone deny that, looking at the crucified Christ? How much more could God do to prove that He desires salvation to be available?)

The real question, I suppose, is available to whom? Can whosoever will, come? Or has God selected certain ones, and barred the door to all others? Which my question was, how can He be loving, and good, and desire all to be saved - if He created multitudes of human beings with the express purpose of tormenting them for all eternity? With no hope for salvation, no matter what they wish or what they do? For those who believe that way, I just wondered how they explain it?

I have yet to see an answer. Simply I have seen that God does NOT love everyone, and did not intend to offer salvation to all. Only His selected ones.

If God indeed set up the world that way, who would we be to complain about it?

But my point is that, as I have come to know God, I simply don't see Him as having that nature. But that is entirely subjective, and probably pointless to argue. So I wonder if those who believe God to be this way can reconcile their view of God with Scripture, at the very least?

 

[~Anastasia~]

One thing I've learned around this place is that "requiring deletion" and "being deleted" are two very different things.

Though I suppose it could just be a server snafu of some sort. I'll try not to be paranoid.

At any rate, I had said that the problem with the idea that God does not love everyone was that Jesus told us to love our enemies. You asked why that was. (I didn't dream that part, right? )

My response was that that would mean that Jesus was commanding us to do something, in the name of the Father, which the Father Himself is unwilling or unable to do.

And if that is the case, if one can say of the Father "do what He says, but do not do what He does", then by Jesus' definition, the Father would be a Pharisee.

Jesus is the fly in every theological ointment.

I'm quite a few posts behind, but I did see this. I will catch up later, but I wanted to say - I like this.

It comes back to the nature of God, especially as revealed through Christ, that resonates with me. And makes some of the interpretations of Scripture impossible to swallow.

With Christ at the center, some theologies are simply swept away. Or I suppose as you say, He becomes the fly in the ointment, LOL.



(I will catch up here! I just hope whoever I'm replying to is still reading at that point, LOL)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your question puts the cart before the horse.
Repentance is the result of having been given eternal life (being saved).

Precisely. However, some, indeed, put the cart before the horse and require repentance from sin as a condition for salvation.

 

[Albion]

So no, I don't think it's the same thing at all.

Nor did I say that they are the same.

I'm speaking of those ones supposedly created just for the sake of condemning them to hell, who have no hope of salvation, ever. That is a very different scenario than I consider the world as a whole to be subjected to. I realize not everyone teaches this, but my original intent was to understand those who do.

Well, here's my point again: If you think being tabbed to be one of the reprobates (which a belief in Predestination does not require), so that they wind up in hell, it is equally "unfair" of God to allow men to save themselves knowing that they--or most of them--cannot. They all wind up in the same place.

My point was that, in my opinion, God makes it POSSIBLE for mankind - every individual - to be saved. God can choose to be merciful in conditions at His own whim.

And by that logic, he can choose to create people predestined to either heaven or hell.

God loves mankind and WANTS man's salvation.

The oft-quoted verse doesn't say that, however. It says that he would have all to be saved.

 

[98cwitr]

The problem comes when Jesus commands us to love our enemies.

Romans 12:19
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

Do you see the same problem here too?

 

[fhansen]

Well, here's my point again: If you think being tabbed to be one of the reprobates (which a belief in Predestination does not require), so that they wind up in hell, it is equally "unfair" of God to allow men to save themselves knowing that they--or most of them--cannot. They all wind up in the same place.

No man can save himself. But he can certainly participate in his salvation, working it out with God who works in him, to whatever degree he can and to whatever degree God deems appropriate.

 

[98cwitr]

No man can save himself. But he can certainly participate in his salvation, working it out with God who works in him, to whatever degree he can and to whatever degree God deems appropriate.

And what would God base that on? Man's desires or efforts?

 

[seeingeyes]

Romans 12:19
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

Do you see the same problem here too?

You don't see a problem with loving those that God hates? You don't see a problem with God telling you, through His son, to love those that He hates?

 

[Rick Otto]

You don't see a problem with loving those that God hates? You don't see a problem with God telling you, through His son, to love those that He hates?

Maybe that is a function of the division into trinity.
The Father's wrath being a function of justice, and He placed the elect in Christ, so that Jesus could apply His mercy, which trumps His justice.

I'm spitballin' here...

 

[fhansen]

[/b]

And what would God base that on? Man's desires or efforts?

No, on His desires for us, which He won't force us to embrace or obey. The Parable of the Talents gives a good description of how this principle works BTW.

 

[Johnnz]

Maybe that is a function of the division into trinity.
The Father's wrath being a function of justice, and He placed the elect in Christ, so that Jesus could apply His mercy, which trumps His justice.

I'm spitballin' here...

A 'division' into the Trinity? Not what we believe according to our creeds:
The Nicene creed states :
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

(Bold mine).


John
NZ