Marc from Lorraine (France) writes in a refutation of the doctrine of double predestination, "According to the doctrine of double predestination, God actively works to save some people but also to damn others." He goes on to say that "Most Calvinists insist they just believe in single predestination", but the argument he makes in this article is how it doesn't matter. In his view if God chooses anyone to be saved and does not choose all, God is a moral monster.
Let's consider a couple of salient facts on this issue. First, it is not true that double predestination means that "God actively works to save some people but also to damn others." Not a fact. It may be a perception -- maybe even a popular perception -- but it is neither required by the doctrine nor is it the one I hold. The explanation Marc gave is called "symmetrical predestination". This version requires that God "forcibly" brings some into the kingdom and "forcibly" keeps others out. By "forcibly" I simply mean that God is the motive force in both cases. Some who wanted to come in are refused and some who are in didn't want to be. It's all a product of God's forceful efforts. I know of no one that believes in this view. Not one. "Asymmetrical predestination", then, would be where God definitely acts to save those whom He has chosen to save but makes no effort on the part of those whom He has not. There is a sense, in this view, that those who end up in Hell have won over God. He would like to save all but chooses not to, and those whom He chooses not to save were allowed to do whatever they pleased ... which was to reject Him. No force on God's part. No keeping them out. No closed doors. Thus, in terms of logical arguments (or, rather, fallacies), Marc's argument is known as a "strawman".
There is another, far more important consideration to examine. What Marc thinks or what I think or what Calvin thought or what Arminius thought are all fairly irrelevant. The important question is what does the Bible say? Marc says that if it's true, it makes God a monster. Those who defend the doctrine say it doesn't. A difference of opinion is all well and good, but since God's Word is truth, the truth of the matter must come from Scripture. What do we find there?
As it turns out, the Bible is full of predestination. In Nave's Topical Index under Predestination there are 85 references listed just for general references. Nave's lists another 14 references in specific references. That's not a few. In the New American Standard Bible, the word "predestined" shows up six times in the New Testament. (Note that Nave's 99 references would cover the concept while not necessarily using the word.) These include God's predestining actions to occur (actually, the death of His Son) (Acts 4:28), the predestination of believers (Rom 8:28-29), the Gospel (1 Cor 2:7), and our adoption (Eph 1:5) and inheritance (Eph 1:11). In other words, it is impossible to deny that predestination exists in the Bible.
And it turns out that the Bible lists both the election of those who will be saved and the advance choice of those who will not. Peter writes of those who "stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed" (1 Peter 2:8). Jude writes of those "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). I know. That's an awkward King Jamesism. The newer translations speak of those "who long ago were designated for this condemnation" (as if "long ago" makes it better than "before of old"). The words in Greek are prographō palai. The first is to write out before. The second is a retrocession -- a return to former things. Jude wrote that these were "written before formerly". That is, it was written before it happened, and it precedes any time considerations.
In the end, two things come to light. First, Marc is right in one part. Single predestination makes double predestination necessary. No matter how you cut it, if God chooses to save some, not all, then not all will be saved. Given His Omniscience, that group that will not be saved (Jesus's "many" who find the gate of destruction rather than the "few" who find the narrow way -- Matt 7:13) will certainly not be saved. Without any further action on anyone's part, if this is known in advance, it is "double predestination". With or without force or effort, it is double predestination. If God chooses to save those who choose to come to Him, He does not choose to save those who do not choose to come to Him and they are predestined by their own choice to damnation. No one escapes this. Second, since it is logical and biblical, it must be right. And by "right" I mean both the correct view and moral, just, right. The adjustment that must be made, then, is not in our theology, but in our failure to comprehend what God thinks of as good. I suspect we have to make those adjustments a lot.
14 comments:
Good points. Those who oppose you don't even know their own view well. If they did, they'd be mortified that God knew before He created the universe who would willfully "choose" him based on Arminian-style free will and who would not. And He is letting time march along with all those who didn't choose him go to Hell, and He isn't re-ordering anything to save them. So He created them knowing they would never turn regardless of the circumstances, or didn't "care" enough to re-order the circumstances or to make a personal enough appeal to them. While this is technically different than Reformed theology, of course, I don't see why they would like their real version much better.
Yes indeed, it appears that nearly every time an Arminian pipes up and says, "No! That's a big problem!", they end up standing on the very same big problem. "No! There is NO double predestination!" Except they agree that God chooses and that requires that some are not and -- oops! -- they're stuck with double predestination. Except theirs is based on Man's Free Will.
There are clearly other interpretations that would say the texts you cite, describe corporate election, and not individual election. That is God's predestined a group that would receive blessing and promise, and a group that would inevitably receive judgement and condemnation. His election refers to his plan to redeem his creation, and not necessarily the election of the specific individuals that will benefit.
There is the analogy of the subway. A subway is predestined to arrive and depart at a given time, but we must choose to arrive on time in order to get on.
To a degree you acknowledge this in your last paragraph, when you explain that God chooses those that choose him.
By "corporate election" you mean (or at least everyone who uses it means) that God chooses no one, but chooses an entity ("the Church") that is constructed of people. It is both meaningless (because without people being chosen, it cannot be demonstrated that the Church populated by unchosen people would exist) and unbiblical. The Bible is full of God choosing individuals. Indeed, in the popular Romans 9 where one side argues that it is about God choosing whom He will save (because, after all, that's what it says) and the other side argues that it is about corporate election, Paul uses all individual examples. He uses Jacob and Moses and Pharaoh. He may be using them to illustrate corporatae election, but he does so by using individual election.
The problem with corporate election is that, if it is simply a subway schedule (your illustration), God is not sovereign. Man chooses. Jesus was a bit mistaken when He told His disciples, "You did not choose Me; I chose you." We, indeed, are the final determiners of our own salvation and, as such, we have much about which to boast.
And all of this misses the logical problem. If God chooses anyone for salvation (which is biblically inescapable), then He does not choose some. If He chooses based on His own sovereign plan (the view I cannot avoid in Scripture) or He chooses based on your choice of Him (the view you would espouse; I would not), then He clearly does not choose those who do not choose Him ... and you have double predestination all over again.
Is it really Biblically inescapable that God chooses some for salvation? You are implying that God must choose or not choose individuals. I would disagree. I would say that individuals must choose or not choose God. This is obviously what you refer to as Man's Free Will.
I would argue that whether or not you agree with Man's Free Will, you live your life as though it were true. Everyone does.
Going back to your original article, I don't believe that Marc has set up a straw man. How does the view you espouse explain verses like 2 Peter 3:9, where God doesn't want any to perish, but all to come to repentance, or 1 Timothy 2:3-6 where God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. In your view these verses should read, God has predestined those who will be saved and predestined those who will know the truth, and predestined those who will repent.
On top of this, not one of your examples of predestination was the predestined salvation of an individual.
Furthermore, Romans 9 is about God allowing the gentiles to be a part of his people. The corporate group of Gentiles being added to the blessing. Paul uses individuals to make his broader point.
Just because you make the claim that it is Biblically inescapable, does not make it so. There is no Biblical text that makes the case for predestined individual salvation inescapably.
Well, to be clear, I am not implying that God must choose or not choose individuals. I am stating it categorically, and I am stating it categorically because it is what the Bible says. The doctrine of election, whether one is a hyper-Calvinist, a standard Reformed, a standard Arminian, a liberal Arminian, or even a casual reader of Scripture, is an undeniable part of the Bible. There are too many references to God's choosing people for tasks, roles, assignments, and salvation to deny it. The Bible is full of references regarding "the chosen", "God's elect", and so on.
No one (at least no one that I know of) denies that individuals must choose God to be saved. To some, God's choice of who to save is based on that individual's choice, and others would say God chooses without regard to that choice, but in both cases, the individual must choose God and God chooses who He will save.
As for Marc's strawman, you either misunderstand what a strawman means or what I referred to as his strawman argument. His strawman argument was that the doctrine of double predestination means that God actively works to save some and actively works to damn others. His words. That is a strawman argument. I am not aware of anyone who holds to that version of double predestination, nor does the doctrine require that definition. Further, Marc's argument requires that if God chooses any and not all, He is immoral.
I suspect that you aren't familiar with the rules of logic. (Not intended to be an insult. Most aren't these days.) A standard logical fallacy is the strawman, where someone says, "My opponent argues X" then goes on to explain how X is wrong. As it turns out, his opponent does not argue X. Logical fallacy. Another logical fallacy is to say "Marc's argument is right because your argument doesn't answer objections from another direction." Logical fallacy. Besides that, it's simply bad form to explain that my argument is wrong without actually addressing my argument. Here's the argument. God knows (by whatever means) who will or will not be saved. Those He knows will be saved are "chosen". This logically requires that those whom He knows will not be saved are not "chosen". And this is the definition of double predestination.
You also have a problem with your approach because you are arguing that it is God's will that everyone be saved (the text of the presumable proof texts you offered in 2 Peter and 1 Timothy). We know that not everyone is saved. So your view requires that God is not Omniscient (we've covered that before) and not Sovereign because He wills that everyone be saved but just cannot accomplish it or even know reliably who those will be who will choose Him. The other problem with your approach is that you've neatly and completely ignored the explicit texts regarding those who were appointed to doom (1 Peter 2:8) and "ordained to condemnation" (Jude 1:4). Neither of these are classes of people, but individuals. With neither Omniscience nor Sovereignty, you cannot account for these. And all of this doesn't consider the distance you've chosen to put between your view and historical, biblical orthodoxy. I know you're quite comfortable with that (which, by the way, is defined linguistically as "heresy"), but you have to know that, anchored in a historical, biblical, orthodox worldview as I am, I cannot possibly find any reason to go in that direction.
I need some clarity. First, in your view does God decide who will choose him, just know who will choose him, or do you not take a stand either way.
Your statement "He would like to save all, but chooses not to" How does this not demean God's omnipotence or goodness if he has the power to do what he would like, but is not doing it? What is the reason for not doing as he would like?
Imagine a thousand blind people stumbling toward a cliff. I have the ability to yell to all of them and stop them, but choose to quietly pull a few back and let the others fall. Maybe Marc's view has me pushing them off the cliff in this analogy, but I still feel there is something definitely immoral about not choosing to yell if I have the ability. They can still disregard my advice and continue on their path to destruction, but at that point they are responsible.
How doe you square your view with the 1 Peter and 2 Timothy verses?
As to your cited verses, 2 Peter is talking about those who choose not to believe. This would be the corporate group of individuals that have chosen not to believe as it states in verse 7. Even in verse 9 it contrasts these people with a chosen people, royal priesthood, and a Holy nation. All corporate entities. The Jude passage is talking about those individuals that are choosing to place themselves in the ordained group of people chosen for destruction. The groups were ordained, the individuals choose their group. No problems with either passage.
Well of course I take a stand. I believe God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world based on His own purposes, not our choices. (I don't believe Natural Man has the ability to choose God without God's supernatural intervention that we call "Regeneration".) But that wasn't my point. My point was that whether you believe He chooses without regard to our choice or chooses based on our choice, you still end up with double predestination.
He would like to save all but chooses not to (We've covered this before.) because He has something better in mind (his purpose (Rom 9:11) which includes the demonstration of His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22)). He is not doing one thing He would like because He would like better to do another. But how would that be a problem to you? You believe that God routinely fails to be able to accomplish His will because humans routinely prevent Him.
It is your view that God has an obligation to humans. He must at least try to save all even if He is unable to. (And the fact that He is unable to does not, in your view, demean His omnipotence or goodness.) This is the idea I find most mystifying: God is obligated to His creation. And if He fails, He is a failure at best and a moral monster at worst. Having said, that, I believe that "many are called", that the message is broadcast widely, that, indeed, "that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom 1:19-20). I believe He has yelled that into the hearts of every human being. They are all choosing to ignore Him.
I'll post tomorrow on 2 Peter 3:9 (not 1 Peter).
And note that your interpretation of the passages I listed (that was 1st Peter, not 2nd) requires a prior commitment to a God that is neither sovereign nor omniscient in any historical, biblical, orthodox sense of the words. That is, nothing in the text calls for "corporate"; you have to put it in there to be consistent with your view. I don't in order to be consistent with Scripture. And a "corporate election" without an eye towards individuals to fill that group is a meaningless concept. An individual election with an eye toward forming corporate groups makes sense.
In other words you have a much different view of God (who has made Himself subject to His creation) and Man (who is fully capable of doing what is required to be saved) than I find in Scripture. So you have much bigger problems to address than "double predestination".
I will just address your last two points. First, my view still requires God to draw people to him (apparently in a similar fashion to what you described), and they would not be able to come on their own. In my view, man can choose to ignore God's action of drawing them into his fold, and in fact most do (apparently in a similar fashion to what you described). I guess the only distinction between your view and mine (on this point) is that in my view the people could have chosen God, but in your view they never could have. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
As to God making himself subject to his creation. God did this with his promise to Noah, Abraham, and most importantly with Jesus. Jesus, who is the exact representation of God's nature (Heb 1:3), made himself subject to his creation to redeem it. He did not come to be served, but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). God does not have to subject himself to his creation, but has clearly chosen to do this.
I'm trying to line up the biblical description of Natural Man -- the one before regeneration ... the standard human being without Christ -- and this one you are suggesting that has all the abilitiy to choose Christ without a problem. The Bible describes Man as "inclined only to evil" (Gen 6:5; 8:21), "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1), "hostile to God" (Rom 8:7), without understanding (Rom 3:11), not seeking for God (Rom 3:11), no fear of God (Rom 3:18), incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). Your position is that any one of these has all the necessary ability in whatever sense we can discuss to willfully choose God without actual divine intervention. I mean, sure, you would say that God "speaks" or even "woos", but He doesn't actually intervene; He makes Himself subject to their wills and, in the final analysis, "waits outside" for them to choose Him. Me? I cannot even being to fathom how a person like that (I mean, starting just with "dead in sin", how ...?) would be able to make this singular choice that would be so radically against his sin nature. You don't have a problem with that.
As for God subjecting Himself to His creation, His covenants are not "subjecting Himself". They are agreements made: "I will do this if you will do that." They are voluntary, not mandatory. And, most importantly, they don't answer the question I asked. Is God obligated to His creation to try to save them all? This, of course, leads to other questions like "How can He fail?" and "In what sense is He either good or sovereign if He does?" and ... well, it gets messy. To me, this view that God owes Mankind something (like your warning about a cliff) is the same thing as setting your mind on Man's interests, not God's interests.
I don't have a problem with it, because it was my experience. The depravity you have described was my life. God through the Holy Spirit, my parents, other believers, pastors, family, and other areas of influence drew me to himself. As you have stated before, no one claims that one is saved without making the choice to follow. Through God's work I was able to make this choice, it wasn't my own doing, but God working through me that allowed this to happen. I just hold the view, that I could have rejected God's influence.
To your point about God's covenants, I think you are wrong. If you read Genesis 15, you will find the Covenant ceremony with Abram. God has Abraham prepare the sacrificed animals and states the terms of the Covenant. Abraham falls into a deep sleep, and a torch representing God passes between the animals.
Historically the lord of the land would have his servant walk through the animals, to signify what would happen to them if they didn't hold up to their end of the bargain. God did something completely opposite of the culture. He created the terms of the Covenant, and passed through them. Basically, God said to Abram that even if you don't live up to your end of the bargain I will, and it will cost me dearly. God's covenants are not "you do x, and I will do y". His covenant was "you do x, and even if you don't I will do y." God chooses to subject himself to his creation.
Fianlly, at least one of God's interests is man. He sent his son to die to redeem man.
Your description is what I would call a "wooing". That is, God's "work" wasn't invasive, but suggestive. He encouraged you by different means. He didn't change anything inside you without your permission. Your will reigned supreme. As such, I still can't fit the biblical description of Natural Man in with this "wooing" that accomplished your salvation. Here, look, the biblical picture is "dead in sin" (just for starters). The idea you suggest is that God used "the Holy Spirit, my parents, other believers, pastors, family, and other areas of influence" to encourage you out of your spiritual grave to come to Him. You're fine with that; I can't make any sense of it.
I would argue, of course, that God subjected Himself to Himself in order to accomplish the maximum dissemination of His glory, but you're free to hang onto that view that God has an obligation to all Humans.
Hey, Stan...it's been a while. Lot's going on, but I was trying to catch up on some of your latest musings, and I just had to comment here.
I think Josh, your description of your own experience is a faulty one, based on your faulty theology. It is flawed in the same way the disciples' view was. They thought they had discovered Christ, yet Christ had to remind them, as Stan pointed out previously, that they did not choose Him, but He chose them.
If you believe you were "dead in your sins" as Scripture describes, then place your self in Lazarus' shoes for a moment. Lazarus is dead. In a tomb. Jesus, according to your view, encourages a cadaver to come out of the tomb. How is a cadaver to hear Christ's calling? Can a dead man choose to come out of the tomb? Of course not. And here Christ knows full well he's dead. Why is he wasting his breathe speaking to a cadaver he knows full well can't hear him?
Lazarus is a beautiful, physical picture of the spiritual truth of our salvation. God first had to regenerate him in order for him to hear the call of Christ (John 3 - man cannot see the kingdom of God without having first been born again), and thus, respond to that call. We are dead, God regenerates, Christ calls us, and as newly alive people, it makes no sense for us to decide to stay dead, as if we could. We wouldn't choose anything else but to follow Christ. Was it Lazarus' choice to come out of the tomb? Of course. Could he have chosen to remain dead? Not really...how foolish.
It appears that we make free will choices, but we can't choose something beyond our nature. I can't make the free will decision to swim underwater indefinitely. I can't choose to flap my arms fast enough to fly. I also can't choose to make my spiritual-self alive. It's not in my nature as a dead man. A spiritually dead man can't choose to make itself spiritually alive any more than a physically dead man can choose to make himself physically alive. I need God to make me alive. I have nothing to boast in in that.
Josh, what is the difference between you, who has chosen Christ, and say, a friend of yours who has not? Why did you choose when he didn't/hasn't?
Stan, you're spot on. Double predestination it is, regardless. Couldn't agree more. Hope all is well!
Hey, Ryan! I have been dealing with new comments on old posts and came across your name there. Made me wonder how you've been. Thanks for the input. That's the idea I cannot fathom -- the notion that the dead are perfectly capable of responding without first being made alive.
Post a Comment