We all know that "predestination" is an invention of John Calvin and only Calvinists buy into it. Well ... most of us. And, of course, we'd be wrong. It's not a Calvinist invention. It's not even a Pauline invention. God practiced it when He saved Noah and when He called Abraham. Throughout the Old Testament God kept choosing people, not because of their deeds, but because of His mercy. Jesus expressed it clearly in the New Testament. "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you" (John 15:16). That's only one example. It's in multiple places in the Gospels. The disciples affirmed it after He ascended. They agreed with God that He had anointed Jesus and appointed the Jews "to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). So Paul just ran with it. He referred often to believers as "chosen" or "elect." He assured the Ephesians that they were chosen and predestined (Eph 1:4-5). He said, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). It's not Calvin. It's God.
There is a corollary that is disturbing. Paul told the Ephesians they were "chosen before the foundation of the world." John warned, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:19) and that book was "written from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). God has chosen. He has chosen in advance. He has chosen not on the basis of our choice or actions. But this suggests ... requires? ... the opposite, doesn't it? Doesn't it imply that ... others are not chosen? Well, no, not imply ... it is true. But doesn't that mean that, one way or another, others are predestined ... to damnation? The biblical answer is ... yes. Jude wrote, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). Ouch. Doing a language dance, many have assured us that's not what it means ... but the language is unavoidable. "Long beforehand." Before time. The King James Version says "before of old." No matter where you put "before of old," it precedes the people about whom this is written. So they were "marked out" before they existed for ... condemnation. When their names were not written in the book of life before time ... the outcome was predetermined.
Now, this does not require action on the part of God. It doesn't require that God actively blocks people from the kingdom. In order for anyone to be saved, they must, in Jesus's words, "be born again" (John 3:3-15). They must be "born of God" (1 John 5:1). That requires action on God's part. That requires divine intervention. If God does not intervene ... the outcome is certain, but not because He didn't intervene. It's because of their sin (Rom 3:23; 6:23). So God doesn't cause anyone to go to hell. That is their own choosing. But it is as certain as His choice of you (1 Thess 1:4).
The only reason double predestination feels bad is because of our predisposition that God doesn't desire anyone to go to hell to mean that He really wants to save people but is incapable. But if you take the view of predestination presented here, the double side isn't a problem at all. He is providing justice to those that He didn't choose, and mercy to those He did. When you truly grasp the amazing scope of salvation, double predestination becomes a non issue.
ReplyDeleteExactly, it's humans imposing their beliefs about what is fair on a holy God who's not limited by human concepts of fairness.
DeleteStan, this same thought might have occurred to you, but I will mention my observation anyway: I can’t imagine a greater contrast in post themes than between yesterday’s and today’s! Quite the juxtaposition of extremes--from the truly nonsensical to one of the most profound theological concepts--and both of them made my head hurt to read! :-D
ReplyDeleteI would fully expect that those who deny the basic doctrine of predestination (and the related doctrine of election to salvation) would also reject the logical extension of that doctrine--reprobation of the non-elect. This negative side to predestination is perfectly logical if one considers that if a person is not born-again (through God’s intervention), they will then remain in their default condition--condemned by their inherited sinful nature. To my mind, reprobation makes perfect (albeit unhappy) sense, and the fateful outcome of this reality would send me to God for urgent rescue, which He will surely provide. However, if a person denies what God’s Word pronounces as our default lost state, rejects His resolution for that damning condition, and also rails against God in general as a result, then eternal condemnation is, as you say, “their own choosing.”
ReplyDelete"Non-issue" ... exactly. To deny it is to intend to deny the doctrine of election which is irrefutably biblical (and logically necessary). Indeed, Paul wrote that God was willing to display His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. It shows both mercy and justice and brings glory to God, and, as Lorna points out, magnifies the God's "rescue."
ReplyDeleteAnd, in case anyone was wondering ... we survived the biggest dust storm ("haboob") in Phoenix's history with barely a problem. Others lost power and had rain. Sometimes these things drop mud rain ... pouring water through dust to leave a silt deposit on everything. We didn't even get measurable rain where we are. Our own "non-issue."
So glad you fared OK! Mud rain sounds like the worst.
DeleteI was wondering how y'all fared, glad it wasn't a big deal.
DeleteI once mentioned that passage about vessels of wrath to someone that said God loves everyone equally, and they simply rejected the clear words and tried to make it mean something else.
ReplyDeleteAs many do. It's amazing how people can take a passage like that and somehow conjure up a way to claim that the real meaning is opposite of the plain meaning of the text.
Delete