Here's the verse in question:
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)."Now, Stan, you claim that God chooses to save some and not others. How does that make sense based on this verse?"
First, I do not make that claim. The Bible does. See, for instance, John 15:16, 17:6, Eph 1:4, oh, and especially 2 Thess 2:13 (which says, "we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."). The question now becomes, "Now, God, You claim that You choose to save some and not others. How does that make sense based on this verse?" Reasonable question. (It's better to ask the One making the claim rather than the one that simply told you He made the claim.)
So, what does the text say? Almost everyone in this conversation is quite happy to use this verse as a prooftext to demonstrate that Election is wrong by cutting it short: "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Skip that first part. Too boring. Not really relevant. Okay. So ... what does the text say? It says that (God is) not willing/wishing that any dogs should perish, but that all dogs should come to repentance.
"No, no, Stan, that's not what it says."
No? Why not? You see, the text actually says that (God is) not willing that any should perish ... and doesn't any what should perish. So, how do you determine the subject of "any" and "all"? Any what and all what? Well, you cannot simply pull it out of thin air. You have to pull it from the context. What context? Well, the context we've conveniently tossed out for the sake of interest and brevity. So what are the "any" and "all" pointing to? The verse itself says that the Lord is "patient toward you". (King James says "us-ward".) "You" or "us" is the subject here. Not "any dog" or "any tree" or even "any person" because the context hasn't supplied those values. "You" or "us" is in mind, so the "any" and "all" in that phrase is "any of you" and "all of you". (If, on the other hand, you are going to pull "any person" out of thin air, I think I should be free to pull "any dogs" out of thin air just as well. I mean, let's be fair!)
We need one more clarification. Who is "you" or "us"? Peter doesn't leave that to guess. The "you" to whom he refers is listed.
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).Is there any question, now? The "you" or "us" in mind here is those who "have obtained like precious faith with us". This text is saying that God does not wish that any who have or will obtain the same precious faith Peter had should perish. It is not a claim that God wishes ruefully that everyone should be saved but just can't seem to accomplish it, drat those pesky Humans (with a capital "H" because they are now capable of overpowering God's will). Note, also, that Peter has a specific topic in mind here. He is speaking here about the coming "Day of the Lord" which seems so slow in arriving (2 Peter 3:8-11). So Peter is saying that Christ will not return until every person God plans to give "like precious faith" to has received that faith and been saved. Actually, that's kind of awesome if you think about it. Well, to me it is.
But I'm pretty sure that there will continue to be folk that simply choose to insert "man" after "any" and "men" after "all" without any actual support and see it as proof that God was wrong about election (Oh, didn't you see that it was God's claim, not mine?). If you do that, you're on your own explaining how it is that God wills to save all, but just cannot accomplish it. An Omnipotent, Sovereign God who cannot accomplish His will is neither Omnipotent nor Sovereign. But that will be the problem of those who choose to take that other approach, not mine. Good luck with that.
24 comments:
Here's the issue I have. That if we agree that God is not willing to save all, then I'm sorry but that makes him kind of a dick.
The question of election raises a question on the criteria used.
To break one point of the law is to break all of it. Ergo, God could not have based his decision off of righteousness because none are righteous.
Some people have and do contend that a particular race/ethnic group/class/cultural division (usually theirs) is selected for salvation. But this is silly. God does not show favoritism. And it makes little sense for the one who made all peoples to make such a crucial choice based on such petty distinction.
A particular religion then? At first it would seem the answer is yes, and many would say that religion is Christianity. But remember that no one is born in Christ. Everyone who has come to Christ has come to him from some other background. And many who are part of "Christianity" have little enough to do with Jesus.
You could suggest hundreds of criteria as the basis of which people were chosen to live and which ones were passed over to die. But none of them make any sense.
By what distinction could God say, "I choose to offer this one salvation for his sins. But not you."
"What! Why not? How is he any better than me?"
"He's not. You both deserve hell, but he gets heaven."
"Why!?"
What's the answer to that? Did he just roll dice? If we've got this whole population who deserves hell, but we've got a solution that could get them into heaven. The only fair way to distribute that pardon (since they're all equal in terms of merit) is to extend the opportunity to all of them or to extend the opportunity to none of them.
Common problem. Understandable. God did not tell us why He chooses whom He chooses. What He did tell us was that it wasn't conditioned on us. (That's why this is the doctrine of "unconditional election".)
In Romans 9:10-13, Paul says that God chose Jacob over Esau. The choice was not because either had done "anything good or bad". Paul says He chose Jacob, not Esau, "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls." So the condition on which He places His choice is ... His purposes.
It isn't accurate to suggest "I choose to offer this one salvation but not that one." Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." The offer goes out broadly. Nor does anyone say, "Hey, why don't I get it and He does??!" Those who die in their sins do so because that was exactly what they wanted to do.
It's not narrow -- He offers widely. It's not capricious -- He has a purpose. And it's not based on anything in us -- it's based on Him.
"This text is saying that God does not wish that any who have or will obtain the same precious faith Peter had should perish."
That's kind of obvious from the get-go. But if you say that it was determined beforehand WHICH ones would fall into the category of [any who have or will obtain the same precious faith Peter had], that is where you run into this problem.
"And it's not based on anything in us -- it's based on Him."
But if [it] (the offer of salvation) is only extended to select individuals and not to others, then you do indeed end up in a position of "I chose this one and not the other." It is one thing for the offer to go out broadly. Broadly simply indicates X > 50%. It is another thing to say the offer is extended unconditionally to ALL. In which case X = 100%.
The bible says "God is love", right? I know he gets angry too, but I've always thought love drove most of his actions. Maybe that's been more of an assumption or wishful thinking on my part than the truth however. Who knows what all his grand plans for us are in the big scheme of things? It says we are going to rule and reign with him someday, too. Interesting. Over who and what? We've been given such a very, very limited idea of what lies ahead that we are only left to guess about little things like our eternities.
So anyway, he created us, looked over his creation, and pronounced it good. But, soon he saw that it really wasn't that good after all! So he decided to wipe everyone and everything out and start all over again with what was on the ark. Okay. So now things should be better, right?!
Well, even after attempt/recreation Number 2, he apparently STILL thinks so poorly of us sinful creatures that he's going to send most of us off to this very awful-sounding place called Hell after our trial-fraught lives here on Planet E. Well, that doesn't sound very nice, but then I guess this isn't about us little blobs of clay. It's all about him. We're bit players in some cosmic show of which he's the producer and director whose ultimate goal seems to be to receive all the glory in the end. Well, he's the creator, so he can do anything he wants! I get that. I just hope he will be very understanding and kind to all of us little guys, you know? I mean, if he wanted us to be more intelligent, less selfish, more interested in him, and less prone to strongly desire sinful things, he could have made us that way, right? We're kind of just being ourselves down here, aren't we? Being... well... humans! You say, "Those who die in their sins do so because that was exactly what they wanted to do." Well, who made them want that so much? (I'm really not trying to be disrespectful. I'm just pondering some things.) They comprehend the potential consequences of their actions yet they WANT what lies ahead? That seems highly doubtful.
But wait; the "good news" (according to what I understand is the Reformed belief) is that SOME ("few"?) will get chosen to go to the way better place -Heaven- kind of just because of the luck of the draw! Not because of anything at all they did or didn't do. Wow! How nice for them!
How should we feel about this.. happy? How can we be expected to rejoice about their grand opportunity with so many others of us poor little saps Hell-bound, especially when we are instructed to forgive others seventy times seven and love our neighbors as ourselves?
Sorry, but that's some pretty lame "good news" for mankind compared to what I grew up believing - that everyone somehow gets a fair chance and has a hope, the hope of having a personal relationship with God and a much brighter future. Everyone, versus just a few lucky, chosen ones. Now THAT would be "good news". A way out of this present mass dysfunction.
This is coming from a believer, by the way, but I'm still just trying to make some sense of some of these things. Can you help me out? Got any comments about any of this? Any guess as to how sending a bunch of folks off to what sounds like a truly horrendous place called Hell might bring god glory? As just a mere human who can't see beyond the end of his nose, seems I'd think LESS of someone who eternally imprisons conscious beings rather than more highly of them. But then what do I know and who am I to question the creator of the universe!? God made us curious beings, too, so hopefully he will forgive us for daring to sometimes ask such questions. I fear him. I am just.. wondering. Thank you for any light you might want to venture to shine on any of this. (This is not from Colt.)
Colt: "...if [it] (the offer of salvation) is only extended to select individuals and not to others..."
I specifically stated that the offer of salvation is widely offered, that many are called. The offer for salvation is as broad as it can be. It is available for everyone. The "it" in view is not the offer, but God's election -- who God chooses for salvation. Everyone else is offered salvation but refuses it.
Now, if you are going to say that the only way for God to be considered just is if the Gospel is offered specifically to each and every human being that ever lives, then, of course, regardless of what your view is on election, you will end up with an unjust God (which, in the end, is no god at all). We already know that large numbers of people have lived and continue to live and die without ever hearing of Christ. Thus X cannot = 100%.
Interestingly enough, it is your view (and I can't say it's unusual, but still bizarre) that God owes all human beings the right to salvation. They have the right to refuse it, but if God doesn't offer it to all, He's ... what was your term ... "a dick". Viewing this from a scriptural approach, on the other hand, the question is not "Why are so few saved?" but "Why are any saved?" Paul explains that it is God's will to display His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and the real surprise is not that He does so, but that He does not. (Rom 9:22-23). Paul claims that God's choice of whom to save "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). The natural objection to this is "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" (Rom 9:19). To which Paul responds that we don't have the right to answer back to God and God is allowed to do what He will with His creation (Rom 9:20-21). Kind of upside down from the ever-popular "God owes us at least the opportunity for salvation!"
Anonymous (interesting name -- a family name perhaps? Kidding),
The omnibenevolence of God that you refer to as "love" is a myth. He loves those whom He saves and allows the rest (who are His sworn enemies) to go to Hell. He does show kindness to the good and the bad by means of "common grace" -- "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" -- but we, in fact, would likely (and rightly) protest if we learned that God loves those who die hating Him just as much as -- and in the same way as -- He loves those who are the Bride of Christ.
Another common mistake is the perception that God sends people to Hell. Those who go to Hell do so of their own volition -- their own free will. No one forces them. The Bible describes death as "the wages of sin" -- something carefully earned, not imputed or given or forced. The suggestion is that God damns people when they actually do that themselves. The suggestion you made was that God makes us want to sin. You have to know that nothing is farther from the truth. (And, seriously, watching a bungee jumper and pondering, "They comprehend the potential consequences of their actions yet they WANT what lies ahead? That seems highly doubtful." is itself highly doubtful. Humans have an amazing propensity to fully recognize the potential consequences and ignore them -- even embrace them.)
I recently learned of a very interesting, biblical test of thinking processes. Are they godly, or are they satanic? When Jesus rebuked Peter by rebuking Satan, He told Peter, "You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (Mark 8:33). Thus, the line of thinking that promotes the interests of Man over the interests of God is clearly from Satan. So this line of thinking that claims that God owes it to His clay pots (Isa 45:9; Rom 9:21) who have chosen to overthrow their Maker in the worst form of Cosmic Treason to save them -- or at least try harder -- is not from God; it is from Satan.
And the common complaint against the biblical doctrine of Election is yours. It feels much better if we believe that God just kind of lays out the opportunity and everyone who wants it can take it. This, of course, fails to take into account the biblical problem of humans who are dead in sin (Eph 2:1), who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7), who cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14). Biblically if God just laid it out there for anyone who wants it to take it, no one would take it. Not one. And the problem is only made worse when you realize how impotent this would make God. He wants to save everyone but, gosh darn it, can't. Those pesky Humans (with capital "H" because they have now risen to the status of superior to God) prevent Him from actually accomplishing His own will. Now that is terrifying.
How does Hell glorify God? Paul says it was God's will to demonstrate His wrath and power (Rom 9:22). Logically, you cannot appreciate light without shadow, good without bad, justice without injustice, or grace or mercy without sin. Hell, then, more fully illuminates the nature of God, without which we'd have a seriously diminished view.
You say that it is misconception that God sends people to hell, and they go of their own volition.
As I interpret your view (I am sure mine is a bad interpretation), God creates a person, predestines what they will do (especially in regard to salvation), then judges them for doing exactly what he predestined them to do.
Which part am I getting wrong?
Some sort of causal effect from God's predestination of all things. That's what you're missing regarding my view. It's what you never got. It's what you're still not getting. For some reason you think that the ONLY way God can ordain anything is to force it. I don't actually know why. It's common, I'll admit, but certainly neither logically nor biblically necessary.
What is casual effect?
Causal effect would say that if God ordains something, He CAUSES it. If I ordain that the ball I'm holding will hit the ground, it doesn't require that I institute gravity to make it happen. It simply requires that I let the ball go. No causal effect.
I guess it would be easier to understand if I could read :)
Would it not be different if you did indeed create the gravity and everything else in which the ball was acting?
The question is whether or not God's created beings have the capacity to make uncoerced choices (which would be my definition of "free will"). The example of the ball and gravity only illustrates that the ball responds to gravity without my forcing it to. By the same token, humans can make choices without God forcing them to make these choices that accomplish what God wants to accomplish. No force required. No cause required. (Example: Joseph's brothers intended evil toward him when they sold him into slavery; God intended good -- saving Israel -- in allowing them to do their evil. He did not cause them to do it, but it was part of His plan.)
Did God plan their evil act before creation or not?
Do you use ordained and caused differently?
Do you used predestined and ordained differently?
See, there's a communication breakdown somewhere that I can't quite figure out.
Of course, you will not agree that God planned for their evil act in advance because you do not agree with Omniscience. The doctrine of Omniscience (the biblical, historical, orthodox version) has no problem with God knowing in advance that they would do what they would do, and the fact that He allowed it to happen rather than preventing it would be an indication that He "planned" it in the sense that He knew in advance they would do it and didn't prevent it.
But I think I've been abundantly clear on the other two questions. I've been stating repeatedly through words, examples, and even biblical texts that "ordain" does not require "cause" (and "predestine" is simply "foreordain"). Which part of that isn't coming across to you? I ask because you keep asking the same question and I keep giving the same answer.
The dictionary definition of "ordain" is "to order or decree". It may include "to authorize". It does not require "cause", "force", or any such thing. It does not even require "influence". It requires no more than "X will happen and I authorize it." What is it in "ordain" that requires "direct cause" to you? It isn't in the English language. What is it?
The breakdown is where do we assign moral responsibility. I would say any ruler that orders/decrees/authorizes the actions of people under him is morally responsible at least in part for the actions of these people. For example a president could not order an assassination on an enemy, and then come back and try his assassin for murder. This makes no sense.
We continually hold leaders responsible for the actions of the people they command, and this is rightly so. But, with God we apparently aren't supposed to ask why he can hold his creation responsible, even when all they have done is just as He orders/decrees/authorizes.
It is at this point something vague is usually said like "his ways are above our ways", and now if I continue to question I am apparently questioning the rightness and goodness of God. In reality I am just questioning the rightness and goodness of the God in your theological framework.
As I see it, our communication breakdown is based our assignment of moral responsibility.
For me:
Ordained=Morally Responsible
For you:
Forced=Morally Responsible
Okay, so let's try it from this direction. God knew in advance that Pilate, Herod, and the Jews would crucify His Son (Acts 4:27-28). By sending His Son, then, He ordained/authorized the action. This, by your calculation, makes God morally culpable for their acts? Scripture says without possible misunderstanding that "Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him" (John 6:64). In the same passage it says unequivocally that Jesus spoke of Judas Iscariot as "a devil". "'... One of you is a devil.' He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray Him" (John 6:70-71). Jesus chose the man He knew would betray Him and have Him executed. His foreknowledge and ordaining by choosing Judas, in your view, would exempt Judas from any moral culpability on his part and place it all on Jesus?
I'm just trying to follow your rationale ... because I can't imagine how to fit it with the biblical texts.
For me, an act on the part of a free agent that is neither commanded nor forced by God makes the person making that choice culpable for their choice, not the God who simply allows it to proceed because He can use it for His good purposes.
But that's just me. At least my view doesn't have to assign the moral culpability to God or His Son that you're going to have to deal with. :)
And, look, I didn't even pull out any "mysteries of God" defense.
The "what" was predetermined (Crucifixion, Disciple betraying Jesus), the who was not. It does not say they specifically would accomplish the task. They did accomplish the predetermined event, but God didn't choose them to do it.
"The who was not."
Did you even read the texts? You can, based on your prerequisite denial of God's Omniscience, argue that God did not (because He could not) know who would be crucifying Jesus, but the text will not allow this same dance in the case of Judas Iscariot. "Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray Him" (John 6:64). As if that was not clear enough, John goes on to write, "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.' He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray Him" (John 6:70-71). It's all there in black and white (and, I suppose, red if you have a red-letter Bible). He knew who, He chose him, and it even names who it was and what he would do. You'd like to shift that off to "an event, but not a who", but you have to do so against the Bible, not with it.
Irrefutable from the text: 1) Jesus chose Judas as one of the 12. 2) Jesus knew before it happened that Judas would betray Him. 3) Jesus did not circumvent this betrayal based on His foreknowledge of the betrayal. As such, it was "foreordained" by the standard definition of the word. And your assignment of moral culpability to the one who ordains an immoral act places the responsibility for Judas's sin on Jesus's back.
It is not necessary that Judas was chosen from the beginning of time. Only that Jesus chose him, when he chose him. It could very well have been that through Judas' previous choices the state of his heart was settled, not by God, but by Judas. Jesus could see his heart and knew it's status. He did not predetermine his heart condition, but perfectly saw who Judas was to his core. He was chosen not because of who he was predetermined to be, but because of who he had chosen to be.
You suggested the breakdown was that you assigned the moral culpability to the one that authorizes and I assign it to the one who chooses. I thought perhaps you were right. But it's clearly not the case. If the one who "orders/decrees/authorizes" the action is the culpable one and Jesus decreed and/or authorized Judas to betray Him, then your standard requires that it is Jesus who bears the culpability for Judas' betrayal. Nothing was said in your assignment of blame statement that it had to be "from the beginning of time", nor did I make the claim that the text states that Jesus knew that about Judas from the beginning of time. But there can be no doubt that Jesus knew in advance ("fore") what Judas would do and, in fact, told Him to do it ("ordained") (John 13:27).
But now we're back at cause and effect. You are suggesting that something I said requires that Jesus forced Judas's heart to make a sinful choice and I have repeatedly and repetitively with all the certainty and clarity I can find that we are not talking about cause here. We are talking about "ordain". The example of Jesus and Judas is a clear, unequivocal example of exactly what I'm talking about when I say "foreordain" (or "predestine"). No, Jesus didn't make Judas sin. No, Jesus didn't force a heart condition. No, there was no causal effect on the part of Christ. But 1) He knew what Judas was going to do, 2) did not cause it, 3) but did not prevent it and, in fact, 4) ordained it, 5) all before it happened. Jesus knew Judas would sin and authorized it because it was in God's plan, and Judas still bore the culpability for his own sinful choice. Predestination, without culpability simply because it was foreordained.
To be clear I would assign culpability to both parties, not just the one authorizing. Secondly, I would agree with points 1-3, and 5. I would say that Jesus allowed, but didn't ordain Judas's actions, and God used Judas's actions for a purpose, but didn't plan them for a purpose.
As a side note, in John 13:27 it is not clear if Jesus is talking to Judas or Satan who had just entered him.
Wow! Totally cool dodge. "No, He wasn't talking to Judas" (whose free will you would defend) "but to Satan" (who apparently has the full capability of overrunning human free will when God cannot).
Well, then, as I suggested, the breakdown is not in the culpability. The breakdown is in the use of the English language. You view "ordain" as "cause" and the fact that Jesus knew who would betray Him and did nothing to prevent it was not in any sense "ordain". Since your approach is to rule out the normal dictionary definition of the word and any sort of clear example of its use, then we're done ... again.
But notice, before you go, the cognitive dissonance. "God cannot know in advance what people will do. Jesus knew exactly what Judas would do." Cognitive dissonance. "If it is ordained, the one doing the ordaining is morally culpable. God ordained the execution of His Son but is not morally culpable." Cognitive dissonance. You'll have to work through that on your own, because you haven't done so here.
I will defend my "cognitive dissonance" and be done. In my view God knows the future as partly settled, but not exhaustively settled. At the time Jesus chose Judas, he could see his hard heart and could know for certain what he would do. Jesus did not ordain Judas's actions, Judas chose and Jesus/God used his choice for good.
Secondly,God can always responds to evil actions by bringing purpose and good to them. In the crucifixion God used the choices that people were going to make to bring about his ultimate plan of redemption. His work in the matter was good, the people's work was evil. God ordained the salvation of mankind through the evil actions of those involved. He continually does this, taking the evil of the world and Satan and bringing good to it.
Thanks again for all the time you put into this blog. I appreciate that you do not censor any of the posts even when you strongly disagree, and are probably really annoyed :) You have brought up many good points, and I do spend time wrestling with them. God bless and keep up the good work.
I suggested you were mired in cognitive dissonance that was not properly accounted for. I would suggest that your accounting doesn't take into account the facts.
Jesus knew what Judas would do and even knew that it was sin. He knew it in advance. He did nothing to stop it. He said, "What you do do quickly." (Whether to Judas or Satan within him is a pointless distinction. He didn't suggest that either the man with the free will or some satanic being who now had control (?) not do it. He said to do it and do it quickly.) He didn't ask Judas to leave the group (way back in John 6 when He already knew) and thereby assist Judas in avoiding the sin that proved fatal to him. He didn't take Judas aside and say, "Look, Judas, I know what you're going to do. Don't do it." Knowing exactly what Judas would do and having the ability to stop it, Jesus did nothing except telling him to proceed. That is "authorize", "ordain", "decree".
And God did not simply bring good to the sin of crucifying His Son. The text says He predestined it. Foreordained. Planned in advance. No "after the fact" response. Foreordained. You'd like to argue that He didn't foreordain "Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" to carry it out (primarily because your a priori contention is that the future is "not exhaustively settled"), but the text isn't vague that God ordained the Crucifixion in advance. Since God ordained it in advance and your view requires that the one who ordains a sinful act is culpable for it, you're still stuck with assigning moral culpability to God.
Could it be that this brand new theological view of God's limited omniscience and shortened sovereignty is new precisely because it is wrong? Is it possible that it is not found on the historical panorama of orthodox (or even heretical) views because it isn't the right view? Could it be that the historical, orthodox, traditional, biblical perspective of God's Omniscience and Sovereignty are the right view and are historical, orthodox, traditional, and biblical exactly for that reason? Just rhetorical questions, some things to think about.
Post a Comment