The first in my new “Questions I Hope No One Asks” Series
As an evangelical Christian, I seek to share Christ with others. Often, in doing so, people have a lot of questions. Many times these are “soft-ball” questions about which I am more confident in my response. However, there are many questions concerning the Christian faith that that are much more difficult to answer and about which I am less confident in what I have to say. Most of the time it is not simply that I don’t have the answer, but that they are questions that I myself would love to present before the throne of God.
Questions I hope no one asks #1:
Why doesn’t God save everyone?
Insufficient Answers:
“Because he does not interfere with free will.”
This is the answer that would be given by some of my friends who don’t hold to the same particular theological persuasions that I have. I think it is the best of all the insufficient answers out there and does contain a certain element of truth. The idea is that God provides the means for salvation for everyone, but it is up to the individuals to choose God. As the old saying goes, “God casts a vote for you. Satan casts a vote against you. You hold the tie-breaking vote.” The emphasis is on the “you.” God has done his part, you are now the master of your faith and the captain of your soul.
However, this is problematic for me for some substantial reasons. Most importantly, I don’t think Scripture teaches this. I believe that we all have cast our vote against God. Hence, we have already exercised our “free will,” submitted our ballot, and checked the box next to “I stand with Adam; I hate God.” Satan has no vote for anyone. He only casts a ballot for himself. Therefore, we are in a very precarious situation. Humanity took a stand with Adam in Eden and exercised its freedom collectively and voted against God. In this sense, we are “in Adam.” Our choice was made “in and with” him (Rom. 5:12-21). If anyone is to be saved, our will and choice already made “in Adam” must be changed from the outside. In the end, God’s “vote” or election is all that matters. If we are to be saved, we must have our vote vetoed.
“So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy [or vetoes]” (Rom 9:16).
Yes, man’s choice does matter. But mankind was condemned long ago with Adam. Our wills are in bondage to our sin. We have no ability to turn to God or choose him (Rom. 3). If anyone is to be saved, God must sovereignly do the saving.
But, unfortunately, the question remains: Why doesn’t he save everyone?
“God does not love everyone.”
I also know many people who take this “out.” For them, God’s only saves those whom he loves. For them, there are many who are hated by God. Therefore, God does not save them because they are objects of his hatred.
Although I have a knee-jerk reaction to such emotionally rapping explanations, my emotional disposition toward anything has no vote in truth. I could not say, “This cannot be. I would not serve a God who is so vindictive, trivial, and evil.” If God is this way, then so be it. He is still God and I am not. However, this option does not find any valid biblical support. The Bible says that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). As well, Titus 3:4 says that his love is for all mankind. According to 2 Pet 3:9 he does not desire any to perish. While I believe that God has a particular type of “elective love” for those who are being saved, I don’t believe the others are hated in an unqualified sense. God loves all his creation.
But, again, this begs the question: Why doesn’t he save everyone?
“He is going to save everyone.”
This is my favorite answer. This is the answer I want to be true. Give me enough reason to find a loophole to get out of the doctrine of hell, and I will take it. Help me to find a way to get everyone a reservation in the kingdom of God, and I will bite. However, I have searched and searched for such a loophole and cannot find it. There is an ever terrifying truth that escalates in the Scriptures concerning the reality of ultimate destruction for so many of God’s creation. “Enter by the narrow gate,” Christ warns, ” for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Mat 7:13-14). And Christ even makes it more clear when someone asks him the question of the hour:
“And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He [Christ] said to them, ‘Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers.’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out (Luk 13:23-28).
Though I would like to opt for some sort of universal salvation (universalism), I find no warrant other than wishful thinking. Therefore, I yield to a source greater and higher than my opinion and remain confused by the question, Why doesn’t God save everyone?
My Answer:
The best answer I have is “I don’t know.” God has not seen fit to tell us why all are not saved. We know these basic facts: 1) All people are part of a race that chose against God. 2) God did not have to save anyone and he would still be just. 3) God loves all people. 4) God has the power to save all people. 5) God is only saving certain people.
But we also know that God could have told us why he is not saving everyone, but he has chosen not to. There are many things that God has kept in the secret council of his will (Deut. 29:29). He is not saying, “This is for me to know and you to find out, nah, nah, na boo boo.” He is saying, “Listen. There are some things that are good questions, but I have seen fit to withhold the answer. I am good. Trust me when I say I love everyone. Trust me when I say I know what I am doing. Trust me that I know best. Can you trust me?” Many of us take the moral high-ground on God and say “No. You are condemned by my hand.” Others adjust what the Scriptures say to make things more palatable. In the end, I just encourage all of us to trust him. This is what faith is all about friend. He does know what he is doing, even when we don’t have the answers.
107 replies to "Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?"
The better question is why does God save anyone?
Though, I must take exception to your passages in refutation of universalism. The passage from Matthew seems to be directed at Jews who remain Jew and continue to believe their salvation is determined before God on that fact. The same could go for the passage from Luke.
That, of course, does not mean I think that universalism is true, but that your passages do not speak to the issue. Those same Jews could turn and become Christians.
A more problematic verse in regard to universalism would be Hebrews 9:27,
“Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,”
On the grounds that for universalism to be true it would require post mortem conversions.
On a side note, how do you square Philippians 2:10,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
with the traditional view of total depravity. What I mean is, that if a person is not regenerated the activity of bowing the knee to Jesus would be LITERALLY impossible.
Oh, the joys of being a pain in the side!
Have a wonderful day!
I still find this answer illogical. Free will would mean that we are free to choose how we want to live our lives without any interference even from God however, anyone with common sense would see that we do not live free at all in any way. I would not choose to live life the way we live it. I do not choose suffering, racism, greedy corporarations and unfair laws but, we are subjected to them everyday. Free will would also mean that when we ask God for his presence he would be there as that is what we are choosing for our lives yet, it never happens. All the teachings of why God can’t be a real presence in our lives are always contridictory. You would think with our free will that all the praying, churches and nightly prayers that they would be answered by God helping us with the serious worldly issues we have been requesting assistance with for many years. Life seems to get more and more depressing by the day and prayers don’t seem to help the collective. For my free will request, I request that I know the truth with no contradictions. Let’s see if that happens.
I really liked this post, Michael. I’ve enjoyed digging into the process of salvation and looking at the various theological views over the past few months.
However, doesn’t Paul somewhat answer this question, or at least a related one, in Romans 9:22-25?
22 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, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25
I read this — and to me the answer is: He doesn’t save everyone because he wants “to make known the riches of his glory” for the elect.
So now the question becomes — how does this election of some, and not others, serve to make the riches of his glory known? Why wouldn’t saving everyone also make the riches of his glory known?
And to this question, I answer: “I don’t know” 🙂
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Calvin Hall, TylerFlipboard. TylerFlipboard said: Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?: As an evangelical Christian, I seek to share Chris… http://bit.ly/ghctcg […]
Michael,
I agree that the answer is “I don’t know.” I also agree that the better question is “Why does God save anyone?” For some, God has to have a reason for everything He does but, as you pointed out, we have to trust that everything He does is good. I always think of Job’s questions and that God answers none of them, instead, asking Job if he can do any of the things God can. Job then answers and says (Job 42:2-6)
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Steven S.,
I think the answer to your question re: Philippians 2:10, is that at the end of time everyone will bow to King Jesus as Lord, even the reprobate. The elect will bow in worship and the reprobate in grudging submission to the conquering King of the universe. I know that is not in the passage, but I think that is a likely answer.
Because God is more glorified in salvation through judgement.
Questions I Hope No One Asks: Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone?
I actually think this is a good and decent question.
Michael. I am surprised that you still believe in the Roman Catholics teaching in hell. There is no Scriptural reason to believe in the modern / ancient understanding of hell…. rather the more scriptural view….though not the popular one is one of Annihilation…after all the wages of sin is death… not eternal torment in hell….
As per what Michael said in #4: I agree and because by saving everyone, He saves no one.
“I don’t know” and “Because that’s the way He wants it” are also acceptable answers. 😉
I suspect the question is meaningless, if we define our terms properly.
For someone to be saved means that they must become a certain type of person. A lot of people refuse to become that sort of person. It’s all very well to say “God can do anything”, but sticking the words “God can” on the front of a nonsense sentence does not give it meaning; and taking people who have decided not to become a certain sort of person and making them that sort of person probably involves nonsense.
It’s not like making a fish breathe air. It’s like making a fish into a tortoise. It might be a nice tortoise, but it wouldn’t be a fish. What connection, other than the reuse of atoms, would there be between the fish and the tortoise? Likewise between the damned soul and the redeemed one, I suspect.
I think the first two responses were great and I largely agree. I tend towards the second of your answers, CMP, and consider the case of Esau. In fact, I think this question is largely answered in Romans 9: 11-24 http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+9:+11-24
God hated Esau. That scares me. As I read in Genesis, Esau, not Jacob, would have fit MY definition of the good son. Esau was in the field while Jacob was a conniving, deceptive momma’s boy. There might be a potential rub for me if I failed to recognize how sinful I am and that my only hope is that God can choose to love Jacob over Esau.
In Genesis 2:17, God told Adam that on the very day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that he would die. And surely Adam, and his descendants died a full spiritual death on that day (or at least this Calvinist believes so). It would have been just, it seems, for God to crush Adam and Eve and any potential descendants right there and then, but God had a greater plan to crush the head of the serpent through Christ. We surely can not judge our maker, as others have said, but when I might be tempted to, I go back to these verses.
Now let’s go back to Esau. Look at what is said about Esau in Hebrews 12: 16-17. “he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.” (ESV) That is the scariest verse in the Bible to me, yet I must believe that even if God hates me and even if he hates some or all of my children, who I love, that He is a good and holy God. This was driven home for me personally when we had to give away a foster child that we raised for a year believing we would be able to adopt him. I remember crying and hugging him for the last time and handing him to strangers. I thought that surely God would call out as He did to Abraham and spare me the loss of my son, but He did not. I can not know what God has planned, and He may hate all of my children, but He is a good God. If I had more than 2000 characters…
I’m curious how “3. God loves all people” is expressed in Him not unconditionally electing to save all people. Of course, you realize I reject Universalism, as do you. But I am always puzzled with how those who adhere to the doctrine of Unconditional Election can also claim that God loves all people. I’m not sure that retreating to mystery or antinomy is a sufficient answer.
I do agree with you, though, that “Because He does not interfere with free will” is insufficient. For my theology, it betrays the Classical Arminian doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Since all people are “dead in sins” and separated from God, then God must “interfere” with our free will to some degree. No one asks to be convicted of sins, for example (John 16:8-11). Left to our own depraved nature, no one would be saved.
What I am most curious about, however, is this claim that God “loves” all people, but has only unconditionally elected to save some people. How is God’s “love” for the “non-elect” demonstrated? God bless.
CMP,
An appeal to free will may be an insufficient answer, but it doesn’t follow that it isn’t a necessary condition and hence a necessary constituent of a sufficient answer.
Second, Rom 9 is Paul’s answer to a specific argument, namely that the coming of messiah entails the salvation of the Jews due to their elction, but Jesus’s coming did not bring about the salvation of the Jews, therefore Jesus is not Messiah.
Paul rejects one of the premises, namely that election entails salvation. This is why his examples, Pharaoh and Co. are what they are. God’s purposes comes through the elect, but even the elect must repent. (9:11) This is why unbelieving Jews can be called elect. Christ was the purpose of the Jews being elect, not their personal salvation. Hence Rom 9 is not concerned with God selecting in a monocausal predestinating way the salvation of individuals. It is about God choosing people to serrve purposes even if they do not guarantee their personal salvation.
the paradigm by which you discuss this stacks the deck against particular answers— in particular your assumption that we have cast our vote against God assumes we are stuck in that rut. Your anthropology of total depravity snuffs out the imago dei, IMHO. Even in our fallenness, we can understand grace and goodness and repentance.
Look at what is said about Esau in Hebrews 12: 16-17. “he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.” (ESV) That is the scariest verse in the Bible to me,
#1. You have to look at the context. He had no chance to repent of having sold his birthright to deceiving Jacob.
#2. The scariest verse in the Bible for me is Jesus saying in Matthew 7:23: “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'”
Jesus also preached that there’s a narrow gate to Heaven and a wide or broad gate to Hell. That’s a major teaching too.
Birch asks: “How is God’s “love” for the “non-elect” demonstrated?”
One brief, partial answer: Common Grace.
[…] a similar theme starting, entitled “Questions I hope no one asks.” First question is “Why doesn’t God save everyone?”. This is the Parchment and Pen blog of Credo House […]
That one little question shipwrecked my own faith in orthodox Christianity.
Being sentenced to an eternal hell for being a sinner, when God is the one who has cursed you with your sin nature to begin with, is pretty hard to reconcile with the notion of God as a loving, heavenly Father. First, He gives you a nature that guarantees that you will sin, as a curse for something a primordial ancestor did. Then He sentences everyone to eternal suffering (or annihilation) because they are following their nature that has been “gifted” to them. He then decides to rescue only a small handful of people for reasons that are entirely mysterious. And I am supposed to praise and worship a deity who does these things? I may greatly fear a deity that would do these things, but I could never love and respect such a deity.
I think you may have to high an opinion of humanity. I know we are worthwhile, God made us, and Jesus died for us, but we don’t come close to the value of Jesus and the Holiness of the Triune God. I actually think that if we saw God in all His glory we would in fear and trembling say something like: “Woe is me. You can and should do anything you want. Kill me if you like.”
When I was a kid, my Bible teacher told me that Adam was a sample. Like when you get a little sample of lake water to determine how polluted the lake is or isn’t. The first Adam was polluted and hence, we are too. The second Adam died for the polluted. The second Adam is a spring of living pure water. We wouldn’t know anything about the value of Christ and the love of God if not for being created and allowed to become polluted. It all boils down to faith in the second Adam.
So, my question would maybe be not why doesn’t God save everyone, but why doesn’t he give everyone faith in His Son?
Grace is there, available, thanks be to the second Adam, but faith is what people need to access that grace.
Jesus declares “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65) In the same passage Jesus declares: ” all that the Father gives to Me will come to Me.” (John 6:37)
And elsewhere Jesus says he can give life to whomever he wants.
So, it brings me back to the beginning of this paragraph. If we saw God in all His glory, we’d say something like: “Woe is me. You can do whatever you want. Kill me if you like.”
It is hard not to be the center of the universe, but it is also reality.
The good news is God Is NOT like that. Read bible-truths.com. it will open your eyes to a glorious truth!
The answer is that God saves all who accept his offer. You reject Christ, well where else is there to go?
Your first option is close to the mark, but I don’t believe that if God forced someone to be saved (thus his disposition changed) love could exist. God can (is able to, has the ability to free from the second death) save all, God can’t force men to love him, God saves those who respond to him in love.
Your example of voting is very poor though. God does everything his wishes to do in order to influence all men to love him.
Truth Unites . . .
And that answer is a problem, IMO, for God’s “love” demonstrated in “common grace” is qualitatively superior to His alleged “electing love,” at least with regard to the alleged “non-elect.”
On a base level (a very base level), who cares for God’s “common grace”? Give me His alleged “electing grace”! I’d rather be naked and starving here and be among God’s alleged “unconditionally elect” than to have God’s “common grace” and not be among the “unconditionally elect.”
I find the plea to “common grace” a terribly insufficient answer — even more so than the Free Will response.
“And that answer is a problem, IMO, for God’s “love” demonstrated in “common grace” is qualitatively superior to His alleged “electing love,” at least with regard to the alleged “non-elect.”
Did you mean to say that you find it qualitatively inferior? Otherwise, I’m not sure how so?
I think God’s love is for His people, and even common grace to others, which is a type of love for them, is primarily for the benefit of His people as well. Nonetheless, for someone to say that God doesn’t love Criminal A enough because He only does good to Criminal A in the time before His execution, and He acquits Criminal B and loves him more, is odd to me. The criminal deserves no love at all, either temporary or eternal. It’s a wonder, then, that God gives any kind of love to those He means to punish for their crimes, and continue to rebelliously offend Him night and day in the face of that love which is given.
Hodge,
No, I meant superior: God’s common grace trumps electing grace for the “non-elect.”
God claims to love both Criminal A and Criminal B, and desires both their salvation. In what sense can it be admitted that He desires Criminal A’s salvation when He has unconditionally elected to save only Criminal B? We know that neither Criminal deserves God’s grace, but that’s not the issue. The issue is God’s love, and His confession that He desires to save both.
Therefore, how is God’s “love” demonstrated to those whom He has not unconditionally elected to save? Is the best answer Calvinism offers “common grace”?
An appeal to free will/Arminian theology only moves the problem a step back. We still have the fact that God chose to create things that he knew would rebel, resulting in the damnation of many of them. Couldn’t he have created people who would not fall?
I don’t think anyone has mentioned another common line of thinking – that maybe it has something to do with our relationship to God. I love and know God better in light of what he has saved me from. But it seems repulsive to me that my knowledge of God should come at the expense of the souls of millions of other people.
I do plan to ask about it some day, although I don’t necessarily expect an answer other than the one Job got.
Nice post. However, I was wondering why the special love of God in election (“Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”) wasn’t mentioned. I was also expecting some Romans 9 elaborations because I think it answers it: to display His glorious grace and His glorious justice.
“The issue is God’s love, and His confession that He desires to save both.”
If you have a Calvinist who believes that God desires to save both, then there would be a problem there; but I don’t believe He does. I believe He desires to save His people, and to love others in subordination to that fact. His love, then, is expressed to them in a variety of ways that are summed up in common grace, and there is no necessity for God’s love to exhaust its possibilities in order to be truly love.
William Birch #12 wrote:
Where does the Bible say that the unregenerate are “dead in sins”? I cannot seem to find this… What I find instead is the notion that they were alive in their sin and it wasn’t until one died to sin that they could be made alive with Christ. In fact, it would seem that believers are currently in a state of being dead to sin and transgressions…
I think Calvinists have misread this one too…
Hodge writes:
But of course you forgot to mention that Criminal B repented and believed on Christ. ….or were you not talking about the two criminals either side of Jesus while on the cross?
Ryan,
I’m not a Calvinist but I can answer this one
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins – Ephesians 2:1
great post, boy it makes us think deep, 1,[ we dont know,] we were born in sin, along comes this wonderful god, and plucks us out of the fire, with his son on the cross, oh what a savour, most of us out there who are true believers, would have been in jail, or alcholics, and following it up by cheating on our wifes, or girlfriends, my life it hard, no job , but being a child of god, keeps me from going mad, ,,its only by grace, grace, that god sent his only son, sometimes we as people we talk, and ask silly questions, like job, at the end time, god will give us his love without fear,whatever decisions are made, our wonderful god is in charge, may my lord bless you all. george57
Michael T wrote:
The English is misleading; it actually should read: “And you are (present, active) dead to transgressions and sins” – take a look at the Greek.
Mr. Birch,
If you have a problem with Common Grace, take it up with the Boss.
If you have a problem with Election, take it up with the Boss.
If you have a problem with Hell, take it up with the Boss.
I submit to the Boss, I’m grateful to the Boss, and I delight in the Boss’s mercy, love, and grace.
Mr. Birch, if you want to beach about the Boss and His Decisions and How He Carries Out His Decisions, go to Him and His Word.
Ryan,
I would suggest staying away from the Greek when you don’t know it. The present participle is simply conveying existence, not a time frame. This is made clear by what is said next, “in which you formerly walked.” The Greek adverb pote collocated with an aorist actually does denote a time in the past (the tenses by themselves don’t convey time). So the time of the first participle is reliant on other time markers, like pote + aor. Hence, it just means “And you, being dead in your wrongdoing and sins in which you formerly walked (i.e., in which you formerly lived your life).
Paul isn’t saying that we’re all dead in sin right now. Dead is a term of separation, and here conveys a separation from God and His power to do what is right in exercising faith and doing good works, as the rest of the chapter will show. He’s contrasting that we formerly were dead because we did not have God in our world with the fact that now He has made us alive and given us not only salvation but also the means (i.e., grace and faith) through which we obtain it.
Yes, we are now in the state of existence of being dead to sin. Which sin? The sin in which we formerly walked. What’s the problem with this interpretation? It seems to fit perfectly.
YES, dead means separation, and YES he IS saying that true believers are dead TO sin right now (or, they ought to be).
No, Ryan, I don’t think you understand. He’s saying that we WERE dead in sin in relation to God AS THE REST ARE. The “rest” refer to the children of wrath who remain slaves to their lusts, etc. So 1. the time the participle is taking place is conveyed by pote + aor. (i.e., in the past), and 2. the rest of the chapter makes it clear that this separation is from God and His power to believe and do good. So we are not dead in sin right now.
Why do you keep saying dead IN sin? I am not saying this… I said that the text says dead TO sin.
yes, ryan , as roms 8:1-2,,,,,, and eph 2:5. we are alive in christ, but we dont sometimes live sin free , and will be this way till our lord returns, paul says, in which you formerly walked, so any sin will be not held against us, why because were alive in christ,what a savour, god bless.
The undertone in this question is that God is not just. Although Michael does not explicitly say it but implicit in his answers depends on which camp one falls under. If you lop off the hypercalvinists and Pelagians, Christians basically falls into 2 camps, the Calvinist or the Arminian camps.
The standard Calvinist answer to this question is why God saves anyone. This is a good answer in that it gives unfettered supremacy to God’s sovereignty. I would certainly agree with the unfettered supremacy for God’s sovereignty but there is something unsatisfactory to this answer. For instance, by taking this position we have painted ourselves into a corner and unable to explain why God would choose one person over another. We are saying that there is absolutely no merits that we have in why God chose us and not another. We are equivalent to a blank slate as far as salvific consideration is concerned. The problem with this view is that it suggests that God is capricious and that is anathema, so we just consign to the fact that we don’t know why God makes the decision He does and that His ways are higher than our ways and cite Romans 9:15-21 to support this view.
I think the proper understanding of this does not need to violate the doctrine of Unconditional election. Remember central to the doctrine is that no one can merit, contribute or earn their salvation. An analogy of this is of a dead person. How can a dead person contribute to making himself alive? Therefore salvation is entirely of God. This is true and must not be tampered with. What I would like to do is to put this in the context of how God chooses one person over another. The question here is that if there is something in a person that God sees as preferable but lacking in another does this necessarily mean that the elected individual is worthy, have merit or in some way deserving of salvation? The answer is no. The problem is that traditionally we have linked these 2 principles as one. In our fallen…
In our fallen nature sometimes we go overboard and in our desire to make sure we acknowledge God’s sovereignty and our depravity we become too extreme and created a false sense of humility. We see and have participated in examples of this all the time. For instance when you see someone who is obviously talented in a certain area such as music, math, science, or athletics, we praise and compliment them on how talented they are. Their response might be “no, no, I am just lucky or anyone can do it with a little practice and study”, instead of giving thanks and acknowledging that they have been blessed and not become proud and arrogant over their talents. The latter is definitely difficult but we over compensate in an attempt to be humble and instead create this cocoon of false humility.
At the risk of being proud, I think there is something in the elects that God sees as preferential over those whom He did not elect. And this absolutely does not mean that we have something that is deserving or meritorious of salvation. It simply means that God sees something in us that He can use or finds desirable. Let me try to flesh it out with a few illustrations. In the parable of the prodigal son, upon his return did he deserve how his father treated him? Of course not, even he knew that he was not worthy and his father would have been perfectly justified to cast him away. However, he had something the father preferred over anyone else, the prodigal son is of his own blood. Even something as mundane as choosing what flavor of ice cream. I prefer chocolate over durian. I will always prefer chocolate over durian. There will never be a time where I will prefer durian over chocolate. Does this mean that chocolate have some meritorious value over durian that demands my preference? No. There might be others who prefer durian and different people will have different preferences, but there is only ONE God. His choice and preference is the only one that counts. Let me try one last…
Let me try one last illustration. Everyone is different, some are smarter than others, some nicer, meeker, more compassionate, stronger, faster, more charismatic and articulate. Many of these innate talents and abilities can be found in both the elect and the unrepentant. Now isn’t it possible that there is a characteristic or a combination of traits that God foresee in the elects that He desires once we have been regenerated? Maybe it is as simple as more willing to give thanks to God or humble ourselves to Him. The Calvinist in me would also object at this point and say that there is no one good and no one seeks after God. I understand that but even the doctrine of total depravity does not say that the unrepentant person is incapable of doing anything that is good. Maybe God is just electing those that have more of a certain trait. “You save a humble people, but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them down.” (2 Samuel 22:28, ESV)
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Romans 1:28, ESV)
“slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,” (Romans 1:30, ESV)
Again the Calvinist in me would object that everyone is haughty and no one turns their heart toward God until they are regenerated. True but I am not talking about a heart that is already turned toward God but more of a matter of degree. Even among the impenitent some are more hostile than others toward God.
The bottom line is that God is not capricious because we are not blank slates. He elects us because He sees something in us that He desires over those whom He has not elected but in no way do these traits rise to the level of deserving salvation. Therefore we have nothing to boast. In this way human free will and God’s sovereignty and justice are preserved.
teleologist,
I don’t see how your idea is a whole lot different then the Arminian that says God saves those that turn to him in faith. But Calvinists say that makes salvation a work or makes that person more meritorious then others because he was willing to exercise faith and turn to God. At least that is how I understand what Calvinists are saying.
How is that any different then being more willing to give God thanks or being more willing to humble ourselves before him? How is that not making ourselves meritorious and how does that not become a work in the same way you see turning to God in faith as a work that we do?
Romans 9
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory– 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Why doesn’t God save everyone? I think Romans 9 seems to provide some answers: It is because God chose “to show his wrath and make his power known”, and “to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy” (i.e. the elect). Similar to why He raised Pharaoh up for condemnation, in order to “display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
This is about Him ultimately, NOT us.
This is about Him ultimately, NOT us.
I think I have said this in other discussions on this site. But that statement is very easy to say if you are looking at this from the perspective of being convinced you are one of the elect.
If on the other hand, you should happen to be one that doesn’t know if they are one of the elect or someone that is just not sure about any of this, this is an utterly horrifying thought. To think that you are going to be thrown into an eternal hell where you will be tormentd forever with absolutely no chance of ever being saved has to be the most horrific thought that a man can have. And it certainly couldn’t help any to know that God has deliberately chosen to do that to make his power known and to make the ones he has chosen very grateful for His mercy.
Great for the elect, absolutely horrifying for the largest share of mankind.
I can’t even begin to imagine.
Since we are told that the greatest thing we can have is love, I just don’t know how we can love people and not be absolutely horrified at this thought. They seem to be totally contradictory to me.
cherylu,
I emphatize with your feelings. This is probably why for most Christians, the question of “Why doesn’t God save everyone?”, is filed under the “Questions I hope no one asks” section. I think sometimes we subconsciously feel it’s best not to discover the answer ourselves, as we may not like the truth. I often wish Calvinism isn’t true, but it seems to me that this is what Scripture teaches (unfortunately AND fortunately).
BTW, although I do profess faith in Christ, I am not “convinced” that I am one of the elect. Every time I examine myself to see if I am in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5), I do consider it a real possibility that I am not one. With so much sinful faults, I am very much a work in progress… Luke 13:23-28 only reinforces the warning that all Christians need to be careful about being complacent with their own understanding of their union with Christ.
At the end of the day, whether I am one of the elect or not, it doesn’t change the fact that God is sovereign and He has the final say in all matters. This fact is depressing and horrifying in a sense, but other than denying Scripture (which I believe is trustworthy), what can I do but submit to Him?
GoldCityDance,
I think you may be the first Calvinist in my memory that has ever said what you just said to me.
I would honestly like to know how other than submitting to Him you deal with the depression and horror you find in the thought that you may not be one of the elect. Submitting to Him won’t take away the horror and the torment that you will experience for all of eternity if you should find out in the end that you are not one of the elect.
I have always wondered how that is dealt with.
Does it ever make you wonder at all if there is something wrong with the Calvinist understanding of these issues?
Cheryl,
I know my position is rather nuance. Unlike the Arminian view I am not saying a person have the ability to have faith or seek God in any way prior to regeneration. In that sense I am in agreement with Calvinism. Where I differ from Calvinism is that I believe there is something intrinsically in the elect that God sees as desirable but does not merit salvation.
Probably I was not clear in my comment. I am not saying an unrepentant person is willing to give God thanks or willing to humble before Him. As a matter of fact I said God is dead to the unregenerated. But it is a fact that not everyone is as anti-God, contrast Christopher Hitchens with someone like S.E. Cupp. Both are self professing atheists but one is extremely hostile to God and another is friendly. Does this mean that Ms. Cupp merits salvation? No. Does this mean that Cupp is willing to give thanks to God? No. If this was the only trait that God is looking for as deserving of salvation then she would be saved.
What I should have made clearer was that I don’t know what traits God is looking for. Scripture does not bear this out. Probably because if it did then people will run around mimicking those traits and miss the fact that salvation is wholly the work of God. I gave the examples of thanksgiving and humility only as illustrations. It may be as simple as God chose us because we like certain flavor of ice cream. I don’t think that is true but I am just trying to make a point. My main point was that there must be something that differentiates the elect from the unrepentant. We can’t be all blank slates before God and He is merely picking us out of the crowd randomly. That is capricious and I think is not God’s character. In any case I don’t know of anything that we have over those non-elect that would merit salvation.
I don’t know teleologist, it seems to me you are quibbling about words here. Saying that God picks someone because of something He likes in them but that doesn’t make them merit salvation just doesn’t seem to work in my mind.
Besides if God chooses some people over others because of some quality he sees in them he likes, (whether that is the flavor of ice cream they prefer or whatever!) only begs the question of why didn’t God create everyone so that they would have that quality that He prefers then so he could save them all? It seems to me that brings you right back to square one.
cherylu,
Actually I don’t see myself as a conventional Calvinist, first because I can only see 3.5 points (T,U,less certainty for I,P) from Scripture, second because I was much more Arminian-like for most of my Christian walk, so I think I can emphatize with both sides of the debate.
BTW, I meant to cite Matthew 7:17-23, not Luke 13:23-28, in my previous response.
In response to your last question, I would say “no” and “yes”.
“No” in the sense that I do not find it plausible for man to invent and promote a system of religious beliefs that most humans naturally find utterly reprehensible. Either John Calvin and Calvinists are secretly sadists or irrational schizophrenics (which I find no evidence for), or the source of Calvinism is non-human. Calvinism is dehumanizing in a sense because it strips man of our ability to help ourselves. In addition, it reveals a more multilayered, complex character of God which befuddles and sometimes angers us, and rightly so.
“Yes” in the sense that I am human as well. Of course I wonder sometimes whether I have interpreted Scripture correctly to arrive to my conclusions. Like I said above, our natural human inclination is to recoil in disgust and see Calvinism as turning God into a “moral monster”. I experience these emotions as well.
Actually from my perspective the worst possible horror is to know that loved ones whom I’m closest to are, or will be, in hell, and it is happening because God did not choose them. It hurts even more than finding out you may not be one of the elect. I have lost loved ones whom, in their earthly lives, have shown no evidence at all of being part of the elect (they weren’t even close to professing faith in Christ in any tangible way as my family religious background is Buddhist). I have wrestled with God about this, is still wrestling with Him about this, and in fact I believe I will do so for eternity.
Cheryl,
I’m impressed. That’s the answer I would have given. You’re thinking like me more every day. 😉
Maybe, but here is what we know, it is God who chooses and wills. The real question is how He chooses. We can either say that God is capricious or He chooses on something that is more tangible and according to his own will and good pleasure.
Because even Calvinism is not fatalistic, sovereignty and free will both must exist.
But I am open to other theories and I think we can all agree that even Calvinism is lacking when it comes to question like this.
Cheryl,
Are you a universalist? Do you believe in hell?
I think your objection is misguided in the sense that one shouldn’t be asking if she is one of the elects, but rather if one has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ Who died on the cross, rose on the 3rd day for the propitiation of our sins. If you can answer that question then you don’t have to ask if you are one of the elects or not.