If election were solely based on what God wanted and not anything in us that might differentiate the chosen from the un-chosen and thus account for why this one and not another, why didn’t God choose all? If he could have, why didn’t he? With this question we run headlong into the theological brick wall called “the secret things of God” (Deut. 29:29), on the other wide of which are mysteries inaccessible to the human mind.
Many mistakenly assume that, if God is by nature loving, he must choose all, as if to say it would be a contradiction of the divine character were he not to love everyone equally. But this fails to note that the saving love of God is also sovereign. John Murray explains it this way:
“Truly God is love. Love is not something adventitious; it is not something that God may choose to be or choose not to be. He is love, and that necessarily, inherently, and eternally. As God is spirit, as he is light, so he is love. Yet it belongs to the very essence of electing love to recognize that it is not inherently necessary to that love which God necessarily and eternally is that he should set such love as issues in redemption and adoption upon utterly undesirable and hell-deserving objects. It was of the free and sovereign good pleasure of his will, a good pleasure that emanated from the depths of his own goodness, that he chose a people to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. The reason resides wholly in himself and proceeds from determinations that are peculiarly his as the ‘I am that I am.'”[1]
Thus, to say that love is sovereign is to say it is distinguishing. It is, by definition as saving love, bestowed upon and experienced only by those who are in fact saved (i.e., the elect). Although there is surely a sense in which God loves the non-elect, he does not love them redemptively. If he did, they would certainly be redeemed. God loves them, but not savingly, else they would certainly be saved. All this is to say that God’s eternal, electing love is not universal but particular. Of this we may be certain: God was under no obligation to choose any. Were he to have chosen none, he would have remained perfectly just in doing so. That he chose some is a reflection of sovereign mercy.
“OK,” responds the inquiring soul, “I’ll concede that God doesn’t have to love everyone with the love of election, but that doesn’t tell me why he didn’t. It’s one thing to say God was under no obligation or necessity to elect all unto life. It’s another thing entirely to account for why he chose not to elect all unto life. Or again, it’s one thing to say he didn’t need to choose all. It’s something else entirely to say he didn’t want to choose all.”
But why would God not “want” to choose all? It can’t be because some are less worthy than others of being the objects of electing love, for all are equally deserving of wrath and condemnation. It can only be because there is something God “wants” more than whatever benefits might otherwise be gained by choosing all. But what could possibly be more important to God than delivering all hell-deserving sinners from their plight? The Arminian would say: the preservation of human free will. According to Arminianism, God won’t save all because to do so would require that he intrude upon and override the rebellious will of many unbelievers. God so values the purported dignity of libertarian freedom that he chooses only to save those who believe, although it would be possible to save those who don’t as well.
The Calvinist answers the question in a different way. Again, what could possibly be more important to God than delivering all hell-deserving sinners from their plight? The answer is: the display of the glory of all his attributes for his delight and that of those whom he has chosen to share it. Piper explains that although God is willing to save all he chooses not to do so,
“because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. . . . Both [Calvinists and Arminians] can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all. . . . What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).”[2]
In no other area of theology do I feel so urgent a need to be cautious and humble in how I address this problem. What Piper has affirmed and what I am about to say invariably touches a raw nerve in the souls of many, if not all, Christians. I want to avoid sounding flippant or casual in my explanation, lest I give the slightest impression that this is anything less than an incalculably sensitive and explosive matter. How one answers this question, or attempts to answer it while acknowledging that it may well surpass our capacity to fathom, turns on one’s concept of God and the motivation for his having created the human race and sent his Son for the redemption of sinners. With that in mind, and with the unashamed acknowledgment that I may be wrong in the conclusion to which I’ve come, here is what I believe is most consistent with Scripture.
I begin by asking, “Is it truly the case to say God could have elected all unto life?” If by “could” you mean did he have the authority and right and power to choose all, yes. There was no power external to God that would have hindered him in making his electing love universal in scope. There was no deficiency in God’s inherent ability to choose all for life. On the other hand, if God’s choosing was governed by his determination to glorify himself in the highest and most effective way possible by displaying all his divine attributes (including his righteous wrath and justice), I would reverently and humbly say No, he couldn’t have chosen all. That is to say, once divine wisdom determined that the choice of some but not all hell-deserving sinners would most effectively serve to magnify the plenitude of his glory (and of course that is very much the point in dispute), this was a path from which God “could not” deviate (so long, of course, as he retains his determination to achieve this end). Those who take issue with my conclusion will undoubtedly question whether this was in fact the divine motive in creation and redemption. They will contend, in some way, that God’s pre-eminent goal was something other than the display of his own glory. I have attempted to defend this understanding of the ultimate aim of creation and redemption in my books Pleasures Evermore and One Thing and I will simply refer you to the relevant section in those volumes.[3]
Permit me to once again cite Jonathan Edwards’ explanation of this matter together with a few of my own observations, and then leave it with you to wrestle with the implications. Here is what he said:[4]
“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all, for then the effulgence would not answer the reality.”
Edwards argues elsewhere that it is more than “proper” and “excellent” that God’s glory shine forth in its fullness, it is essential. This isn’t because something other than and outside God requires it of him. Rather, it is the very nature of divine glory that it tends toward self-expression and expansion, not in the sense of growth or quantitative increase, but manifestation and display for the sake of the joy of God’s creatures in it. Not only that, but it is “proper” that all of God’s glory be seen that we may know God as he truly is and not simply in part. If one or several divine attributes were disproportionately dominant in their display (and others barely noted at all), an imbalanced and inaccurate view of God would emerge (this is what Edwards meant when he said that otherwise “the effulgence would not answer the reality”). He continues:
“Thus it is necessary that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.”
In using the word “necessary” he is not suggesting that sin, considered in and of itself, has a right or inherent claim on existence. Rather, sin was “necessary” in the sense that in its absence there would be no occasion for the display of his righteous wrath, justice, and holiness as that in God which requires punishment (or at least no display sufficient for a “complete” or true knowledge of what God is like and why he is glorious). And without a revelation (or “shining forth”) of the wrath that sin deserves there would scarcely be a revelation of the true and majestic depths of goodness, love, and grace that deliver us from it.
“If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s justice in hatred of sin or in punishing it, . . . or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. No matter how much happiness he might bestow, his goodness would not be nearly as highly prized and admired. . . . and the sense of his goodness heightened.
So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed. It is also necessary for the highest happiness of humanity, because our happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of God is imperfect (because of a disproportionate display of his attributes), the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.”
This point is related to what we see in Romans 9:22-23. God desired to show his wrath and make known his power in order that his mercy and grace might be seen in unmistakable clarity and his glory displayed to his everlasting praise. Were he to have elected all, rather than some, to eternal life this goal would not have been attained nor would the plenitude of God’s glory been sufficiently seen.
[1] John Murray, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 10.
[2] John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge & Grace, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 123-24.
[3] Sam Storms, Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2000), pp. 81-101; One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2004), pp. 9-44.
[4] I have taken the liberty of smoothing out Edwards’ prose in order to bring greater clarity to his theological argument. The full entry in his Miscellanies from which this has been taken can be found in Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies,” edited by Thomas A. Schafer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), no.348, pp. 419-20.
122 replies to "Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone? (Sam Storms)"
I think the comments implying that Arminians worship freewill (expressed as if that were a negative, or worse, idolatry) mischaracterise the Arminian position.
We think that God has freewill and he gives us a part of that in the imago Dei. We believe that God loves us and intends us to love him. We think that it is logically impossible to love in any meaningful sense without freewill. We think determinism logically incompatible with love.
According to Arminianism, God won’t save all because to do so would require that he intrude upon and override the rebellious will of many unbelievers. God so values the purported dignity of libertarian freedom that he chooses only to save those who believe, although it would be possible to save those who don’t as well.
Some may think this (?), but I am not certain I do. While there is nothing preventing God from doing what he does to redeem us, he does this only to those who love him. God cannot make people love him.
Hodge,
“Would you admit, however, that God’s love for the unbeliever is in subjection to His love for the believer, and that the multitude of unbelievers are being created so that God can make and save the believers?”
I’m not quite sure how to answer this because there seems to be a assumption in here somewhere that God can’t save all. I think most Calvinists would say that God is fully capable of saving everyone, but chooses not to. Thus I’m not sure how this proposition answers the question posed by this blog post from the perspective of a Calvinist.
Now from my perpective I believe that God knows who will freely choose to accept Him and who will choose to reject Him. I believe that God does use those who He knows will reject Him to accomplish His goals. However, I reject the seeming insinuation in your post that He has predestined them to reject Him. God is not actively sending people He has predestined to hell purpose of using those people to save others.
Bethyada: “We think that it is logically impossible to love in any meaningful sense without [libertarian] freewill.”
(Have you ever talked to a suicidal person who wished they’d never been born?)
In Libertarian Free Will (LFW) God is Love.
LFW Sinner in Hell: “I wish I’d never been born. Hell is eternal torment. Why did God create me? Did He know before He created me I would end up in Hell?”
LFW God: “I knew.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “Why, why, why, oh why, did you create me?”
LFW God: “I created you with libertarian free will and you freely choose to reject me.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “Why didn’t you override my will? You’re God.”
LFW God: “Love is Libertarian Free Will. Love does not override the will of another.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “If you loved me, you would have over-rode my will and enabled me or forced me to repent of my sins and to choose Christ as my Lord and Savior.”
LFW God: “No, no. I am LFW God. I do not force anyone. That wouldn’t be love.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “But you foreknew I would choose to reject you and you created me anyways.”
LFW God: “Yes.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “You’re a monster! I hate you.”
LFW God: “No, no. I am LFW God. I am Love. I am not a monster. Go talk to all the LFW followers. They’ll tell you I’m not a monster.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “Those LFW followers are total idiots. It’s eternal torment here in Hell. You foreknew I was going to choose to be in Hell and you created me anyways. I hate you! You’re a monster. I don’t care what those LFW morons say. You’re not Love. You’re a hateful monster.”
LFW God: “Here’s Roger Olson. Talk to him. How can you call me a monster? Only if I was a Calvinist God, could I be a monster. I’m LFW God. I can’t be a monster.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “You’re an LFW monster then.”
“Truth Unites”… What a total mischaracterization of the truth that example is. Your example only proves that you will defend Calvinism at all costs. Nothing can prove Calvinism wrong because you can find a way to make their contrary argument look like it is in your favor, eh?
Why not try your argument on a potential wife? Can’t find any women that desire you? No worries… pour a special potion in their drink and they will be irresistably attracted to you for life!!! (just be careful not to pour the potion in too many drinks!!!!)
Professor Storms,
Since you quoted John Piper I have some quotes of his that I would like your opinion on. But first my reason for making this request in conjunction with today’s blog. I believe that Calvinism rises and falls on one single thing– the definition of “regeneration”. If regeneration is, as the Calvinist purport, a work of God to change a man to enable faith/belief/repentance: (“new spiritual life” and “eyes to see” and “ears to hear” to give a change of spiritual perception and understanding, a “new heart” for new desires, and a “freed will” for new choices), then the TULIP naturally integrates with this concept. However, if regeneration is actually “Christ in You”, the mystery that God kept hidden from ages and generations but revealed to the saints (Col. 1:26, 27): Jesus Christ, God’s Son, coming to dwell in a man’s heart (Eph. 3:17), to give him God’s gift of eternal life “[he who has the Son has the life” (1John 5:11, 12); “Christ is our life” (Col. 3:4)], and God’s gift of salvation [“saved by His life” (Rom. 5:10), “saved by regeneration” (Titus 3:5), “made alive with Jesus Christ by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:5)]…..then Calvinism is totally wrong. For the Bible clearly teaches that faith precedes Jesus dwelling in our hearts (Eph. 3:17); faith precedes a man receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14); faith precedes eternal life, and faith precedes salvation (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:13, 1:16). Historically faith preceded regeneration by several thousand years. Biblically there was no regeneration before Jesus Christ rose from the dead (1Pet. 1:3). And if there was no regeneration before the resurrection, then it can be proven that many Reformed tenets and interpretations are erroneous, because passages in the book of John, used to substantiate essential Reformed tenets such as “bondage of the will”, are interpreted as though God was regenerating men before the resurrection.
Therefore I ask, do you agree with the following statements by John Piper? (I collected these from a sermon series of his on the “New Birth” before it was turned into the book, Finally Alive. So I do not have page numbers yet. However this book was endorsed by many prominent Reformed Theologians including JI Packer.)
“The second objective historical event that had to happen for us to be born again with eternal life was the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (“Receive With Meekness the Implanted Word” – Message by John Piper (1/6/08).
“The new birth is something that happens in us when the Holy Spirit takes our dead hearts and unites us to Christ BY FAITH so that His life becomes our life. So it makes sense that Jesus must be raised from the dead if we are to have new life in union with Him.” (“Receive With Meekness the Implanted Word” – Message by John Piper (1/6/08).
“The new life we get in the new birth is the life of the historical Jesus. Therefore if He does not rise from the dead, there is no new life to have.” (“Receive With Meekness the Implanted Word” – Message by John Piper (1/6/08).
“The incarnation is necessary for the new birth because the life we have through the new birth is life in union with the incarnate Chrsit…That life that we have in union with Christ is the life that Jesus obtained for us by the life He lived and the death He died in the flesh.” (The Reason the Son of God Appeared was to Destroy the Works of the Devil”—Message by John Piper 12/23/07).
“No incarnation, No regeneration…if there were no incarnation…there would be no source of new life”. (The Reason the Son of God Appeared was to Destroy the Works of the Devil”—Message by John Piper 12/23/07).
“If there is no incarnation, there is no union with the Son or with the Father, and no regeneration and no salvation.” (The Reason the Son of God Appeared was to Destroy the Works of the Devil”—Message by John Piper 12/23/07).
“Why doesn’t God save everyone?”
Isn’t it disrespectful to God to even ask the question?
Melani Boek, good questions.
Lynn writes:
I guess if you are a Calvinist, you shouldn’t be asking these sorts of questions. For the rest of us, I think God won’t mind. 😉
I often “override” the will of my children. I love them and will not allow them to play cowboys and crooks with our steak knives no matter how much they desire to do it!
I confess, I don’t know why there is evil and why God doesn’t save everybody. But I do believe that it is taught clearly in Scripture. I have learnt over many years to trust God’s Word – and although my understanding of it is far from complete – I have not seen a convincing argument against this clear teaching.
Does this make God a monster? No! Scripture also reveals Him as a loving, graceful and mecyful God. He is also perfectly just and holy. He did order the killing of even woman and children in Jericho.
I am man, He is God. How can I possibly be arrogant enough to think that I – who have a sin warped mind and a limited creaturely perspective – can understand His purposes and His plans?
I accept election as I see it everywhere in Scripture. I accept free-will that is totally enslaved by sin as taught clearly in Scripture. I believe in a loving and just God as taught in Scripture.
He made me His child! Why? God only knows! But I am deeply thankful that He did. I will witness and tell of His great love, knowing that He is truly Lord. My salvation is safe in him – thank God it does not depend on my fickle emotion, intellect or ability to be faithful to Him.
But in humility I will continue to search the Scriptures for answers. I will delight in His Word and perhaps, through others (maybe even in discussions like this blog) and through His Spirit I will learn to get to know Him better.
Blessings.
let’s argue about this in Heaven
Buks writes:
God does this sort of thing all the time. And those whom God has appointed to police and rule people also overrule the evil intentions of people. But have you ever tried to force a kid to sit down who wants to stand up and have him say to you, “I may be sitting down; but inside, I’m standing up!” Its one thing to enforce external limitations on behaviour; it is another thing altogether to say that God changes a person’s heart without their consent. One is like a policeman; the other is like rape.
There are many things you write that non-Calvinists would agree with. God allows evil a) to test the sincerity of those who claim to trust Him and b) to demonstrate the extent of His grace towards those who trust Him. But it is not because He decreed evil to be in the hearts of some and not in others.
God is not a moral monster for allowing evil. Not even for killing every living being in the flood. We know from the interaction with Abraham that God will spare the righteous. We know from the aftermath of King David’s sin with Bathsheba and Uriah that the baby who died would be in paradise (compare David’s reaction with this child and Absalom at his death).
No one, I think, is questioning what God wants to do with those who reject Him and how He chooses to use them for His purposes. But to think that there can be anything just in God being 100% responsible for enabling someone to turn to Him in faith and then not doing this for all – it is justifiable for us who think clearly to balk at this reprehensible behaviour. But I don’t believe this is what God is doing.
…I don’t believe that is what God is doing.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Patton, Credo House. Credo House said: Why Doesn't God Save Everyone? by Sam Storms http://bit.ly/eNBvoe […]
This mistaken presupposition here is that God’s wrath is not displayed in election, which makes it such that, should God want to display His wrath (which is dubious in the first place), he would have to do some reprobating. But God’s wrath is shown equally in election as in reprobation. The difference is that in election God’s wrath is poured out on Jesus whereas in reprobation His wrath is poured out on the individuals reprobated.
Ryan Schatz,
The example of LFW God and the LFW Sinner in Hell portrays the emotionalism of LFW.
Perhaps unwittingly, your response to the portrayal further exemplifies the emotionalism of LFW.
Please understand: Your emoting is not persuasive to those who look to the Authority and Truth of Scripture.
[…] by churchleadersread on January 26, 2011 This is the question recently asked by Sam Storms at Parchment and Pen. In his answer, he mentions four books that serve as […]
Mr. Storms,
Yesterday in comments #46 and 47, (on the first page on comments on this thread), Lizard asked these questions:
All I’m getting at is that yes, we can pick out verses here and there, some of which support one doctrine, some another. We should always take them in the context of the greater themes of the entire text. How is “Good” defined? what about “Justice”? and “Love”?…
If God is all these things, how can He then also be the guy who creates people just so they can be destroyed and gives them no say in the matter? That seems completely contradictory to me.
To the extent that if I were to read something and interpret it as supporting this claim of “God creates some people to be evil and to be destroyed and tortured, and they have no free will on the matter whatsoever”, in the context of the rest of the biblical text I would assume that my interpretation was wrong. It just doesn’t fall in line with what we are taught about the nature of God; His goodness, grace, and love.
(And I would also add, any definition of justice that I know of.)
These questions pretty well echo some of my own questions. And Lizard’s conclusion is the same one I have come to because of them. How do you deal with these issues? What is your understanding?
From the original post:
I want to be nice, but this is the most inane thing I have read; albeit, nothing new, coming from Classic Calvinists.
1) Straightaway, this quote above, and its point, make God’s very life contingent upon His creation; or a predicate of His own creation. This is what Athanasius fought so vigorously against; i.e. that who God is prior to creation is Father/Son by the Holy Spirit vs. God as Creator (by way of ordo). This way we don’t see creation and all of its subsequents as “necessary” for God’s self-Revelation. And this way we don’t start with a negative concept of Godness, but instead ground our discussion of God “positively” by reading who God is from the book of Christ’s self-interpreting life of God (cf. Jn 1.18). If we follow this approach we realize that God is Father/Son before he ever, by His free self-determination chooses to become Creator and then Incarnate (which are all “new” things for God, grounded in who He is in se).
2) This whole post presupposes that God is basically the sum total of a bunch of “attributes” or “qualities” or “accidents.” That there is a “God behind the back of Jesus.” That there is one “substance” known as God, and his attributes subsist through the persons “underneath” so to speak this substance of Godness; which my first point was speaking to.
3) Also, this post presupposes that God’s glory and sovereignty define who God is; and yet again, this fails to deal with who God has revealed Himself to be, ontologically, as…
TUAD,
1. Your example is absurd on multiple fronts most notably of which it confuses but for causation with proximate causation. Depite what the person in Hell may like, there are really only two ways God could create human beings. One is having LFW and the other is determinism. In one the individual is in Hell directly as the result of God determining the individual to go to Hell and actively ensuring that this would come about. In the other system God creates an individual with the ability to make a choice to reject Him and go to Hell. One of these impunes God in a direct way (I’m here because God predestined me to be here). In the other the free agent is direct cause of itself being in Hell, while God is only a remote cause (I’m here because I chose to reject God). In LFW God is only a cause in the sense that Hitler’s parents choosing to have a child is a cause of Hitler’s murderous rampage through Europe.
2. Implying that your opponents don’t recognize the authority of Scripture is not only inaccurate, but condescending and uncalled for. We disagree over how various passage in Scripture should be interpreted and understood, not over whether or not it is authoritative.
3. Trying to discover whether or not the understanding of God presented by any theological system is compatible with the God of the Bible who is presented as good, loving, just, holy, etc….is not an exercise in emotionalism. These words have definitions and either the God presented by a theological system meets them or He doesn’t.
continued
. . . Father/Son by the Holy Spirit. So God is “love,” which is what scripture says; and thus I don’t have to pin my theology to a theological construct that asserts that God is Glory (which really makes no sense). And I don’t have to pin my theology to the idea that God is likened to some sort of brute force of Stoic like fateful determinism.
None of the post above has any explicit “Biblical” support, at least at a fundamental major premise kind of level. NOne of what is communicated appeals to the categories that God’s self-Revelation to us in Christ supplies and thus imposes upon the way we must understand who God is according to Jesus. And none of what is asserted in this post comes even close to reflecting the fact that who God is in His “inner-life” as Trinity, is exactly the same as who He is in His Revelation through the Son (ad extra or “outer life”).
I have a hard time believing that people who read their Bibles could ever come to the conclusions that Sam Storms does in this post. That’s sad. And what’s even more sad, is that people actually read Sam Storms and say amen 🙁 .
Michael T,
The God of Scripture is good, loving, just, holy, etc….
Calvinism is Scriptural.
Hence, the God of Calvinism is good, loving, just, holy, etc….
“Depite what the person in Hell may like, there are really only two ways God could create human beings. One is having LFW and the other is determinism. In one the individual is in Hell directly as the result of God determining the individual to go to Hell and actively ensuring that this would come about. In the other system God creates an individual with the ability to make a choice to reject Him and go to Hell. One of these impunes God in a direct way (I’m here because God predestined me to be here). In the other the free agent is direct cause of itself being in Hell, while God is only a remote cause (I’m here because I chose to reject God).”
Michael T, you’re missing something rather badly.
The LFW Sinner in Hell doesn’t care about whether it’s direct or proximate causation. It’s irrelevant to him or her. He or she says that LFW God divinely foreknew their eternal misery and created them anyway, and for that, He is an LFW monster.
I’m a little confused as to the limits we put on God in all of this: “to display His glory evil must have existed” or “there are only two ways God could have created humans, either with LFW or determinism” etc.
Hold on a sec, aren’t we talking about an all powerful God? Don’t we believe that He very well could show His glory to a people without “needing” evil to exist to do it? Don’t we believe God is capable of creating human beings who don’t need to see wrath and judgment to understand justice, glory and goodness? Couldn’t there be an infinite amount of ways He could have created us? To use the same quote Bobby used above:
“So evil is necessary if the glory of God is to be perfectly and completely displayed. It is also necessary for the highest happiness of humanity, because our happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love.”
Seriously? Our good God is so limited that He needs evil to perfectly display His Glory and Love? He created us in such a way that the only way we can know and love Him is through this vehicle of comparison with evil? That is just kind of a bizarre concept, as if to say that God, smart as He is, is just not capable of getting what He aims for (to show His glory) without needing evil to do it. I may be re-stating other folks’ disagreement with this but this just does not sound like an all powerful, all good God.
Michael,
My question isn’t loaded. I’m discussing with you whether an unbeliever is predestined to be so right now. I’m only discussing whether God A) Knew that the unbelievers who He would make will go to hell; B) that it would be better for them had He not made them; C) that He made them anyway because He wanted to make the believers and save them.
My point here is only to say, again, that every system has God’s love for the unbelievers subordinate to His love for the believer. In other words, He set aside what was best for the unbeliever (i.e., not making them) in order to make and save the believer. Hence, this shows that God does not love everyone in the same way, and the unbeliever’s damnation and suffering is a secondary concern to the believer’s salvation and relationship with God. I’m not baiting you. I’m just wanting some logical concession displayed in this highly emotional debate, where others are not willing to concede what I think is obvious.
lizard,
It’s God’s glory in relation to our salvation from damnation. Could He have done it differently? I don’t know. I’m not God and don’t know the options. I do think that God does the best of everything though, and that this is the best possible way He could have done it due to the fact that He did it this way.
God can be put in a box by saying He shouldn’t be put in a box as well. If God did X and we say that we shouldn’t believe that because God could do Y, then we are barring God from doing X due to His omnipotence. It’s the backdoor to the same assertion, only the one asserting it gets to seem like he’s not limiting God. The question is what did God do, and why, not whether He could possibly have done something else.
TUAD,
1. You ever hear of the logical fallacy of begging the question? You just gave shocking textbook example of it.
2. You apparently missed something really badly yourself since you list direct and proximate causation as different things. These are the the same more or less. The difference is between remote causation (sometimes called “but for” causation) and proximate causation (sometimes called “direct” or “legal” causation). In LFW God is only a remote cause. If we were to hold God morally responsible for the outcome of LFW Sinner’s actions we would also have to Hitler’s parent’s morally responsible for Hitler’s actions since but for them choosing to have a child Hitler would not have murdered millions of people. Simple knowledge doesn’t change the causation equation at all. In Calvinism/determinism on the other hand God is the proximate/direct cause of the sinner being in Hell. So thus while the LFW Sinner in Hell would like to blame God for his situation his own choices are the sole and sufficient cause of him being in Hell. On the other hand when the Calvinist Sinner blames God for him being in Hell he is being accurate since there is no independent free agent to get God off the hook.
Furthermore there is an issue of whether or not it is logically possible for God to have no created LFW Sinner, but that is another issue entirely.
Yes, God’s love for unbelievers is subordinate to His love for the believer. The the reason for them being believers/unbelievers does not rest in God, it rests in them. In Calvinism, the reason unbelievers are still unbelievers rests in God alone. The God described by Calvinism therefore created someone He never intended to flick the switch on for and then damned them for all eternity. That’s an obvious problem that you don’t seem willing to acknowledge, Hodge.
Hodge,
I was responding specifically to the statements that God NEEDS evil in order to be fully glorified, that God *could not have* done anything other than determinism or LFW. I believe that the assertion that God needs anything outside of Himself to fulfill His purposes is contradictory to our concept of God as Holy, all powerful, and complete within Himself.
I agree that “The question is what did God do, and why, not whether He could possibly have done something else.” But I believe that we can use the knowledge of Him and His character and attributes that He has revealed to us in His word (including overarching themes, not only picked out sentences) to determine what He did, in fact, do. And why. But to claim “I believe He did X and *could not have* done anything differently else” is limiting God to your comprehension.
Also, you keep mentioning the whole “it would be better for unbelievers to not have been born” as if that is a fact that applies to all situations everywhere. In the verse you were citing, Jesus was specifically talking about Judas, who was to betray Him. Judas was a follower of Christ, literally, and knew Him, personally. We can argue whether he was a believer or not, but the fact is Jesus here is condemning his actions, not his faith or lackthereof. And He does not expand on this statement to cover “all nonbelievers” or “all evildoers”.
Perhaps you were referencing a different verse?
“So thus while the LFW Sinner in Hell would like to blame God for his situation his own choices are the sole and sufficient cause of him being in Hell.”
Michael T.,
You do not get it. Please stop and think.
The LFW Sinner in Hell wishes he or she was never born, never created, given that LFW God divinely foreknew the LFW choices they would make.
Think, please.
Hodge,
Since you and TUAD somewhat touch on the same point I will go there briefly. I do not believe it is logically possible for God to simply choose not to create those who he knows will reject him without undermining free will itself. It would be analagous to God stepping in and stopping someone from doing something bad everytime they were about to do so. At some point one would cease to really have free will since free implies the ability to do evil as opposed to good. As a corrollary I find Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense in which he posits that it was logically impossible for God to create a universe in which free creatures exist, but evil does not, to be rather convincing.
TUAD,
“The LFW Sinner in Hell wishes he or she was never born, never created, given that LFW God divinely foreknew the LFW choices they would make.”
That is irrelevent. Under every theory of ethics Christian or otherwise God could only be held morally culpable if he was the proximate cause, not some remote cause. You have utterly failed to demonstrate how simple knowledge that a person will suffer these consequences equates to moral responsibility.
“Truth…” writes:
Remember those in the flood banging on the door of the ark once the flood started? I’m sure they were not happy they were about to die. It reminds me of my kids sometimes who say whatever they can just to get around discipline. Often, they don’t actually mean it.
The person in Hell is not enjoying it… no kidding. And wishes that he would rather have not been born… no kidding. But the reason he is there is because of the decisions he made, not because God didn’t pour the potion in his drink… So there is nothing to blame God for. God knew he would reject him, but it was not because of God; this was truly of his own free will. And as Rom 1 states, God made himself sufficiently known – everyone is therefore without excuse. If God had to flip a switch, they would have an excuse now, wouldn’t they?
Michael T,
You’re missing it again.
Let’s spin the merry-go-round again and see if you finally get it:
“The LFW Sinner in Hell doesn’t care about whether it’s direct or proximate causation. It’s irrelevant to him or her. He or she says that LFW God divinely foreknew their eternal misery and created them anyway, and for that, He is an LFW monster.
The LFW Sinner in Hell wishes he or she was never born, never created, given that LFW God divinely foreknew the LFW choices they would make.”
Michael T, try to think about this: If never born, if never created, then the pseudo-issue of direct or proximate causation never comes into play.
Get it now? C’mon, think. Please.
@TUTD:
The person in Hell is unhappy, but he doesn’t have a case to defend himself. His objection holds no water. However, if his only chance to have avoided Hell was solely in God and not in him (because he couldn’t unless God flipped the switch), then he’d have a case.
God is not a monster for creating someone whom He knew would reject Him. This objection ONLY holds weight if the person could not possibly have turned to God unless God flipped a switch in him. Since this is not the case, again, the objection doesn’t hold.
bang, bang…case dismissed.
Honest question here from a simple mind… What if God is not the principal creator of a person. Adam, yes, and Eve, yes…but holding to a traducian view, man is the direct creator of other man, right?
Does a traducianist have a way out of the argument — that God is not directly creating people to damn them? Rather he is simply choosing from among all who are damned to save those he wishes out of his mercy.
I guess since this view holds that only Adam (and Eve) were directly created by God, then they are the only ones to whom he would be a moral monster if he did not save. Now, we have no direct proof, but I think maybe we can assume that Adam and Eve were redeemed?
Just a thought… Tough topic for sure, but I enjoy reading all the discussion.
TUAD’s condescending tone seems rather uncallled for. And it is ironic that he would call on Michael T. to think, when it seems like he has not thought through his own argument to which there are various answers. One rather simple one from one Arminian view of simple foreknowledge is that TUAD’s argument falls to the Grandfather paradox. “Since the libertarian believes that God foreknows actual future acts, then if God foreknows what a free creature will do in the future, he cannot not create that person, otherwise His foreknowledge of what the person will do would be wrong (since the person would not in fact do what God knew he would do; indeed, God’s foreknowledge of the person’s existence would be wrong as well!), and God cannot be wrong. If you want to introduce middle knowledge (or whatever you may call God’s hypothetical knowledge) then I would just point out, as a friend has done, that ‘God can only have middle knowledge…of people who will certainly exist at some point. He cannot know what someone who never exists would do; there is no person there to ever know anything about.'” (http://evangelicalarminians.org/bossmanham.Is-There-Trauma-in-Sovereignty.A-Response-to-James-Swan-by-Brennon-Hartshorn?page=1)
Also, it is naive to assume that the only categories to work from in this debate are those represented by the polar opposites of Classic Calvinism/Arminianism. The reason you guys can’t get anywhere is because you all operate from the same philosophical ground provided by Thomas Aquinas or Thomism. Let me clear it up for all of you: you are all what is called classical theists, and thus it’s not a matter of offering different conceptual schemas about the nature of God or man; instead it’s just an issue of shifting your referent points and emphasizing different syllAblEs with the same words. You both Calv/Arm (classics) believe God works through “decrees” construed through the metaphysics and causality provided by Aristotle; you both suppose that God is a “substance” (who has accidents, so His attributes and persons); you both believe that grace and sin are created qualities ( privatio); you both believe that by Spirit imbued grace you are enabled to cooperate (operative grace or habitus) with God in your salvation (or that you’ll Persevere); you both believe that predestination and election have to do with particular people instead of a Particular person (the God-man); you both believe that eternal life and damnation have to do with quantity vs. Trinitarian relationship; you both believe that the cross represents a transactional moment wherein God buys an “elect” group of people (whether that be based upon his arbitrary choice or His foreknowledge) — so your reductionistic view of a forensics only atonement; and you both are simply dead wrong! Can it be anymore clear than that 😉 ?
Michael,
I’m not really talking about evil in general or whether it is possible for God to create a universe without the unbeliever. My point is that He has the option of creating the universe or not creating it. If He creates it, it benefits the believers and damns the unbelievers. If He doesn’t, no one exists, but He has loved the unbeliever enough, and more than the believer, to not make him. My point is only that given the option, God has chosen to love the believer more than the unbeliever by making the universe. Hence, He does not love both equally. Do you see the point I’m trying to make and now this is true of everyone’s system, not just Calvinism?
Ryan Schatz: “However, if his only chance to have avoided Hell was solely in God and not in him (because he couldn’t unless God flipped the switch), then he’d have a case.”
Just to clearly establish what you’re saying here: Under Arminianism people determine whether they’re ultimately saved or not.
Is that right, Ryan?
“God is not a monster for creating someone whom He knew would reject Him.”
The LFW Sinner in Hell wishes he never had the choice to reject God. The LFW Sinner in Hell did not want the choice. Hence, he or she wishes they were never born, never created.
“This objection ONLY holds weight if the person could not possibly have turned to God unless God flipped a switch in him. Since this is not the case, again, the objection doesn’t hold.
bang, bang…case dismissed.”
Is the LFW Sinner in Hell consoled or persuaded by this? Does it persuade the LFW Sinner in Hell that the LFW God is not an LFW monster for creating them in the first place?
Truth,
Ryan isn’t an Arminian. He’s been arguing for full blown Pelagianism. I just want to be clear not to confuse him with Arminians who believe in some sort of depravity (usually total depravity, at least as they see it).
“Truth,
Ryan isn’t an Arminian. He’s been arguing for full blown Pelagianism.”
Ai-yi-yi. Sigh. Thanks for the heads-up. It explains quite a bit.
Him being a full-blown Pelagianist has its own set of issues.
@Hodge:
Hodge, is a Pelagian someone who believes that salvation is by one’s own faith in God? Faith being opposite of works and actually itself a simple proclamation of one’s weakness and inability to save himself?
I am not and have never argued for works salvation.
“Do you see the point I’m trying to make and now this is true of everyone’s system, not just Calvinism?”
Hodge is making a significant point here folks.
I’m highlighting to give it even more prominence and emphasis.
@TUAD:
What I am saying is that God has revealed that salvation is only in Jesus Christ and that the means by which one is saved is by repenting of trust in one’s own works and putting one’s trust in the only one who can save, Jesus Christ. The buck for that faith rests on the individual, not on God.
@Hodge:
Right, God made the universe knowing that some will have faith and others will not. In one sense, He loves both equally because all of us were in our sin when He died for us. On the other hand, salvific love is not demonstrated to the unbelievers, but only those who exercise faith or believe.
Calvinism proposes that God didn’t die for anyone except the elect.
> The Bible teaches that God died for the WHOLE world but only those who exercise faith have the righteousness of Christ credited to their account.
Calvinism proposes that God unconditionally elects some and not all.
> The Bible teaches that God elects those who have faith to conform them to the image of Christ, make them sons and daughters and give them an inheritance with Christ.
Calvinism proposes that there is nothing in a person that determines whether or not he is one of the elect to salvation or not, not even his faith in God (which he cannot have because he is faith-dead).
> The Bible teaches that salvation is by faith, that faith is a declaration of inability or weakness and dependence on an outside source. This faith is an ability inate to every person. Rom 1 declares him without excuse.
Therefore, Calvinism proposes a God who creates people He hates, He uses them for a while and then damns them for all eternity. This is not the description of God that we all share.
Ryan,
Just a small education in Church History and doctrine. Pelagianism was one of the earlier teachings to be declared heresy by the Church less than 400 years after the death of Christ. It taught that original sin did not exist in any sense and that humans were fully capable of believing in God and attaining salvation without any intervention from God whatsoever. Classical Arminian’s such of myself hold that human beings are totally depraved an incapable of attaining salvation without God’s intervention (as Calvinism also teaches). Unlike Calvinism we believe that God gives prevenient or enabling grace to all human beings which enables them to make a free will choice to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation.
Many of your comments refect someone who has a Pelagian or at least Semi-Pelagian understanding of human nature. This is considered heresy by the vast witness of the historical church as well as pretty much every modern denomination in existence.
Hi Ryan, Michael T., et al,
Thanks for the polemical interaction, but I have other things I gotta do.
I wish you all the best.
Pax.
TUAD,
I think you miss my point. The fact that the LFW Sinner in Hell wishes he had never been created and thinks God is a moral monster for creating him is irrelevant. I can think anything I want to, it doesn’t make it true. The LFW Sinner has provided no cognizable logical or ethical claim upon which to hold God morally accountable for him being in hell. Thus what he thinks is irrelevant.
@Michael T: Thanks for your comments.
I believe in original sin and my beliefs in this area much more aligned with Arminianism. If you want to call it total depravity and prevenient grace, I think this is likely very close to how it is. But we need to discuss what prevenient grace looks like exactly. In Rom 1, we are told that all are without excuse because creation displays the hidden attributes of God. So is there enough evidence in creation that this would be sufficient prevenient grace to start groping around for God? I think so. Obviously, God must reveal something further, and He does. He teaches all people (aka prevenient grace?) and those who hear and learn (exercise faith) are given to Jesus.
You must be misreading me then. Given your description, I am not a Pelagian. Does this satisfy you?
Hodge,
“My point is only that given the option, God has chosen to love the believer more than the unbeliever by making the universe. Hence, He does not love both equally.”
I would agree to a point. However, the question then becomes whether or not God’s favoritism of the believer is based upon his foreknowledge of the believer’s acceptance and the unbeliever’s rejection of Him, or an arbitrary choice to determine one to accept Him and one to reject Him.