Is Divine Election Fair? (Video)

How is it fair for God to choose people for salvation and others to be condemned before the foundations of the world and so not due to any actions of their own since they hadn’t committed any yet?

Comments

[Wes Widner]

"God's omniscience secures the fact..."

How does God's foreknowledge of future actions (supposedly free) necessarily entail causation?

[Daron]

I think Greg clarified that thought in the next sentence when he said " His knowledge doesn't cause it to happen".

[Travis Childers]

Greg stated that God judges people on what sins they will commit... What about babies who die or are aborted. They will never live to commit sin. On what are they being judged? If its the inherited sin of Adam then the babies are automatically condemed without the chance to live and accept Christ.

[Francis J. Beckwith]

I think the key to the fairness question is to point out that the universe is governed by providence, which means that what God is concerned about is the "big picture." The fact that isolated cases do not seem "fair to us" does not ultimately mean that they are cases of God being unjust. It would be like walking into someone's home unannounced and seeing the father punishing one child but leaving the others alone. It would seem, at a glance, unfair. But we don't know the big picture, the end or purpose of the "family," so to speak. In much the same way, we are trapped by our isolated slice of time in which we find ourselves. I say, then, relax. Because God is sovereign and just, you pretty much don't have an argument against him, by definition.

Thomas Aquinas on this is quite good:

It is otherwise with one who has care of a particular thing, and one whose providence is universal, because a particular provider excludes all defects from what is subject to his care as far as he can; whereas, one who provides universally allows some little defect to remain, lest the good of the whole should be hindered. Hence, corruption and defects in natural things are said to be contrary to some particular nature; yet they are in keeping with the plan of universal nature; inasmuch as the defect in one thing yields to the good of another, or even to the universal good: for the corruption of one is the generation of another, and through this it is that a species is kept in existence. Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe. A lion would cease to live, if there were no slaying of animals; and there would be no patience of martyrs if there were no tyrannical persecution. Thus Augustine says (Enchiridion 2): "Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil." It would appear that it was on account of these two arguments to which we have just replied, that some were persuaded to consider corruptible things--e.g. casual and evil things--as removed from the care of divine providence.

To read the whole thing, just click my name.

[Daron]

Thanks F. Beckwith.
That is Summa question 22.
For those inclined to argue these questions 23 is also very useful.

[Daron]

Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; 
   you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

[WisdomLover]

It is quite common to assert that God's foreknowing a thing is not the same as His causing a thing. Greg asserts that in his discussion above. This is not the case and can be seen not to be the case by at least three arguments.*

First, God creates with a foreknowledge of the consequences. If a person causes some set of conditions to obtain, and He knows in advance that those conditions will result in some other set of conditions, it follows that the creator of the initial conditions caused the later conditions. The fact that free human actions are part of the intervening events is irrelevant. If I know you really well, and I know exactly how to egg you on so that you will kill another person, and I do egg you on to do so, then I am a cause of the murder.

The next two arguments are based on the idea that God's knowledge is not like our knowledge. All knowledge is a species of belief (justified and accurate belief). But, unlike us, God cannot be wrong in His beliefs.

So we may argue that for it to be impossible for God's beliefs to be wrong, the connection between the object of God's belief and God's belief cannot be contingent. As such, the account of how we come to form beliefs can have nothing to do with how God comes to do so. In particular it cannot be that the events that occur out in the world cause God's beliefs. for if that were the case, it would be possible for God to be wrong, since it is possible for contingent causal chains to be broken. Instead, things must go the other way. God, in the very act of coming to have beliefs, must make it the case that the objects of those beliefs are true. He must do so with His omnipotence which cannot be broken. In short, God exercises what Kant called intellectual intuition of the world: He makes what He knows.

Finally, we can argue in more formal fashion like this. God cannot be mistaken. Another way of putting this is that if God believes P, that entails P. Let us take that as the first premise in the following argument:

1. "God believes P" entails "P is true". (By God's Omniscience)
2. If X is a sufficient cause of the truth of A, and A entails B, then X is a sufficient cause of the truth of B.
3. So, if God is a sufficient cause of the truth of "God believes P", then God is a sufficient cause of the truth of P (by 1 and 2)
4. If God believes P, then God is the sufficient cause of the truth of "God believes P" (Of course, if God does not believe P, then God is the sufficient cause of the falsehood of "God believes P").
5. If P is true, then God believes P. (By God's Omniscience)
6. So, if P is true, then God is the sufficient cause of the truth of "God believes P" (by 4 and 5)
7. So, if P is true, God is a sufficient cause of the truth of P. (By 3 and 6)

Now, I assumed nothing special about P except that it is a possible object of belief, i.e. that it is a proposition. So what I have shown is true for any proposition. Thus God's omniscience, whereby it is impossible for God to be mistaken, implies that for any true proposition, God makes it true.

----------------------------------
*-As a rule I am highly suspicious of theological arguments that proceed from pure reason, since reason is also fallen. However, they can serve a purpose as an antidote against falsehood. In this case, I think the three arguments I'm giving are like that...They show that the naked assertion that God's foreknowledge does not entail His prior causation of events is, at least, not an obvious truth of reason.

[Daron]

Hi Wisdom Lover,
I don't disagree, but I think your arguments require an equivocation on "entail".

"God believes P" entails "P is true". (By God's Omniscience)

Is this really so, in a causal sense? Or is it actually that "P is true" entails that "God believes P is true"?

BTW,
Did you not argue against double predestination, vis, Lutheranism? And does this position not commit you to it?

[WisdomLover]

Daron-

When I say that "God believes P" entails "P is true", I mean for that entailment to be taken in whatever sense we take the idea that it is impossible for God to be mistaken. I think that when we say that it is impossible for God to be mistaken, we mean it in the most 'powerful' sense. I think that means that we are making a claim about God's very essence. That God is not mistaken in any world in which He exists (and since God exists in every possible world, He's not mistaken in any possible world). Or to put it another way: in every possible world, W, if God believes P in W, P is true in W.

On predestination, I think I'm committed to the idea that God's being a sufficient cause of my actions is compatible with my being free.

Look at it this way, if God's being a sufficient cause of my actions were incompatible with my freedom, then the argument above would show that, for example, I am not free to choose between apple and cherry pie at Denny's. I would choose apple, and I think I am free to make that choice. As a consequence I think my freedom to choose the apple is compatible with God's being a sufficient cause of my choosing the apple.

On the other hand, the fact that my freedom is compatible with God's universal sufficient causation does not imply that I am in fact free in every way in every area. I am not free to fly without an airplane, for example.

In the area of salvation, I don't think that I am free to choose God. This is not because of some metaphysical bondage based on God's prior foreknowledge, it's because of my sinful condition.

I do however, have all the freedom in the world to choose to go to Hell.

So I go to heaven because God chooses me, but I go to Hell on my own. This, I think, is the pith of single predestination.

[James Findlayson]

http://tinyurl.com/36rtoag

[TDC]

I have a lot of trouble with this. It seems to me that a good God would save everyone if doing so was perfectly within His power. So if salvation is purely based on His grace (Calvinist-Augustinian-Thomist style), I see no reason why He would not save everyone.

Even if He would be just to damn anyone He pleases, it is clearly the kinder and more loving thing to do to save everyone. Why would a good God not take such a path?

Some say it is to show the saved the evil of sin and the just punishment that they were saved from. But this hardly explains why such a high percentage of the world is damned (I think this is what the Bible teaches. Narrow road n all). Even worse, it seems that God could show what His judgment is like through some kind of perfect heavenly vision; no casualties required.

Some say that it gives God more glory to show off all His attributes, and that damning a bunch glorifies His justice, while salvation glorifies His mercy. But I thought the cross DID show God's justice. Secondly, I have trouble seeing why damning so many would actually glorify Him more than saving all.

Of course, there could be something I'm missing, but this issue is really difficult for me. I think other views have their own problems, leading me to wonder if there's anyway to make a populated hell understandable. Any thoughts?

[dave]

Is Divine Election Fair?

On the surface I would say yes. If you view it as a kind person (Christ) bailing out a bunch of thugs (sinners) while leaving the rest to suffer their penalty.

We cannot accuse Christ of being unfair for saving some while leaving the rest to perish. We can only rejoice that he saved some.

We could re-arrange Christ and the thugs more to our liking, so that he offers all the chance for bail if they accept it. But the ones in the back of the jail don't hear the offer.

Now this would not be fair, since they had nothing to do with their inability to hear the offer and to respond.

[Arnauld]

WisdomLover

Your second premise is false: My picking my nose is a sufficient cause of the truth of my nose is no longer clogged, and my nose is no longer clogged entails that 2 + 2 = 4 (since everything entails that 2+2=4), but my picking my nose surely does not cause 2+2=4 to be true.

Dave:

I think you've missed Greg's point. Greg is admitting that God does NOT treat us fairly; he just thinks that is OK because God's treats us "justly" (according to Greg's notion of justice, I suppose).

[Jim T.]

TDC said >> Of course, there could be something I'm missing, but this issue is really difficult for me. I think other views have their own problems, leading me to wonder if there's anyway to make a populated hell understandable. Any thoughts?

Any thoughts? Very many, but even more questions.

Does a populated hell make sense for a God with motivations that we can't fully understand? Perhaps so. But if so, then let's just be done with the "Smile! Jesus loves YOU!" stickers, because chances are it's just not true. Let's stop teaching children to sing "Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so," because, once again, chances are it's just not true.

Does a populated hell make sense for men wanting to scare other men into submission? Would that work for some? Would the threat of hell be a powerful tool for controlling others? Perhaps so.

So many questions, so few answers....

[Jim T.]

dave >> We cannot accuse Christ of being unfair for saving some while leaving the rest to perish.

By "perish", do you mean to die and pass away from all existence? Or do you mean to suffer eternal and everlasting torment? I suspect you mean the latter, which is a common view.

Election with annihilation is still a hard story to accept, but it's more tolerable. Might just be believable, although still pretty far from average Christian beliefs.

Election with eternal torment, well, now that's a different story. Something doesn't add up. Sounds made up to me.

dave >> We could re-arrange Christ and the thugs more to our liking, so that he offers all the chance for bail if they accept it. But the ones in the back of the jail don't hear the offer. Now this would not be fair, since they had nothing to do with their inability to hear the offer and to respond.

This is a great point, and I think you've made it several times recently. I do wish more people would see this, so I commend you for it. Calvinism and Arminianism are much closer than most people give credit. If people are horrified by Calvinism, then why not Arminianism and Molinism too? They're all variations on a theme. It took me a long time to see that.

[WisdomLover]

Arnauld-

Sorry, your counter-example doesn't work.

For starters, your picking of your own nose at t1 is not a sufficient cause of your nose being unclogged at t2. For one thing, the event at t1 does nothing nothing to guarantee that there will even be a nose to be clogged or unclogged at t2. Also, there might be obstructions you can't clear by picking, etc. So some other cause was also needed to make sure that your nose would be unclogged.

If you examine it, there are probably precious few things you or any event you ever bring about are ever the sufficient cause of. Perhaps you are the cause of the effort to clear your nose. But I doubt even that.

In fact it may be that the only thing you are ever a sufficient cause of are necessary propositions (like 2+2=4). For an agent to be a sufficient cause of the truth of a proposition is for the agent to be causally responsible for conditions sufficient for the truth of that proposition. Any and all conditions are sufficient for the truth of a necessary proposition. So, though you are not the sufficient cause of the picking of your own nose, you are a, though not the only, sufficient cause for the truth of any necessary proposition.

Is this an odd idea? Perhaps. It works out in the same way that it works out that a point or a line segment is a type of ellipse, or an argument with inconsistent premises is valid.

[Eddie Sanders]

In short, the doctrine of original sin says, "Feel guilty! You were born!"

[Malebranche]

More on the good news of God's general ungraciousness to sinful humanity. Ok, here are some thoughts.

What has Greg shown to be the case in this video? Very little.

First, Greg does precious little to tell us whether divine justice towards a person is retributive on account of the wickedness of that person or redemptive in the service of the salvation of that person. In fact, Greg does precious little to even tell us what God’s justice consists in. He simply asserts (in a question-begging fashion) that God has no obligation to act otherwise than he has (how’s that for an answer? Does that clear up your question sufficiently?) If God’s punishment is redemptive (which I believe it always is), it will become much more difficult to defend some of the dogmas Greg wishes to defend.

Greg sites Romans 9; but of course Romans 9 is the beginning of a series of thought that is completed at Romans 11. By the time we arrive at Romans 11, we find Paul saying such things as this:

ust as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

And Romans 9-11, of course, come after Paul says such things as this (in Romans 5):

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

It is not at all obvious, therefore, that Paul’s notion of divine wrath and punishment was not redemptive, aimed finally at the reconciliation and restoration of all things. The case is not as clear cut as many make it out to be. In any event, Greg cannot convince us that it is just of God to abandon his child to eternal languishing without giving us evidence against the view that God’s justice is redemptive; if God’s justice is redemptive, it would seem that it would accomplish salvation for its recipients, not damnation.

Second, justice and fairness are but two virtues among many. There are many other virtues that must be considered when we think of God’s actions and character. There are also many more vices than unfairness and injustice. For instance, hatefulness, contempt for or disrespect of the dignity of rational creatures, being unloving, mercilessness, and the refusal to forgive those who wrong us are also character traits that are not fitting for an absolutely perfect being. Furthermore, freely abandoning one’s children to eternal languishing when it was within one’s power to save them (without disrespecting their dignity!) seems to be a paradigm case of an unloving and unforgiving action.

Third, even if Greg could show that God’s justice is compatible with him abandoning his children in such a fashion, that would not show that God’s justice requires him to do this. We are therefore still left with this question: “Why, if God was able to save all of his children, has he chosen to freely abandon large portions of them to eternal, hopeless languishing?”

In summary, Greg has failed to address the substantive questions about God’s justice (does it always serve the aims of redemption, or not?), has failed to consider many other vices which Calvinism implicates God in (hatred, unwillingness to forgive, being unloving, mercilessness, etc.), and has failed to give us any explanation for how it is consistent for a God who loves all of his children to freely abandon most of them to endless, hopeless perdition.

[Malebranche]

I would also add to these problems the intrinsic unloveliness and hope-crushing nature of Greg's view of the fate of humanity. I fail to see how Greg seriously believes that his message is good news to humanity.

[Daron]

I got all the way to this sarcastic line before I knew whom I was reading:

More on the good news of God's general ungraciousness to sinful humanity. Ok, here are some thoughts.

So, as always, there is Malebranche,
Against that, there is Aquinas.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

[Brad B]

After reading some of Malebranche thinking along the way, it's clear he thinks too highly of man, and too lowly of the Holy, not to mention his low view of the scriptures. Uzzah's crime was that he didn't realize that stopping the Ark from falling into the mud was far worse than letting it fall.[his human touch was more profane].

[Daron]

Hi Wisdom Lover,
I am not tracking you here.

Here's Aquinas:

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

Do you not agree with Aquinas (and Calvin and Luther) on this? As you said, "First, God creates with a foreknowledge of the consequences. "
Of course He knows the consequence of not electing some; their eternal damnation.
And

If a person causes some set of conditions to obtain, and He knows in advance that those conditions will result in some other set of conditions, it follows that the creator of the initial conditions caused the later conditions.

God certainly set the conditions and knows the results of creating and not electing. It follows then, by your argument, that God is the cause of damnation, does it not?

God, in the very act of coming to have beliefs, must make it the case that the objects of those beliefs are true.

God obviously has beliefs about the reprobate and knows that when He does not save them that they are damned. So why is it that He is not the one making this the case when we are talking about damnation?

Luther on perdition:

Luther also as certainly as Calvin attributes the eternal perdition of the wicked, as well as the eternal salvation of the righteous, to the plan of God.

“This mightily offends our rational nature,” he says, “that God should, of His own mere unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them and condemn them; but He gives abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case; namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish, proceeds from His willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter, according to that of St. Paul, ‘He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.’”
...
“all things whatever arise from and depend upon the Divine appointment, whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life and who should disbelieve it, who should be delivered from their sins and who should be hardened in them, who should be justified and who condemned.”4

http://www.the-highway.com/election3_Boettner.html#Comments%20by%20Calvin,%20Luther,%20and%20Warfield

This is no different from the Calvinist's so-called double predestination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

[Daron]

Malebranche,

“Why, if God was able to save all of his children, has he chosen to freely abandon large portions of them to eternal, hopeless languishing?”

This is an unanswerable question so you are throwing stones at your brothers pointlessly, merely because it offends you. The Biblical facts are as they are; some will be saved and some will not. Why this is is inscrutable.
Since there is no logical inconsistency between God's justice and the doctrine of Hell one who believes in the Bible is not faced with any reason to dismiss its veracity.

[Daron]

In summary, Greg has failed to address the substantive questions about God’s justice (does it always serve the aims of redemption, or not?), has failed to consider many other vices which Calvinism implicates God in (hatred, unwillingness to forgive, being unloving, mercilessness, etc.), and has failed to give us any explanation for how it is consistent for a God who loves all of his children to freely abandon most of them to endless, hopeless perdition.

Once again, you are not being honest. Your complaint is not that "most" are going to Hell, but that any will: even an unrepentant Hitler or Stalin. If universalism is not true you claim God is hateful and merciless. This is not Biblical.

[Daron]

More Luther, from page 126, Bondage Of The Will:

As to why some are touched by the law and others not, so that some receive and others scorn the offer of grace, that is another question, which Ezekiel does not here discuss. He speaks of the published offer of God's mercy, not of the dreadful hidden will of God, Who, according to His own counsel, ordains such persons as He wills to receive and partake of the mercy preached and offered.
This will is not to be inquired into, but to be reverently adored, as by far the most awesome secret of the Divine Majesty. He has
kept it to Himself and forbidden us to know it; and it is much more worthy of reverence than an infinite number of Corycian caverns!

...
I say that the righteous God does not deplore the death of His people which He Himself works in them, but He deplores the death which He finds in His people and desires to remove from them. God preached works to the end that sin and
death may be taken away, and we may be saved. He sent His word and healed them [Ps. 107:20]. But God hidden in Majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, and death, and all in all; nor has He set bounds to Himself by His Word, but has kept Himself free over all things.

The Diatribe is deceived by its own ignorance in that it makes no distinction between God preached and God hidden, that is, between the Word of God and God Himself. God does many things which He does not show in His word, and He wills many
things which he does not in His Word show us that He wills. Thus, He does not will the death of a sinner - that is, in His Word; but He wills it by His inscrutable will. At present, however, we must keep in view His Word and leave alone His inscrutable will; for it is by His Word, and not by His inscrutable will, that we must be guided.
In any case, who can direct himself according to a will that is inscrutable and incomprehensible? It is enough simply to know that there is in God an inscrutable will; what, why, and within what
limits It wills, it is wholly unlawful to inquire, or wish to know, or be concerned about, or touch upon; we may only fear and adore!

So it is right to say: If God does not desire our death, it must be laid to the charge of our own will if we perish; this, I repeat, is right if you spoke of God preached. For He desires that all men
should be saved, in that He comes to all by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him; as He says in Matt. 23:37 How often would I have gathered thy children
together, and thou wouldst not! But why the Majesty does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why He lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and though you should ask much, you would never find out; as Paul says in Romans 11: Who art thou that repliest against God?
[Romans 9:20].

[TDC]

Daron,

Since there is no logical inconsistency between God's justice and the doctrine of Hell one who believes in the Bible is not faced with any reason to dismiss its veracity.

I don't believe this solves the problem. Malebranche actually said, I think, that there are problems its consistency with justice.

The doctrine of predestination (Calvinst-Thomist-Augustinian style) is hard to reconcile with a loving, kind, merciful God. Whether or not God is obligated to save all or not, it seems like the more loving, kind, and merciful thing to do if it is well within God's means.

Your complaint is not that "most" are going to Hell, but that any will: even an unrepentant Hitler or Stalin.

This is partly true. If it is inconsistent with a loving nature to NOT save so many, than it is also probably inconsistent with not saving even one.

HOWEVER, I think the fact that so many are damned causes problems for a common defense of Calvinist predestination. When Calvinists defend God's predestination of the damned by saying that it demonstrates God's justice for all to see, it remains unclear why such a high damned count is necessary (though I see no reason why its necessary for that at all, see my earlier post on that).

Although I would probably agree with you against the universalists on the Biblical teaching. I think Calvinists have quite a bit of biblical support to stand on. I just can't make sense of it logically.

[Malebranche]

This is such an amazing poem, a portion of which I've included below (http://seekadoo.blogspot.com/2008/07/oh-horrible-decree.html)

“The God of love passed by The most of those that fell, Ordained poor reprobates to die, And forced them into hell.” “He did not do the deed” (Some have more mildly raved) “He did not damn them—but decreed They never should be saved.

“He did not them bereave
Of life, or stop their breath,
His grace he only would not give,
And starved their souls to death.”

Here's John Wesley on the matter:

It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, "He willeth all men to be saved:" More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit "seeketh rest and findeth none;" so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!

[Malebranche]

This is good too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ckoCBtXvU&feature=related

[Daron]

Hi TDC,

Since there is no logical inconsistency between God's justice and the doctrine of Hell one who believes in the Bible is not faced with any reason to dismiss its veracity.

I don't believe this solves the problem. Malebranche actually said, I think, that there are problems its consistency with justice.

Actually, Malebranche, from interactions in previous threads, does not seem to dispute the justice of people getting what they deserve and going to Hell.

Whether or not God is obligated to save all or not, it seems like the more loving, kind, and merciful thing to do if it is well within God's means.

And that's the very point. We don't know that it is well within God's means to create the best of all worlds, in which the maximum number of people will serve and love Him, and in which those people will become the kind of creatures who can be set free in the universe choosing to do God's will. As I said, there is no logical inconsistency demonstrated.

The doctrine of predestination (Calvinst-Thomist-Augustinian style) is hard to reconcile with a loving, kind, merciful God.

Not if one believes the Bible. It tells us that God is perfectly good, merciful, longsuffering, loving etc., .... and just ... and sovereign. Will the Creator of the Universe not do what is right?

This is partly true.

Actually, it is fully true that this is Malebranche's position.

If it is inconsistent with a loving nature to NOT save so many, than it is also probably inconsistent with not saving even one.

Exactly! This is just where one lands when he starts pulling the thread. So why did Jesus teach the separation of the sheep and the goats, the outer darkness, the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the gulf between the rich man's destination and Abraham's bosom? Why did He tells those who cried "Lord, Lord" to leave Him and that He never knew them? It doesn't seem that Jesus, with His winnowing fork in His hands, pulling up the wheat and tares, thought it was inconsistent with justice.

And if all are saved I still have a question that Malebranche has never answered. Why is there a Bible at all, if God is just going to save everyone? Why would He bother to write the Book? Why would Jesus send His disciples to preach to the nations if they will all be saved regardless?

I think Calvinists have quite a bit of biblical support to stand on. I just can't make sense of it logically.

Man's reason does not stand in judgment of God.

[Brad B]

Hi TDC, where do you see that God is "loving, kind, merciful God"?

Is is not from the mouths of those whom He loves, the called out ones from among the nations?

Dont these kind of statement come from the people who heard this: "You shall be My people, And I will be your God"?Jer.30

It cannot be demonstrated from the Bible that God loves everyone so that they say such things. Did the Egyptians praise God[?], the Amorites[?], the Caananites[?], obviously no they hate Him!

The point is, that those God had already shown His love to first had reason to praise Him for being kind, loving, merciful--no other peoples would utter with sincerity those words.

[Daron]

And again I ask what I put to Malebranche et al in the last thread where he decided to air his grievances against his host; what does observation tell you? How many people look like they are loving God with all their hearts? Are doing His complete will? Live in complete obedience to His laws? Not all, obviously. The majority? Surely not. Many? Any?
So who looks like they are Heaven-bound on their current trajectories? Who could possibly get to Heaven going as they are going, without God's intervening Grace at some point to save them?
How many, at their point of death, appear godly? If few, how do we defend the universalist's position? Upon what text?

[TDC]

Daron,

Thank you for your reply. I should clarify where I'm coming from. I probably just confused things by entering an argument about universalism because I'm more of a doubter wondering if Christianity is true.

Most of your arguments are based on the Biblical support, which is fine if you believe the Bible. Since I'm unsure about it, the arguments from the Bible are not enough for me to solve the logical problems. I agree that your position is more biblical. But I'm more concerned with the logical problems for now.

You said...
And that's the very point. We don't know that it is well within God's means to create the best of all worlds, in which the maximum number of people will serve and love Him, and in which those people will become the kind of creatures who can be set free in the universe choosing to do God's will. As I said, there is no logical inconsistency demonstrated.

This is fine if you reject Calvinism. But Calvinist predestination means that it is absolutely possible for God to save everyone. If it is all by God's grace, than God can turn our hearts to Him. Your defense here sounds more like a Molinist or Arminian defense. Which are you?

You responded to my argument that Calvinist predestination is inconsistent with a loving, merciful kind God with the Bible, so I think my logical argument still stands. If you choose to ignore it cause you trust the Bible more, that's fine, but it doesn't mean the problem is solved.

[Daron]

Smashing video, Malebranche. Whatever could Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, ... not to mention St. Paul and Jesus Himself ... have to say against that?

[TDC]

Brad B,

Your response seems to be that God doesn't love everyone. Is that what you're saying?

[Malebranche]

I've cited a passage above already. For those interested in one universalist's take on the Bible, check out the following:

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm

Of course, internet Bible wars between non-experts are among the most insufferable conversations known to man. No doubt each is sure that he's right and knows exactly what the Bible says. And the one is always quick to remind the other to "Stand firm on the Word of God," whatever that is supposed to mean.

In my opinion, such things are about as useless as a conversation between Pat Robertson and John MacArthur on the big bang theory or Cantor's diagonalization proof. I've given references in Romans already. I'll just leave it that.

[Brad B]

Hi TDC, since you have doubts about the Bible, what faithfully and in a trustworthy manner informs you about God? The Bible tells the story of God loving 1 nation out of the many, giving them benefits, protection, calling them His own--loving them so much so that He's willing to personally suffer to cover their imperfection while He maintains Holiness. So yes, I'm saying that God doesn't in the biblical sense *love* everyone because it's what's revealed in the Bible.

[TDC]

Brad B,

I don't claim to know much about God. I'm not even certain He exists.

I am, however, still trying to study and understand the Christian view and seek truth.

If you don't believe God loves anyone, fair enough. But I thought God was supposed to be the very paradigm of virtue and moral perfection. Is there any basis for His favoritism? Does He just arbitrarily love a few and not love the rest?

[Daron]

In my opinion, such things are about as useless as a conversation between Pat Robertson and John MacArthur on the big bang theory or Cantor's diagonalization proof. I've given references in Romans already. I'll just leave it that.

But you don't see the uselessness of your continually sniping at the theology of the greatest thinkers in history and throwing your two-bits again and again at this blog. That's funny.

[TDC]

I mistyped in my last comment. I said, "If you don't believe God loves anyone".

I meant "everyone".

[Daron]

Hi TDC,

Most of your arguments are based on the Biblical support, which is fine if you believe the Bible.

There's not much point arguing about Hell and Salvation if you don't believe in the Bible.
If you want proofs of God, or arguments for the validity of the Bible then that is another conversation.

But Calvinist predestination means that it is absolutely possible for God to save everyone. If it is all by God's grace, than God can turn our hearts to Him.

Why do you say this? Yes, God can turn everyone's hearts to Him, but at what cost? Even a completely sovereign God, full of Grace, still has purposes in creating at all, and there is no logical demonstration that there can be no purpose inconsistent with the reprobation of a number of His creatures.

You responded to my argument that Calvinist predestination is inconsistent with a loving, merciful kind God with the Bible, so I think my logical argument still stands. If you choose to ignore it cause you trust the Bible more, that's fine, but it doesn't mean the problem is solved.

What problem and what argument? It is loving, kind and merciful for our longsuffering Father to save any who have fallen away and who willfully separate themselves from His love. I don't see an argument in your assertion that needs either address nor ignoring. And, again, if we don;t argue from the Bible we don't even have a subject to discuss here.

[Daron]

God's inscrutability does not equate to arbitrariness.

[Daron]

I meant "no purpose consistent".

[Daron]

re Biblical support.
http://www.wordsntone.com/index.php/site/comments/prologue_letting_the_lion_out_of_its_cage_1/

[Jean]

Karl Barth believed that God finally saves everyone. Barth was a greater theologian than either Luther or Calvin.
Luther and Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics and apostates
The nefarious Luther was also an anti-Semite.

[Ed the civillized atheist]

Why do Christians want to get God off the hook?
In the story of Noah, God decided to slowly drown all the innocent children.
If there is a hell,then God is running a "cosmic concentration camp".
Is the Christian God a sadist?

[Malebranche]

My aim on this thread was far more modest than converting Calvin’s followers. I simply wanted to keep track of what Greg had and hadn’t shown. I made four remarks concerning Greg’s video defense of God abandoning his children to eternal ruin:

(1) Greg’s remarks fail to tell us much of anything substantive about God’s justice. Some believe that God’s justice is always redemptive, and Greg has given no reason to think that they are wrong. In this discussion, Greg just assumes that they are wrong. However, if they are right, then God’s justice seems in no way compatible with abandoning large portions of humanity to eternal languishing.

(2) In addition to being unjust, a person can also be cruel, unforgiving, merciless, unloving, and disrespectful of the dignity of rational agents. God, however, can be none of these things, since God is an absolutely perfect being. Calvinism, moreover, implicates God in these vices, or at least it appears to. Greg says nothing to dispel this appearance. Now you can’t say everything at once. Fine. But lets not get the impression that Greg has said everything at once. Greg has done absolutely nothing to dispel the notion that the God of classical Calvinism is cruel, unforgiving, merciless, unloving, and disrespectful of the dignity of rational agents.

(3) Even if justice is compatible with God abandoning most of his children to eternal horrors, it does not follow from that that God’s justice requires him to abandon most of his children to eternal horrors. We are therefore still left with the question: “Why does God freely abandon most of those he loves to eternal hopeless languishing when he could have saved them all?” Greg has done nothing to address that impossibly difficult question.

(4) Greg has done nothing to convince us that his gospel is good news to humanity. According to him, from eternity God freely decided to abandon most of humanity to eternal languishing, while saving only a few; God accomplishes this through Jesus Christ. That is terrible news; or at least it appears to be terrible news. Greg has done nothing to dispel this appearance either. In fact, I’ve never seen any indication from him that he even thinks it is a problem at all. But surely it is a problem! The gospel is good news to humanity, and if our theological commitments can’t make sense of that, then so much the worse for our theological commitments.

[TDC]

Hey Daron,

There's not much point arguing about Hell and Salvation if you don't believe in the Bible.

Sure there is. We can discuss whether the concept of a loving God who allows people to go to hell is contradictory or coherent. We can see if it is reasonable or logical.

"But Calvinist predestination means that it is absolutely possible for God to save everyone. If it is all by God's grace, than God can turn our hearts to Him."

Why do you say this? Yes, God can turn everyone's hearts to Him, but at what cost? Even a completely sovereign God, full of Grace, still has purposes in creating at all, and there is no logical demonstration that there can be no purpose inconsistent with the reprobation of a number of His creatures.

I say this because Calvinism (and Calvinists, for that matter) are clear that God saves entirely whomever He wants to save.
I'm actually hoping you'll tell me the cost. I see no discernible difficulty in saving everybody. I'm afraid I don't entirely understand you second sentence, but I think you're saying that God has a purpose for reprobating so many. So what's the purpose? Every possible purpose I have heard proposed by Calvinists so far has been insufficient.

What problem and what argument? It is loving, kind and merciful for our longsuffering Father to save any who have fallen away and who willfully separate themselves from His love. I don't see an argument in your assertion that needs either address nor ignoring. And, again, if we don;t argue from the Bible we don't even have a subject to discuss here.

The argument was well summarized by Malebranche in point 2 and 3 above. It is unloving, unkind, unmerciful, and unforgiving to allow the damned to continue destroying themselves when it is well within God's power to save them. He saves some, of course, but He leaves the rest for no discernible reason.

God's inscrutability does not equate to arbitrariness.

So you're saying that He has reasons, but they are inscrutable? How do you know that? It seems to me like an assumption for which we have no evidence designed simply to save the Calvinist theory.

[Daron]

Calvinism, moreover, implicates God in these vices, or at least it appears to.

No it doesn't. And Calvinism is Thomism is Lutheranism is Augustinian on this issue.

Even if justice is compatible with God abandoning most of his children to eternal horrors, it does not follow from that that God’s justice requires him to abandon most of his children to eternal horrors.

The Bible tells us what God is like and what God is doing. It tells us God is good, loving, merciful and just. It also tells us He is wrathful, makes some pots for ignoble purposes, hardens whom He wills, and will separate the sheep from the goats. If you feel this is illogical you have to show the contradiction.

Greg has done nothing to convince us that his gospel is good news to humanity

You've never shown why it isn't. The Gospel writers called it Good News, and you've posed interesting analogies expressing your indignation, repeated heart-stirring phrases like "abandoned his children to eternal ruin" but you have never made your case. Look around, as I've asked you to do. You see the bad news. Man is separated from God. Man is hopeless. He is sinful and idolatrous, living far from paradise, consigning himself to Hell. The Good News is that God has broken through, we are reconciled and the Kingdom is at hand. How many do you see living in that Kingdom? Are you?

The gospel is good news to humanity, and if our theological commitments can’t make sense of that, then so much the worse for our theological commitments.

But they can. It is just that Good News which rescued Augustine and Luther - men who really knew what the human condition was - from what they knew of reality. That Grace, God's pure, unconditional love, is what was central to Luther and to Calvin; election and predestination flow from that, they are not the starting point. But you don't want to see that. You have a thesaurus full of ways to express your indignation and haven't finished keying Greg's car yet.

[Daron]

Hi TDC,

I say this because Calvinism (and Calvinists, for that matter) are clear that God saves entirely whomever He wants to save.
I'm actually hoping you'll tell me the cost. I see no discernible difficulty in saving everybody. I'm afraid I don't entirely understand you second sentence, but I think you're saying that God has a purpose for reprobating so many. So what's the purpose? Every possible purpose I have heard proposed by Calvinists so far has been insufficient.

You aren't reading my comments. We don't know His purposes. We don't know the cost or which worlds are actually feasible given His purposes. What we do know is that God is both loving, merciful, longsuffering, etc. and just. This is what makes him good. Your job, if you choose to make a logical case as you claim, is to show that this is a contradiction. To do so, you must show that it is impossible that we are in a world where God can have no good reasons for His decisions.

It is unloving, unkind, unmerciful, and unforgiving to allow the damned to continue destroying themselves when it is well within God's power to save them. He saves some, of course, but He leaves the rest for no discernible reason.

This is an emotion, not an argument. You don't know that it is well within God's power to save them while still serving His completely good and just purposes. If He were just going to people Paradise He could have done that in the beginning. But He didn't. He has a purpose and yes, though we can theorize, it is inscrutable. That's the being God is; we can't just wrap Him up with a bow and say "that's how I'd do it, so that's what God would do. If that were the case then Malebranche would be god. But He's not. God is.

So you're saying that He has reasons, but they are inscrutable? How do you know that? It seems to me like an assumption for which we have no evidence designed simply to save the Calvinist theory. God has give us His Spirit so that we know what He has given us to know, but we do not know everything and the Bible tells us so.
When you find a god you can fully understand run screaming because he is you.

[Daron]

I had a copying problem. Disregard the last paragraph.
TDC:

So you're saying that He has reasons, but they are inscrutable? How do you know that? It seems to me like an assumption for which we have no evidence designed simply to save the Calvinist theory.

We know this because it is Biblical. You don't get to raise these questions and then define the Bible out of the solution. If you are going to question God's purposes you have to go to His revelation. And His revelation tells us that His ways and purposes are beyond our knowing. The finite cannot grasp the infinite. "We see through the glass darkly ... now I know in part."

When Job challenged God and wanted His reasons he did not get them. Rather, God reinforced His right and challenged Job to prove Himself knowledgeable - "tell Me if you know". God's ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

"No one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God". God has give us His Spirit so that we know what He has given us to know, but we do not know everything and the Bible tells us so.
When you find a god you can fully understand run screaming because he is you.