Hello,
First, let me say I’m a Calvinist. I believe in unconditional election. And I infer from that fact that this seems to also imply an unconditional reprobation. Let me preface my comments by distinguishing between election
E (to salvation) and reprobation
R (to hell).
The possible combinations are as follows:
- unconditional E, unconditional R (Calvin?)
- unconditional E, conditional R (Aquinas)
- conditional E, conditional R (Molina, Arminius)
- conditional E, unconditional R (nobody, as far as I know)
Roman Catholics are free to hold positions 2 OR 3 above. It’s an internal house debate that once divided the Dominicans and Jesuits to such a degree that the pope had to step in and say, “knock it off–you both may be right.”
I think either 1 or 2 is the most faithful interpretation of Scripture. So for me, the question is, whether or not God simply wills people to go to hell (1) or antecedently wills them to go to hell (2). Those who opt for (2) cite texts such as 1 Timothy 2:4 “God wills all men to be saved” and 2 Peter 3:9, God is not willing that “any should perish,” and generally appeal to God’s goodness. How can God be “good” if he simply wills people to Hell (i.e., for no apparent “reason”). This seems to ascribe to God an arbitrariness or even an injustice.
Here’s why I lean toward (1). First, neither the 1 Timothy text nor the 2 Peter text require the interpretation that position 2 gives them. In context, “all men” may refer to all men without distinction, rather than all men without exception. This is because Paul seems to be thinking about “types” of people (verse 1), such as kings and others in authority. Thus there are good contextual grounds for taking the “all” in a relative, rather than absolute sense. Remember, it is Paul who posits the idea that God is a potter who makes “vessels of wrath fit for destruction.” So it’s not at all obvious that Paul believed God intends to save everyone or even desires this.
As for the 2 Peter text, it is also possible that the “any” refers to those whom Peter is addressing in his letter. Peter may be saying, God doesn’t want any of you to perish, which explains why he is “patient toward you.” In context, “you” explains that Peter only has believers in mind. If you turn back a chapter to 2 Peter 2:4-10, you’ll see that Peter does not believe that God is “unwilling” that any should perish, since God in fact not only allowed, but actually caused many to parish eternally.
This brings us to the moral/philosophical objection, namely that God is unjust if He wills someone to hell or if He does not will everyone to be saved. This is precisely the objection that Paul anticipates in his argument in Romans 9: 19-20: "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” This kind of argument echos the same words God said to Job when Job charged God with injustice: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” (Job 38:4).
We worry about justifying God. But that’s not our place. “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Romans 9: 14). We, as creatures, can’t put God on the judgment seat as if there were a standard of morality or goodness higher than God himself! The minute we allow ourselves to think that God is being unjust, then we implicitly invoke a standard of justice that is higher than God, thereby making INFINITE God relative to our FINITE concept of justice. That’s the point of Romans 9:19-20 and Job 38:4–to remind us that we’re finite and have to bow to mystery.
For this reason, there is no need to “get God off the hook.” Besides, we know that whoever goes to hell in fact freely chooses to do so. God simply allows the reprobate to go their own way. It’s not as if those in hell are saying, “I really loved God and wanted to be saved, but he rejected me despite my earnest desire for salvation.” The reprobate will weep and gnash teeth, eternally hardened of heart against God.
Sometimes we think that if God desires to save anyone, then to be fair, he must desire to save everyone. But why? By rights, God doesn’t have to save any of us, because, but for His Grace, we all would choose “our will be done,” rather than “thy will be done.” But the pattern of salvation is that out of the “many,” God chooses “some.” This is the scandal of particularity–the idea that God is somehow unjust for doing what He wants with his own creation. Isn’t that the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (see Matthew 20:1-16)–that God is sovereign?
In fact, we do not have to imagine God “actively” damning people to hell. We can see Him “passively” choosing NOT to give saving grace to the reprobate. But as Calvin pointed out, “those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he will to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (Institutes 3, 23, 1). Calvin had the GUTS to draw out the logical inference from unconditional election. If God elects on the basis of his sovereign will (rather than anything he sees in us), then quite obviously He rejects those whom He does not choose.
How about 1 Timothy 4:10, “Christ is the savior of all, especially those who believe.” Paul has to mean ALL in the collective sense. Since he seperates the ALL from believers. ALL has to mean every single person. Totally refutes calvinism.
Well, it figures that the one time I don’t go off and corroborate a quote before I post it, it turns up to be bogus… and I was just griping to a co-worker about those crazy chain emails and how people need to check snopes. Sorry to be off topic…