what does your church teach about Predestination? I have Qs

[distracted]

someone on the forums some time ago was trying to tell me that God knows beforehand who is going to accept Jesus (be saved) and who is not

but that goes against my notions of free will… I believe everyone has a chance to the very end of his life… to choose Jesus… or reject HIm… Many you would think never would, DO and sometimes those who choose Him fall away from HIm…

so anyhow…

just wondering what various churches teach about this… i kinda know the Presbyterian stand on Pre-D but not the others…

someone tried to show me info on what the Church teaches but it seemed… like it wasn’t answering my Qs and i didn’t have all day to try to concentrate on it… or even read all of it…

kinda confused…

 

[TriuneUnity]

someone on the forums some time ago was trying to tell me that God knows beforehand who is going to accept Jesus (be saved) and who is not

but that goes against my notions of free will… I believe everyone has a chance to the very end of his life… to choose Jesus… or reject HIm… Many you would think never would, DO and sometimes those who choose Him fall away from HIm…

so anyhow…

just wondering what various churches teach about this… i kinda know the Presbyterian stand on Pre-D but not the others…

someone tried to show me info on what the Church teaches but it seemed… like it wasn’t answering my Qs and i didn’t have all day to try to concentrate on it… or even read all of it…

kinda confused…

This is the official Lutheran position, Distracted:

We believe that already before the world was created, God chose those individuals whom he would in time convert through the gospel of Christ and preserve in faith to eternal life (Ephesians 1:4-6; Romans 8:29,30). This election to faith and salvation in no way was caused by anything in people but shows how completely salvation is by grace alone (Romans 11:5,6).

We reject the false and blasphemous conclusion that those who are lost were predestined, or elected, by God to damnation, for God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

 

[distracted]

This is the official Lutheran position, Distracted:

We believe that already before the world was created, God chose those individuals whom he would in time convert through the gospel of Christ and preserve in faith to eternal life (Ephesians 1:4-6; Romans 8:29,30). This election to faith and salvation in no way was caused by anything in people but shows how completely salvation is by grace alone (Romans 11:5,6).

We reject the false and blasphemous conclusion that those who are lost were predestined, or elected, by God to damnation, for God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

at this pt in time i see these 2 ideas as being like oil and water… dont mix

i sometimes feel that i messed up my life… what God may have wnted for me… (whom to marry, what job to have… etc) so i ended up… going another route in life and my choices… well… LONG STORY but in any case…

i guess what i’m saying is that peple make choices… then they get in a mood or whatever and make some other choice…

it seems that God is not always included in human’s decisions at all… even though He is omniscient and knows what is going on inside the person’s head and outside in circumstnaces…

I believe God knows that certain personality types are more likely to accept Christ… but that doesn’t mean much… and those certain types evangelize (we hope) and reach the others…

Jesus was supposed to have told this woman once: “I choose some to reach others”

makes sense to me

as the bible says God is not willing that ANY shoud perish

so i guess i’m confused about … the official teaching of the Roman Church about this…

since i am in that Church… and people have gotten me all discombobulated over this pre-D thing… :whacky::hypno:

 

[TriuneUnity]

at this pt in time i see these 2 ideas as being like oil and water… dont mix

i sometimes feel that i messed up my life… what God may have wnted for me… (whom to marry, what job to have… etc) so i ended up… going another route in life and my choices… well… LONG STORY but in any case…

That doesn’t really touch on predestination as Scripture teaches it. Scripture only teaches predestination in relation to salvation; not the individual choices that you make throughout the course of the day. Like where to drive, what to eat, what to wear, etc.

 

[distracted]

That doesn’t really touch on predestination as Scripture teaches it. Scripture only teaches predestination in relation to salvation; not the individual choices that you make throughout the course of the day. Like where to drive, what to eat, what to wear, etc.

yes but all those decisions impacted my spiritual life… For example whe i was very young i ditched this one situation … ran away and to this day i often wonder if i went against God… i thought i had excellent reasons but i still feel i may have gone against God… and so i ended up around difrt people than i would have been if i had stuck thngs out… i started believing things that aren’t true like that god didn’t give rip about me, etc… so my circumstaces were very much involved in… my spiritual thing…

although i do think i u/stand what you are tyring to say…

put it this way: i woiuld not be Catholic (devout) right now if i had stayed in that situation… because it inovled another person who was not Catholic and at that time i didnt think being Catholic was all that important… hmmm… strange to think of all this… maybe my decision was more to God’s liking than i realized…

in any case… i also know that a person can be in such … diabolical circumstnaces (bad people associations)… that s/he can… become quite sinful …whether out of ignorance or whatever…but hmmm… actually i am beginning to understand a few things as i write about this…

thnaks…

do you believe some people are destined for Hell? thats what i dont believe in…

 

[SyCarl]

Thomas Aquinas had the following to say about predestination:

On the contrary, It is written: “Whom He predestined, them He also called.”
I answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above. Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said. The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above.

Summa Thelogica, Part 1, Question 23, Article 1
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q23_A1.html

On the contrary, It is said: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”
I answer that, Predestination presupposes election in the order of reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that predestination, as stated above, is a part of providence. Now providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved above. But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:—love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above:—election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above.

Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23, Article 4
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q23_A4.html

On the contrary, It is said: “I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau.”
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above 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. 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. 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.

Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23, Article 3
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q23_A3.html

Aquinas deals with freewill by means of conditional necessity and conditional impossibility.

Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above, that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 23, Article 3
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q23_A3.html

Now I am no philosopher, but I believe that God can both predestine and at the same time allow freewill. How? I don’t know, but what we can’t do or understand is still possible for God.

 

[Contarini]

someone on the forums some time ago was trying to tell me that God knows beforehand who is going to accept Jesus (be saved) and who is not

That’s not predestination, that’s foreknowledge. The traditional Christian doctrine is that God knows everything that will happen (because He is outside of time), including of course who will be saved.

Some modern Christian theologians have challenged this idea, precisely for the reason you give–that foreknowledge is hard to reconcile with free will. I know that some Catholics reject divine foreknowledge–in fact I first heard this view from a priest in RCIA–but it seems to me that this is an unorthodox position by Catholic standards (check with your fellow-Catholics on this; I found a passage from the Catechism back when I was arguing about it with that priest, but can’t find it now).

There’s a sense in which predestination does follow from foreknowledge. If God knows who will be saved, then God has also eternally made His decisions about the matter. And Scripture (and Christian tradition too, for that matter) seems pretty clear that salvation is God’s work, not ours.

If we were sure that everyone would be saved, then it would purely be a question of free will. And in that case I’m not sure I would agree with your rejection of unconditional predestination. Since God is related to us very differently than we are related to each other, I’m not convinced a priori of the proposition that God can’t cause us to act in a certain way without violating our free will.

But the fact is that people clearly use their wills to commit evil acts, and we have no guarantee that everyone will eventually repent and return to God (indeed, most of the evidence in Scripture and Tradition indicates that some people will not repent and will be finally damned). Therefore, if God chooses who is saved, it follows that He chooses not to save some. And that is the sticking point for me and for many other people. The Catholic Church has officially condemned the belief that God predestines some to damnation, although the Thomist tradition comes closer to this than you might think possible.

just wondering what various churches teach about this…

Our 39 Articles teach it, but they’re quite vague as sixteenth-century documents go and many Anglicans don’t consider them binding (I was catechized to see them as subordinate to the broader teaching of the historic Church).
Article 17:

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

 

[distracted]

Thomas Aquinas had the following to say about predestination:

Aquinas deals with freewill by means of conditional necessity and conditional impossibility.

Now I am no philosopher, but I believe that God can both predestine and at the same time allow freewill. How? I don’t know, but what we can’t do or understand is still possible for God.

i never could quite grasp Aquinas… or myabe i have attention deficit or something??

but in any case… this is the predestination i belive in: God knows what choices we are likely to mkae based on the choices we have already made in th past… If someone is stuck in a rut, he is more likely to stay in the rut and if someone is in love w/ Jesus he is likely to stay in love w/ Jesus…

thats about the only predestination i believe in…

some people’s salvation takes a literal Act of God to accomplish… but then we all need such Act of God… and that Act was Jesus…

God gave us Jesus… His Church… the written Word of God…

If he does all that and some still resist and reject… well, i guess God just lets them have their choice… (no guess to it actually)… someone who rejects Christ one day finds it easier to do the next day and the next day its even easier and pretty soon… the person has no ability to choose Him… except for a miracle…

again thats the ony predestination i believe in… i frankly think Aquinas was too wordy… made thngs complicated…

 

[distracted]

That’s not predestination, that’s foreknowledge. The traditional Christian doctrine is that God knows everything that will happen (because He is outside of time), including of course who will be saved.

Some modern Christian theologians have challenged this idea, precisely for the reason you give–that foreknowledge is hard to reconcile with free will. I know that some Catholics reject divine foreknowledge–in fact I first heard this view from a priest in RCIA–but it seems to me that this is an unorthodox position by Catholic standards (check with your fellow-Catholics on this; I found a passage from the Catechism back when I was arguing about it with that priest, but can’t find it now).

There’s a sense in which predestination does follow from foreknowledge. If God knows who will be saved, then God has also eternally made His decisions about the matter. And Scripture (and Christian tradition too, for that matter) seems pretty clear that salvation is God’s work, not ours.

If we were sure that everyone would be saved, then it would purely be a question of free will. And in that case I’m not sure I would agree with your rejection of unconditional predestination. Since God is related to us very differently than we are related to each other, I’m not convinced a priori of the proposition that God can’t cause us to act in a certain way without violating our free will.

But the fact is that people clearly use their wills to commit evil acts, and we have no guarantee that everyone will eventually repent and return to God (indeed, most of the evidence in Scripture and Tradition indicates that some people will not repent and will be finally damned). Therefore, if God chooses who is saved, it follows that He chooses not to save some. And that is the sticking point for me and for many other people. The Catholic Church has officially condemned the belief that God predestines some to damnation, although the Thomist tradition comes closer to this than you might think possible.

Our 39 Articles teach it, but they’re quite vague as sixteenth-century documents go and many Anglicans don’t consider them binding (I was catechized to see them as subordinate to the broader teaching of the historic Church).

according to this Article 17… god only saves those He choses… I believe God chooses everyone… somewheree in the Bible it says that God is not willing that any sould perish…

which is why i do NOT believe in predestination as some believe in it…

 

[distracted]

***no arguments?? no snappy come backs??

but hey… i’m still not clear on this subject…

so you Catholics who can u/stand Aquinas… please help me out …

what does the Catholic Church say on the subj of Pre-D??***

 

[CARose]

… somewheree in the Bible it says that God is not willing that any sould perish…

This it the quote I’m looking for. Does anyone know where it is?

 

[TriuneUnity]

This it the quote I’m looking for. Does anyone know where it is?

2 Peter 3:9.

 

[Contarini]

***no arguments?? no snappy come backs??

but hey… i’m still not clear on this subject…

---

From my perspective, you killed the thread when you ascribed your difficulties with Aquinas to Aquinas’s “wordiness.” If you are going to assume that when you don’t understand one of the great thinkers of human history it’s his fault and not yours, then I don’t see why you should bother reading anything I write, so I don’t see any point in talking to you further.

Edwin

 

[Izdaari]

This is the official Lutheran position, Distracted:

We believe that already before the world was created, God chose those individuals whom he would in time convert through the gospel of Christ and preserve in faith to eternal life (Ephesians 1:4-6; Romans 8:29,30). This election to faith and salvation in no way was caused by anything in people but shows how completely salvation is by grace alone (Romans 11:5,6).

We reject the false and blasphemous conclusion that those who are lost were predestined, or elected, by God to damnation, for God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Although my church is Assemblies of God, which is from the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition, and thus Arminian, I differ with them on this and subscribe to Lutheran beliefs regarding it, which TriuneUnity has stated very well.

 

[FantomScholar]

That’s not predestination, that’s foreknowledge. The traditional Christian doctrine is that God knows everything that will happen (because He is outside of time), including of course who will be saved.

Some modern Christian theologians have challenged this idea, precisely for the reason you give–that foreknowledge is hard to reconcile with free will. I know that some Catholics reject divine foreknowledge–in fact I first heard this view from a priest in RCIA–but it seems to me that this is an unorthodox position by Catholic standards (check with your fellow-Catholics on this; I found a passage from the Catechism back when I was arguing about it with that priest, but can’t find it now).

Arminian theologians have seen the problems that arise from foreknowledge that you mentioned, Contarini. Thus, it has given rise to Open Theism (which may be what you referred to by modern theologians). Openness could be argued to be the natural end result of a system of soteriology framed entirely upon the will of man being the cause of faith in the human heart. If mankind is to truly be free in all of his decisions, then God must have some lack of knowledge of what those choices will be, otherwise, it would give God the ability to interject and prevent man’s choices, thus nullifying free will.

There’s a sense in which predestination does follow from foreknowledge. If God knows who will be saved, then God has also eternally made His decisions about the matter. And Scripture (and Christian tradition too, for that matter) seems pretty clear that salvation is God’s work, not ours.

I think this is how Scripture uses the term foreknowledge. When it relates to individuals, especially in Romans 8, foreknowledge is almost never in the context of what their actions will be at some point in the future, but rather an intimate fore-knowing of the individual (using the same language as that used of physical intimacy; "Adam knew Eve, his wife,’’ etc.).

If we were sure that everyone would be saved, then it would purely be a question of free will. And in that case I’m not sure I would agree with your rejection of unconditional predestination. Since God is related to us very differently than we are related to each other, I’m not convinced a priori of the proposition that God can’t cause us to act in a certain way without violating our free will.

An important point. God can decree the actions that an individual will take. But He does not so issue the decree that it forces the individual to act contrary to his will in making the decision. That is, God uses primary and secondary events to so order creation to follow a predetermined outcome. The individuals involved, however, are still using their own individual will and experiences in taking the predetermined actions.

But the fact is that people clearly use their wills to commit evil acts, and we have no guarantee that everyone will eventually repent and return to God (indeed, most of the evidence in Scripture and Tradition indicates that some people will not repent and will be finally damned). Therefore, if God chooses who is saved, it follows that He chooses not to save some. And that is the sticking point for me and for many other people. The Catholic Church has officially condemned the belief that God predestines some to damnation, although the Thomist tradition comes closer to this than you might think possible.

This has always been a huge theological issue for predestinarians such as myself. I think once we begin to view God’s with holding of election from some in the proper way, the sticking points work themselves out. If God with holds election from an individual, is that the primary cause of that individual’s damnation? It would seem to me, that when the individual is judged for his sins, it is his sins the individual is being condemned for, not because God chose not to save him. Since God is not obligated to save anyone, His choice not to save an individual is a purely passive act on the part of God. Election, however, is an active. It requires God to actively do something in an individual’s life to bring about the person’s conversion. Reprobation doesn’t. God just leaves the individual where he is.

 

[peeteyg]

I am fairly new to this site, but I know while I have been here this topic has come up several times. Man has free will. God is the author of time and stands out side of time as he is eternal. From his vantage point he can see the past and future at once. This is why there are references to the book of life and the elect and predestination. Now one knows who the elect are, although once saved always saved people and Jehovahs witness who are the annointed class think they know but this is not true. It says in scripture that god wills that all men be saved and come to repentance. Obviously not all men are saved but we have to choose to come to repentance, it is an act of free will. Some mix up the idea of predestination. Just because god knows who will persevere to the end, he did not make the choices for them. This is Pre-Determinism which is often sold in place of predestination in the Calvinism tradition (Sorry Brothers). We have to look at some of the words to explain this as from the point of view of god. He knows who the elect are, he knows who the condemned are. We are predestined to be conformed to the image of christ. We have to be more like christ, he is our role model so to speak. Lets start with this for now DISTRACTED.

 

[Contarini]

Arminian theologians have seen the problems that arise from foreknowledge that you mentioned, Contarini. Thus, it has given rise to Open Theism (which may be what you referred to by modern theologians).

I was thinking of a somewhat broader category that would include the open theists among others, yes.

Openness could be argued to be the natural end result of a system of soteriology framed entirely upon the will of man being the cause of faith in the human heart.

Yes, I agree.

If mankind is to truly be free in all of his decisions

And if freedom is to be defined in a strictly “libertarian” way, in contrast to the Augustinian definition whereby the highest freedom is the inability to sin. The huge problem with this view in my opinion is that it forces libertarians/open theists either to maintain the possibility that those enjoying the Beatific Vision might fall or to maintain that the Beatific Vision entails the loss of freedom.

I think this is how Scripture uses the term foreknowledge. When it relates to individuals, especially in Romans 8, foreknowledge is almost never in the context of what their actions will be at some point in the future, but rather an intimate fore-knowing of the individual (using the same language as that used of physical intimacy; "Adam knew Eve, his wife,’’ etc.).

Agreed.

An important point. God can decree the actions that an individual will take. But He does not so issue the decree that it forces the individual to act contrary to his will in making the decision. That is, God uses primary and secondary events to so order creation to follow a predetermined outcome. The individuals involved, however, are still using their own individual will and experiences in taking the predetermined actions.

This is the part of the Thomist position that I have problems with (well, one such part!). Aquinas says that God ordains that things act according to their natures, and that includes ordaining that contingent causes act contingently. But it’s hard for me to see this as more than a word game. If the secondary causes are acting contingently, and/or if created agents are acting freely (in the “libertarian” sense of choosing between two possibilities), then the outcome is not predetermined (whether or not it can be “foreknown”). I’m not sure this is a criticism of your position, since your wording sounds straightforwardly compatibilist. But I don’t see Aquinas as a compatibilist when it comes to second causes (a Thomist friend of mine agrees; my Calvinist colleague in the philosophy department at my institution disagrees), and I’m not either.

This has always been a huge theological issue for predestinarians such as myself. I think once we begin to view God’s with holding of election from some in the proper way, the sticking points work themselves out. If God with holds election from an individual, is that the primary cause of that individual’s damnation? It would seem to me, that when the individual is judged for his sins, it is his sins the individual is being condemned for, not because God chose not to save him. Since God is not obligated to save anyone, His choice not to save an individual is a purely passive act on the part of God. Election, however, is an active. It requires God to actively do something in an individual’s life to bring about the person’s conversion. Reprobation doesn’t. God just leaves the individual where he is.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, and I take this position seriously. Where I question it is in the claim “God is not obligated to save anyone.” I don’t think God is obligated to us in any respect whatsoever. But I find it hard to see how God’s nature could be compatible with a choice to condemn to eternal punishment those whom God could quite easily have chosen to move toward eternal life. If the alternative to salvation were annihilation, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it, though even then I would be repelled by the idea of God punishing people for actions He could quite easily have moved them not to do.

Here’s one way of putting it: your view works *if *God’s choice “not to save” is passive throughout, including God’s response to the actions the human being took in response to that choice. So, for instance, suppose that without special grace and revelation from God a person cannot enjoy the Beatific Vision, but he or she can lead a virtuous and basically happy life. Such a person then dies and simply ceases to exist (or goes to the kind of Limbo described by Dante). I see no incompatibility between this and God’s goodness. But *if *the only possible alternative to God’s choice to save is that a person will commit sins and be justly damned for this, then I think we are getting close to a God that it would be sinful to worship, because we would be worshiping Him only for His power and not for anything we could recognize as goodness.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[FantomScholar]

And if freedom is to be defined in a strictly “libertarian” way, in contrast to the Augustinian definition whereby the highest freedom is the inability to sin. The huge problem with this view in my opinion is that it forces libertarians/open theists either to maintain the possibility that those enjoying the Beatific Vision might fall or to maintain that the Beatific Vision entails the loss of freedom.

I agree.

This is the part of the Thomist position that I have problems with (well, one such part!). Aquinas says that God ordains that things act according to their natures, and that includes ordaining that contingent causes act contingently. But it’s hard for me to see this as more than a word game. If the secondary causes are acting contingently, and/or if created agents are acting freely (in the “libertarian” sense of choosing between two possibilities), then the outcome is not predetermined (whether or not it can be “foreknown”). I’m not sure this is a criticism of your position, since your wording sounds straightforwardly compatibilist. But I don’t see Aquinas as a compatibilist when it comes to second causes (a Thomist friend of mine agrees; my Calvinist colleague in the philosophy department at my institution disagrees), and I’m not either.

I understand what you’re getting at with the word game issue. Aquinas in many ways tried to skirt the edges of both libertarianism and compatibilism. I reject the libertarian free will idea, of course, and as such, it is guaranteed that subject A will set contingency B into effect, which will result in outcome C. This is where God’s sovereign decree comes into play. He chose to set those three points as fixed events from which there can be no deviation. There isn’t any question there, I don’t think (hopefully you agree, at least with the consistency of the model). However, the reason this is not a violation of subject A’s free will, if one understands free will to be that in which the subject is not forced by outside circumstances, (i.e. God’s hand is not twisting the person into taking an action that the person doesn’t agree with), is the manner in how God predetermines the course of events.

I would not see Aquinas as a strict compatibilist, so I would tend to agree with you.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from, and I take this position seriously. Where I question it is in the claim “God is not obligated to save anyone.” I don’t think God is obligated to us in any respect whatsoever. But I find it hard to see how God’s nature could be compatible with a choice to condemn to eternal punishment those whom God could quite easily have chosen to move toward eternal life. If the alternative to salvation were annihilation, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with it, though even then I would be repelled by the idea of God punishing people for actions He could quite easily have moved them not to do.

He could have moved them toward eternal life, that’s true. Scripture doesn’t specifically address God’s reasons for not moving them to eternal life except that His wrath and justice against sin may be demonstrated (Rom. 9). The reverse, I believe, is also true. He shows mercy for the praise of His mercy. Since humanity has nothing within itself that God would desire to save a man, it must come solely from His own nature. His love and His wrath against sin aren’t in conflict… so perhaps it must be seen as God expressing those in different ways? I realize a lot of that is pure speculation.

While we don’t have all the answers to the above questions, I think the reverse poses far more problems than it solves. I don’t think that’s your position, Contarini, since you’ve clearly thought through these issues quite well!

The post-modern dedication to servile fear of the Horriblus Maximus of the offended man has propelled many into the realm of “God editing” so as to avoid that great cultural heresy. We need a God who is sufficiently like us that He can be as double-minded and bemused as we often are. Never mind His eternal existence outside of time, His imperturbable majesty, His solitary sufficiency. We need to insist that God has freely and unalterably decreed that which completely bums Him out. That, I think, is the result of saying that God tries to save everyone but fails.

 

[peeteyg]

Man, FantomScholar and Contarini are a couple of deep cats ! I consider myself a Thomist also, but I have never delved into the depths of this topic like these guys. I need to read some more Thomas Aquinas apparently. I am still studying the Early (pre-Nicene) church fathers still.

 

[distracted]

From my perspective, you killed the thread when you ascribed your difficulties with Aquinas to Aquinas’s “wordiness.” If you are going to assume that when you don’t understand one of the great thinkers of human history it’s his fault and not yours, then I don’t see why you should bother reading anything I write, so I don’t see any point in talking to you further.

Edwin

oh please…

how sanctimonious sounding and ad hominem…