I woke up early today (6 AM) and couldn’t get back to sleep, so I decided to start the day early. Part of that early start was some devotional reading though 2 Thessalonians. Very interesting letter, to be sure.
Saint Paul of Tarsus
One interesting part is that Paul boldly asserts what many Christians simply do not believe: “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 2:13-14). Both classical Arminianism and historic Semi-Pelagianism (in different ways) assert that God chooses us because we choose him. Paul (as we shall see, contrasting the believers with the ungodly Gospel deniers of Thessaloniki) artlessly asserts that God chose the Thessalonian Christians. At this point, I pause to wait for all the yeahbuts…
Yeahbuts aside, another passage (immediately prior to the one in which Paul asserts that God chose the Thessalonians Christians because the chose him) is the one I want to highlight for my reading public. There were Thessalonian citizens who denied the Gospel, who refused to love the truth and so be saved. Of those folks, Paul says: “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess 2:11-12). These folks rejected the Gospel, didn’t love the truth, and were pleased to sin. I don’t want to make light of that rejection of the Gospel, for it is a sin. But here’s my question (LISTEN UP, NOW): If God wants everyone to be saved, if God wants every single individual human to be saved, they why did he send them a strong delusion?
That’s a very serious question. It needs an answer that makes sense.
Now, if God really, really, really wants every single individual to be save, he would NEVER send a spirit of delusion, so that they may believe what is false, unto their condemnation. That’s like me wanting my 1-year-old to walk, but tripping him every time he tries to stand up. Now, it’s NO answer to say that this is judgment upon their unbelief. Of course it is! They denied the Savior when He was preached to them. Did God, then, STOP wanting them to be saved?! That’s not possible, not if God *really* wants everyone to be saved.
Personally, I have presented the Gospel to folks who have totally rejected it. It’s incumbent upon me to continue to present it to them and to pray for their salvation. I keep after them until there is no more hope; I keep after them until they are dead. God, however, has sent these folks unbelieving Thessalonians a strong delusion, to the end that or with the purpose that (hina) they might be damned. What gives?
Historic Augustianism explains this. I’m looking for an Arminian or a Semi-Pelagian (I don’t even want to hear from Pelagians) to give an explanation. Why, if God wants every single individual human being to be saved, did He send a spirit of delusion to the Thessalonians who rejected the Gospel, so that they should believe a lie, so that they should be damned?
If you read the surrounding text… ESV
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Looking at this it appears to me that these people were already destined to hell via their choices. God… honoring their choices as He only desires those who desire Him… sent them a strong delusion or the great Lie regarding the activity of Satan and his false signs and wonders, after the fact… after they had made the choice of refusing truth.
Mark, but all humans are by nature hostile to God, refusing Him with their inmost being. So why didn’t God gave us all up to delusion as He did to the Thessalionian unbelievers?
God is a mystery… why He does some things and does not do others is beyond me.
Along your line of reasoning… put the question to the Calvinist this way… using your words…
“but all humans are by nature hostile to God, refusing Him with their intmost being. So why didn’t God show mercy on all as He does to the elect?”
But, Mark, there’s no inconsistency in the “Calvinistic” position in the mystery you’ve brought up. We don’t pretend to know God’s secret counsel and good pleasure. Why God chose this one and not that one is, indeed, a mystery. However, if God wants every single individual human to be saved, but sends a spirit of delusion to some of them, we are not just working with a mystery, but a manifest inconsistency.
well said, Tim
Tim… if you don’t know God’s secret counsel and good pleasure, how do you purport to know that He doesn’t save because He has always known that we would have faith?
And there is only inconsistency in your last thought if you put the spirit of delusion prior to choice, instead of post. The belief is not that God causes the disbelief by sending the spirit of delusion, but actually gives the chooser what is already chosen… “you want this? here you go!”
Mark
The the condition of the unregenerate is hating God (not desiring). Yet the arminian position is that God still wants them to be saved (would not send them a strong delusion). Why would God’s position change toward this unregenerate person who moves (apparently) from hating God in intent to hating God in practice? In other words when do the lost ever desire God? Or are you saying that God only desires those who have already chosen him (saves those who are already saved)?
6:00 is not early but normal. 4:00 is early.
Mark, you responded with the answer that I said was not an answer. That this was a judgment for their unbelief is plain from the text. What’s not plain is how God wants to save those to whom he sends a spirit of delusion, so that they believe a lie, so that they’re damned. THAT is what’s not plain and needs explaining.
If you take the line of thinking that God foreknew that these individuals would reject him, then what purpose would the strong delusion even serve? It would seem to be a redundancy or a surety to make certain they don’t change their minds.
The latter illustrates Tim’s point brilliantly.
I don’t personally see the point of the former but if I were to serve as an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian apologist I would put forth the theory that God, having seen their choice of ultimate rejection, strengthened their disbelief in order to make them peculiar vessels of unbelief to challenge, strengthen, and ultimately sanctify Christ’s bride. They are the ones God appointed, because of their unbelief, to do the unthinkably dirty deeds needed for salvation (such as crucify the Lord).
No… the spirit of delusion here isn’t adding on unbelief… that would be redundant… the spirit of delusion here allows the unbelievers to not only “unbelieve” but to believe specific falsities.
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Here it indicates, to me, that God is sending the spirit post unbelief… not causing unbelief… “who did not believe”… not “and not believe”.
Mark,
Nobody’s saying that God causes people to disbelieve. The point here is that the Thessalonian infidels have merited God’s reprobation by their unbelief, but why is it that this isn’t the case for all of us who are by nature hostile to God and children of his wrath? Technically, we all deserve to be reprobated just like God did to the Thessalonian unbelievers, but he didn’t. In fact, we are among those who have come to faith. So the way I see it, it seems God clearly has particularity on this point.
The fact that the Bible says we cannot come to His Son unless He grants it proves this (Jn. 6:65).
jephrbny… because God knows our hearts and our choices… either present, past, or future. He knows His children and He spares those of us who would have faith in Him.
In an attempt not to get too broad, Mark, I would like to focus in on the concept of God’s knowledge relative to us. You rightly affirm that God’s knowledge is eternal, and that we are not. So, then, does God’s eternal knowledge of our choices determine our choices, or do our choices determine God’s knowledge of them. In short, what wags what? Also, how does Eph 1:11 help us in deciding this question? Eph 1:11 asserts that God’s predestination “works” because he works all things according to the counsel of his will.
I believe neither wags, Tim. If God’s knowledge is eternal… then His knowledge of our choices is eternal. Given this, He does not predetermine our choices and our choices do not predetermine God’s knowledge.
It is a difficult thing to grasp… as well as convey in type… what I believe. We are not eternal… but the idea of us is, since God has always known about us and what we will do. So, while our choices don’t wag God, He doesn’t determine our choices either… because He and His knowledge of our choices has always existed… nothing can come before and therefore neither wags neither.
Mark, what is the source of God’s knowledge of my decision to reply to your last comment? In the final analysis, there are only two options: 1) God or 2) something outside of God.
I assume, based upon what you’ve written, that you reject option 2, but I’m not totally sure.
I affirm option 1 – God’s knowledge must be God’s alone, not derived from anywhere else, since God is self-sufficient. God cannot be the eternal observer… observing from all eternity what will come to pass. Do you agree that far?
If so, then let’s distinguish between divine knowledge (DK) and divine decree (DD). DK (which is totally God’s, since he is a se, totally of and from himself) is not causative. DK is not properly the cause of a thing. Divine omniscience (not divine perception) gives rise to DD. That is, God knows what he will cause to come to pass, and then (speaking logically, not temporally) he decrees it. DD is properly causative. DD is the divine causation which gives rise to his work ad extra, outside himself. God’s work ad extra is distinguished into creation and providence. These two are the “external” working out of the DD, which is based upon DK. It is God’s providential working of all things which Paul speaks of in Eph 1:11.
So, you’re quite right to say that DK isn’t causative. I fear, however, that you’re thinking of DK in a way that makes God an observer, not the source of his own knowledge. If God is not a se in his knowledge, then this necessarily follows: God’s knowledge, decree, and works of creation and providence are manifestly dependent upon creation. Even if his knowledge of them is eternal, this conclusion necessarily follows. Thus, a great deal of God is made to be dependent upon creation. How does that sit with you? I can’t dig it. This is why classical Christianity (in toto) has rejected that God’s knowledge is discursive (attained by observation) and asserted that it is intuitive (an eternal, self-sourced, single [simple] act).
Sorry this comment is so long, brother, but I want to make clear how much rides on how we “source” God’s knowledge.
Tim… thanks for the information.
What I am having difficulty with, from what I can gather of your opinion, is “infinite”
If God is infinite… then so is His knowlege. They are both without cause.
Within His knowledge is His creation… their choices, their actions, their destiny.
He cannot cause their choices or determine them because they have always been “gonna happen that way”. Unless you submit there was a given point, when God determined their choices. If you do that, then you say that something else, maybe not creation, caused God to do this and He learns from something.
But you cannot do that… therefore our choices cannot be pre-determined. That would mean there is a point of determination somewhere way in the past. The term determination doesn’t even work here… for something that has always been.
Good, Mark. I think I’m tracking with you. We’ll keep in min that we’re speaking of eternal things, thus there is not properly before or after in a temporal sense. I think, however, we can distinguish before and after in a logical sense. I’ve tried to present a structure in which God knows (of himself) before (again, logically not temporally) he decrees, before he creates and governs.
You say: ‘He cannot cause their choices or determine them because they have always been “gonna happen that way”.’ This makes God somehow subject to things, not things subject to him. Do you see that?
Let me add another layer that *might* be helpful:
DK, being infinite, includes ALL possible knowledge, even knowledge of things that are not. God knows all the universes he could have created and all their myriad of causes, effects, possibilities, and details. God, however, chose to create THIS universe. That is where DD comes in. He decreed THIS universe out of his infinite knowledge. So, you see that God is not “subject” to things as they are, but has decreed that things be exactly as the are. So, there was a *logical* point at which God “chose” to created this universe and to decree it in a determinative way, which decree gave rise to his “acts” of creation and providence. Of course, DK and DD are all eternal, but we must speak of this in human language, which is necessarily temporally conditioned. Thus, when you say: “Unless you submit there was a given point, when God determined their choices. If you do that, then you say that something else, maybe not creation, caused God to do this and He learns from something,” I say that there was such a “time,” not temporally but logically. However, it does not follow that God learns from something outside himself at all, for he’s drawing on his own infinite knowledge to decree THIS universe. Hope that puts a finer point on it.
Tim, now you are going against what you originally and have always stated. You have always stated to me that you believe that God cannot learn… that His mind never changes. However, now you state that there was a given point where God chose to create this specific universe. If he chose, it means He learned something… something caused Him to make a choice.
Put it this way… a choice is making a decision when faced with two or more decisions. If there came a specific time where God actually made this choice, it means He had not made up His mind before that choice and something happened to help Him make up His mind.
If this is not true… then logically God did not make a choice because He had always, infinitely, been planning on creating this universe with these people who He always knew would make these choices and He would die for those He already knew would choose Him and were thus His children.
I still do not see how God can predetermine our choices if His knowledge of us is infinite. Just the term determine requires a starting point… doesn’t it? Because of if what we are going to choose has always been… there is no determination… only knowledge. I don’t understand it myself unless even God has a starting point outside of our understanding, which I cannot conceive.
Mark, the first two paragraphs of your last comment are confused because you’re not keeping logical priority distinct from temporal order. God’s knowledge is logically prior to his decree, but not temporally so. DK and DD are eternal, thus, before and after simply don’t apply, at least not in the way they do to us in creation.
If that is firmly in hand, then it will be clear that DK is logically prior to DD. Further, DK is “broader” than DD, as DK includes all possible things, while DD terminates on what actually is.
Tim, I disagree that you can throw the word “logically” into a sentence and that makes it so. God’s knowledge and His decree are on even keel… one cannot proceed the other simply because both are infinite. I understand that to make sense to our human minds we have to put one before the other… however, that simply dumbs it down to our senses and causes us to come up with other theological opinions from that starting point. Science does this alot and they are often proven wrong soon after.
So, if we start from the point that we just cannot fathom eternity or infinite knowledge and decree, I believe we must confirm that we also cannot say why God chooses us. To some it makes more sense in a relational way… that God chooses us based on our love for Him. To some it makes more sense in a more determined way… that we love God because He chose us.
Also, after thinking about it, I disagree with you regarding DK being broader than DD. You stated that DD terminates on what actually is and DK includes all possible things. I can’t see that… I see that both include all possible things and terminate on what actually is, because all possible things is what actually is. Nothing else is possible if God has not done it or deemed it to be. Or can you fathom what would be possible that already is actual? And I don’t mean possible because you can imagine it… such as a world without sin… because a world without sin is not possible… simply because it could not have been created by the God we worship. A perfect God can only perfectly create, and He has already done that.
So God COULD NOT have chosen to create this universe out of a vast number of universes that He could have created. This universe is the only one He could have created because He is a perfect creator and there can only be one perfect creation.
Thanks for the thoughts, Mark. It doesn’t appear that we’re making forward progress. Maybe part of it is that we need to sharpen a definition or two. Would you define DD for me, please? When you speak of God’s eternal decree, what do you mean?
As to other possible universes: couldn’t God have created earth with two moons? How about people with three arms? These are just physical differences, but they’re certainly conceivable, as are myriad of other non-existent possibilities. That THIS created universe was “very good” doesn’t at all mean that another one couldn’t be “very good” also. What you’ve managed to do, curiously, is to make creation an external limiting factor on both DK and DD.
I do not want to come off as rude here, but if you are indicating that forward progress is that I have to come to the same conclusion that you are arriving at, I disagree. You do not hold the answer here. The answer remains unclear and we have made forward progress, because I am understanding more and more of what you believe.
Divine Decree: God’s adopted and set-forth plan for everything and is partly accomplished via secondary causes because of man’s free will. The sovereignty of God and the free will of man coexist in human history by Divine Decree.
No… God could not have created earth with two moons… simply because He had always known the earth He would create and since He doesn’t learn new things, that would and has never deviated, thus it isn’t possible. Same with men with 3 arms and the myriad of other non-existent possibliities.
The problem I see you are having is using our vision of what possible is. Sure it is possible for us to do something else because we are imperfect and finite and we learn new things all the time. God, however, is infinite, doesn’t learn, and is perfect. All of those other “possibilities” would not be possible simply because the plan has always been in place and the possibility of any other plan or creation is thus made impossible.
The term conceivable is different than possible. Sure God can conceive of anything… but that doesn’t make them possible. God cannot do the impossible. But He can do all that is possible. He cannot make a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. He cannot make a square round or water without hydrogen.
Yeah… I didn’t mean that I got the answers and you’re coming up short. What I meant is that the more I explain the farther away you seem, at least at points.
I think you’ve defined DD well. Certainly good enough for our purposes.
So God COULD NOT have created earth with two moons, huh? I think we’re blurring a distinction. On the one hand, God does what he’s eternally intended to do. In THAT sense, nothing else could be; there are no other possibilities. In this, we quite agree. (By the way, this all by itself is enough to secure the idea that human choices are determined by God from all eternity.) But on the other hand, God is free, is he not? He is free to create whatever he wants. He’s eternally decreed THIS creation, but that does not *theoretically* preclude another creation. This theoretical (contrary-to-fact) “possibility” is logically necessary. One can ask questions like: “Does God know what the world would have been like if George Washington were never born?” If one answers NO, then one effectively denies that DK includes EVERTHING. How, after all, does God not know what I can conceive of. Certainly DK includes all my ideas, right? On the other hand, if one answers YES, then one affirms that DK includes more than what actually is. Hence, the “possible” alternate universes and all. That’s why I say that DK is “broader” than DD.
Now, to put things back in focus, I quite agree with you that God’s eternal plans do not change, for he does not change. THIS world is what God’s decreed, and if it is precisely as he decreed it to be. Now, if he is completely self-sufficient and absolute in himself, then it follows that he both knows and decrees all human choices, which they in turn (being derived and created) choose freely and not by compulsion. There must be one, absolute starting point… that’s God, not us. He wags us.
Yes, He knows our choices because He predetermines them.
I do not believe that is correct. If it is… God’s predetermination caused me to not believe it.
I would not say God’s predetermination is what caused unbelief in you. Unbelief is in everyone’s heart by nature. It would be more appropriate to say that God predetermined to not do anything about your natural sinful inclination (which is to disbelieve), so as to finally disbelieve this biblical truth.
In any case, the Bible is clear that God does not merely (fore)know our future choices, but He himself predetermines them.
Sorry, Jeph… nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that God predetermines our future choices. That may be an assumption you come to regarding certain verses, but in reality those verses say nothing about God’s choosing our choices. Please read… http://www.gotquestions.org/fate-destiny.html
This site is actually pro-Calvinist and it does not recognize that God makes our choices for us. And since I agree with most of Calviistic teachings, this is a website I use quite often for some questions I battle with… along with prayer and my Pastor. We have to leave the mystery in free will and predestination instead of making it one or the other. Because it is not one or the other… but rather both.
Mark, God doesn’t predetermine human choices?! Really? How, when God works ALL THINGS according to his will (specifically for the predestined salvation of his elect, which certainly includes their choices – Eph 1:11), does this not include human choices? The king’s heart is in God hand, and he turns it where ever he wants (Prov 21:1). The King’s heart is that by which he thinks, feels, and makes decisions. These are just the two texts that come to mind as I’m thinking about other things. The Bible is full of them.
What holds you back, Mark, from submitting to the thorough-going truth of God’s absolute sovereignty? God’s knowledge is NOT dependent on his creation. God freely and sovereignly ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but not in such a way as to do violence to the will of creatures, nor to take away the liberty or contingency of secondary causes. Please read the Westminster Confession of Faith – chapter 3 is particularly helpful with this discussion. Here – give it a read when you have 10 or 15 mins:
http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Tim, respectfully, how does being predestined according to His will mean that He controls our choices? It certainly means that He can… and does, probably, at times… but why does it have to mean He always does? Why can it not mean that He has predetermined because of knowing our will?
I read the Westminster Confession of Faith way back when I first started communing with you, Tim. Reading something that has such great pull, does not make it Truth. Of course God’s knowledge is NOT dependent on His creation… that is not being said. Since He has always been, and we are finite… infinite knowledge cannot be nudged by what may or may not occur. He has always known our decisions… always… so our choices, freely made, are and have always been known by Him and this knowledge is not dependent upon us because it is infinite and we are not… although the idea of us is infinite along with His knowledge so you might say they are dependent upon each other….
And submitting to the Truth of God’s absolute sovereignty doesn’t mean one has to submit to your idea of His sovereignity. God can do whatever He wants… and you limit His sovereignty by saying He cannot bestow free will on His creatures. And by saying that He loses His sovereignty by doing so… is false, IMHO… and respectfully.
Mark,
Why does God have to predetermine things which He already knew would certainly come to pass? Why the redundancy?
Tim,
Questions like the ones you pose in this series might be marginalized by those zealous for a particular notion of Calvinist orthodoxy. Rejection of the thesis “God desires the salvation of all men, even the reprobate” is necessarily “Hyper-Calvinism” to some. Your line of Biblical reasoning is decidedly inconvenient for those committed to gerrymandering the mainstream of Reformed thought under their own feet (to borrow a phrase from Bahnsen).
Tim,
wouldn’t the classical Arminian argue that people are by nature hostile to God but via preventient grace, each person then is free to make the choice to love or hate the truth – thus because they reject the truth – they freely chose to reject the gospel via prevenient grace – God hardens them as to their choice? Such an example is Romans and those who give up natural relations.
So it seems they would argue that it’s compatible to say God desires them to be saved but also has the right to harden them into their choices. Of course that raises a question I’ve often asked of them: Then death is not the point of certainty when it’s too late, often God turns his back on people before they die. And does God desire them to be saved? It seems the Arminian has to answer, no, at a certain point God does not want them, or people enternally condemened to hell to be saved. Which is a major function of why I reject Arminian theology – it rejects the perfect love of God as expressed by Paul in Cor 13.
Hello, Gene. Your assessment of the classical Arminian position sounds pretty accurate to me. I reject it because “prevenient grace” is a contrived doctrine that has a hard time being consistent with other aspects of biblical teaching. I think your reason for rejecting Arminianism (at least the one expressed above) is interesting and inadequate. In order to make God love everyone completely and eternally, one would have to refashion the God of the Bible a good deal, get rid of his wrath, not to mention hell, which (last I checked) is not a place where God expresses his 1-Cor-13 love to those who are there.
I do not believe your assessment is accurate at all. Death is the point of certainty when it is too late. Your rejection of this only works if you take God’s infinite knowledge from the equation and pretend He wouldn’t know your choices up until death. So He has freedom to harden anytime He wants based on present, past, and future knowledge. It does not cause the Arminian to answer, no. God always wants them… but only on His terms… freely in relationship. He has just always known those who will enter into relationship with Him.
Mark are you’re saying though God hardens them to take the mark of the beast, and if they should take it, God still will receive them if they repent before they die? If God hardens them to believe the lie of the delusion (which he sends) how can they believe unless he softens them? I believe Calvinists own this property here.
Gene… the point is moot because they wouldn’t repent before they die. God hardens them because of his infinite knowledge of them and who they are. They are not children of God so whether or not He hardens them or not, they would not choose Him.
Do not see how the Calvinist owns this… are you not understanding that God knows our choices before we make them? And His infinite knowledge and plan is based on everything He knows and wills?
Tim, under the Arminian paradigm, I’m saying that at some point Love has to give up on them. And according to Arminian theology, he does. Therefore, the love of God as expressed by Paul in Cor 13 does not always apply – for at some point in time God no longer persues the lost – the shepeherd stops looking for his lost sheep – the coin is conisdered gone.
I realize that Calvinism is very different. But Arminians want to argue that God’s love (Cor 13) is true for all – except I find the Arminian definition of love to give up – to keep records or wrongs – to fail to reconcile. So I see no reason to stand with Arminians that God loves all men with the love Paul describes. I see Calvinism does because God loves the elect this way and he NEVER GIVES UP on them; his love ENRUDES/PERSEVERES ALL THINGS. And logically it seems horrendous to argue that God torments people whom he loves with a perfect agape fatherly love.
Gene, your summation of God’s love via the Arminian’s view is wrong. You just define “love” and the continuance of love incorrectly. Does a Father stop loving his children when they choose badly? Even when they no longer love him? No. Love is not contingent upon us… it is contingent upon the lover… God.
I do not understand the “giving up” aspect as it indicates that God “tries”. God does not try because He knows all and all that will come to pass.
Also, God does not torture or torment those who do not choose Him… we do this to ourselves and we are already condemned to this. God simply rescues those who turn from sin toward Him.
And logically it seems horrendous to argue that God would create an entire world of people and not give each and every one of them the same love and ability to escape hell with His perfect agape Fatherly love. To create certain people to burn in hell for his glory does not indicate that type of love and I am at a loss to discern why anybody would deem that it is.
And the biggest concern I have… regarding this comment section… is the arguments between predetermination of every choice vs. free will. Those in favor of the first would have to concede that the latter only argue against because God has made that choice for them. And if this is the case, why the argument? Our opinion won’t change until God allows it to change and we will keep arguing with you. In fact, every word written here by me, is because of God’s choice for me and I cannot help it.
If this is not true, please explain where I am wrong on this matter.
Suggestion : work with concievable rather than possible.
Look at the comment thread on your blog the chronology is kinda messed up.
Dan, the blog groups comments together by conversation, so it kind of messes up the chronology. As to “conceivable” vs. “possible,” I’m cool with that. I suspect that Mark would be happier with that terminology, too.
I miss you, buddy. You should move to Scappoose.
[...] together. This is no more true than in the area of theology proper – the doctrine of God. In a recent discussion with my friend, Mark Ketchum, I’ve been thinking about how so much follows from an [...]