Answering An Argument Against God's Ordination of All Things

[Littlejoe]

"can be" and "will be" are not as explicit as "is", but one of them has to be there: Prophecy can't be explained without the knowledge of either "can be" or "will be".
The question then continues further - in part answered by the preponderance of prophecies that are (explicitly or implicitly) conditional, with the scant few that are not conditional being fairly short range.
Far future tends to be conditional, near future sometimes can be absolute.

Well, I guess I should clarify...can be or will be could be there and not require foreknowledge, just intent. IOW's, God would not necessarily need foreknowledge to tell someone what He is going to do.

[tabibito]

Hadn't thought of that possibility - I will do certainly doesn't require a knowledge of "can be" or "will be" ... but the concept would mean that (for example) God directly acted to get Jesus crucified.

[Hornet]

So far so good.

You added to the text. The word "natural" isn't there.

It wasn't until St. Augustine's writings in the 4th century that anyone in the early church interpreted the New Testament to teach that God individually predestines certain people go to heaven, and leaves all others (predestines them) to go to hell. Anyone who knows church history knows that the Reformation and Calvinist doctrine has a direct line to Augustine. But I believe that Paul was using the common Jewish practice of his time and was writing about corporate election in the passage above. Jews thought of themselves as God's chosen people because they were Jewish. The Nation of Israel was elected for service not the individual. Not every Jew born in Israel was part of God's chosen people...only those that kept coventant with God were considered "True Israelites." Paul doesn’t say that God chose us to be in Christ. He rather says God chose us in Christ to be holy and blameless. What God chose from the foundation of the world was that whoever is in Christ will be holy and blameless.

Doesn't Romans 8:29-30 and John 6:37 imply that God chooses certain individuals for salvation?

Romans 8:28-30 says, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." It sounds like God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified certain individuals. The idea of God's foreknowledge is that He knows people, not just facts about them. It is the idea that God planned to set His love upon them. Moreover, everyone whom He calls is justified. Doesn't this imply that God ensures that His people will come to Christ?

John 6:37 says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." All those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son.

[tabibito]

Doesn't Romans 8:29-30 and John 6:37 imply that God chooses certain individuals for salvation?

Assuredly - that choice is restricted to those who receive him (John 1:11-12), anyone who does what is right (Acts 10:34-35 [35b in particular]) and you even quoted another reference already (Rom 8:28, below)

Romans 8:28-30 says, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew,

Those people of the past whom he knew, the interpretation being shown by Paul's reference to people foreknowing him from the time prior to his becoming a Christian.

He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

yes - note that he knew them before he predestined them. note further the references showing that God only chooses some people - and that Jesus claims to have never known "workers of evil" who call him Lord, even though they have performed miracles in his name.

and these whom He predestined, He also called;

You mean like Cornelius? ... "Hey Cornelius, I know you for a man who does what is right, come on up here." or "Hey - you the repentant sinner, I can see you're (now) doing what is right, come on up here."

and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." It sounds like God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified certain individuals. The idea of God's foreknowledge is that He knows people, not just facts about them. It is the idea that God planned to set His love upon them. Moreover, everyone whom He calls is justified. Doesn't this imply that God ensures that His people will come to Christ?

That it do - and there they stay for as long as they so choose.

John 6:37 says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." All those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son.

Now - if Jesus had said, will never leave or be cast out ... that would make an interesting point.

[Littlejoe]

Doesn't Romans 8:29-30 and John 6:37 imply that God chooses certain individuals for salvation?

No, in context, it doesn't at all. Calvinist (IMHO) overlook the context of the whole chapter to proof-text these two verses. First of all, the "Foreknew" that Paul is using here a sort of "knowing" that is not mere intellectual knowledge, it's an intimate affection type knowing. (we see this in Romans 11:2) when he talks about foreknowing his chosen people (Israel), but he doesn't mean in that verse to say that God knew about these individual people ahead of time but that God loved these people ahead of time.

Now, even though God (fore)-loved the nation of Israel, there were still individual Jews who clearly rejected God's love for them. (Read the O.T. Prophets). So, the "foreknowing" is toward a class of people, not individuals.

What does all that mean? Well, if we go back to Romans 8 and look we see that first of all, Paul is reassuring the Roman Christians (many of them were converted Jews) that 1) They were indeed grafted into the "family of God" and were going to be saved. 2) God is faithful to save them if they endure their present suffering/persecution.
Rom 8:23 - 25:

“23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (Rom 8:23-25 NKJV)

3) The "saints" Paul refers to in verse 27, isn't N.T. Saints, but O.T. Saints that he "foreknew". He's assuring them that just as God was faithful in the O.T. to preserve and protect the David's, Abrahams, and Isaiah's, that he would surely do that for them.

Romans 8:28-30 says, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

It sounds like God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified certain individuals. The idea of God's foreknowledge is that He knows people, not just facts about them.

No, not individuals. Read vs 29 again.
"29 For those whom he foreknew he predestined..." So, the “foreknowledge” Paul speaks about is limited. Paul says “those who God foreknew he predestined…” This implies there are others God did not foreknow...how can that be possible if he's talking about individuals? Nor can this passage be used to support that idea that God predestines who will and will not be in Christ. Read the text carefully. What is predestined is not who will be in or out, but what will happen to all who are in. They will eventually be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and glorified. God predestines the consequence of the choice to be in Christ or not, but he doesn’t predestine the choice itself. Scripture is clear that God wants every person to put their trust in his Son, and through his Spirit God empowers us toward this end (2 Pet. 3:9).

It is the idea that God planned to set His love upon them. Moreover, everyone whom He calls is justified. Doesn't this imply that God ensures that His people will come to Christ?

No, rather in context, Paul simply wanted the Christians in Rome to know that they were covered by the blood that covered the saints of old and the same God that brought them out of the immense persecutions they endured would bring them out of those they were enduring.

John 6:37 says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." All those whom the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son.

The Gospel of John does emphasize the divine control of God especially over the ministry of Christ and his death and resurrection...and includes the development of the faith of his followers. The ability to come to Christ is a gift of God, not a work, we all agree on that...however, along with that emphasis, we see a contrasting emphasis on the universal, all encompassing love of God. John 3:16 says that: "God so loved the world..." also in John 12:32 - 33 John says that God's will is to draw ALL people to Christ. If you read 1 John 2:2 he says that Jesus paid the price for everyone:

2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So, we have to reconcile these seemingly contrasting points. Saying that God has decided from before creation which particular individuals will and will not be saved while ignoring the other point that God wants all people to be saved ends up with God appearing not just arbitrary, but even duplicitous in saying he loves everyone and seemingly offers salvation to all, while enabling only a few of those to actually come to Christ when he could have just as easily enabled everyone to come to salvation. The Father’s “drawing” (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are the unseen forces that work in conjunction with (or against), but not in control of, the human will. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. If a human heart is unwilling, however, it is hardened to God’s leading and comes under the influence of Satan.

This is the only way that if a person comes to faith in Christ, they therefore, must credit God for graciously drawing them. But if they refuse to believe, they have only themselves to blame, and stay true to all facets of the text.

[lee_merrill]

… note that he knew them before he predestined them.

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world..." (1 Peter 1:20) does not imply knowing Jesus' known-beforehand choices.

Now - if Jesus had said, will never leave or be cast out ... that would make an interesting point.

But Jesus said "he who comes to me", not "he who comes to me and never leaves"...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

... but he doesn't mean in that verse to say that God knew about these individual people ahead of time but that God loved these people ahead of time.

Yet how can God love a group of people without loving individuals?

The "saints" Paul refers to in verse 27, isn't N.T. Saints, but O.T. Saints that he "foreknew". He's assuring them that just as God was faithful in the O.T. to preserve and protect the David's, Abrahams, and Isaiah's, that he would surely do that for them.

Can you find this in a commentary? Surely "the saints" refers to God's people on earth, here and now.

This implies there are others God did not foreknow...how can that be possible if he's talking about individuals?

Because foreknowledge is about relationship, not simple knowledge (see 1 Peter 1:20).

Scripture is clear that God wants every person to put their trust in his Son...

Agreed.

Saying that God has decided from before creation which particular individuals will and will not be saved while ignoring the other point that God wants all people to be saved ends up with God appearing not just arbitrary, but even duplicitous in saying he loves everyone and seemingly offers salvation to all, while enabling only a few of those to actually come to Christ when he could have just as easily enabled everyone to come to salvation.

Well, I believe we're given reason to hope that God will choose everyone!

"For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" (Rom. 11:32-33)

Blessings,
Lee

[Littlejoe]

Yet how can God love a group of people without loving individuals?

I don't understand the question, perhaps you can clarify? God does what he does, explaining HOW God does something is a tough task is it not?

Moreover, it's a common mistake that we as western Christians make in reading individualism into scripture where none exist. Israelites were for the most part, a nation of priests, even though many through out the O.T. rejected God, yet Israel was still God's chosen people. So, I don't think Paul's thinking all the sudden changed from group/corporate election to individual election. Chapter 11 seems to make that abundantly clear.

Can you find this in a commentary? Surely "the saints" refers to God's people on earth, here and now.

I honestly don't have time to search every commentary to find one to back me up...but, the answer seems self evident with a bit of critical thinking. Saints obviously can mean present, future or past...correct? So, we have to look at the text itself to determine what Paul means here. I believe Paul is promising the current Saints that God is working on their behalf by referencing the past Saints. My reasoning is found in the next verse.

“28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Rom 8:28-29 NKJV)

Notice how Paul words this verse, "...and we know that..." How would these new believers in Roman know that? They are under persecution, and have been for a bit...so, how do these Roman Christians know that God works “all things out for good for those who love the Lord?” Answer: because they had been taught the Old Testament and they knew that God had worked in the lives of those Old Testament saints and He had brought them through untold difficulties!
Continuing on to 29:

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 NKJV)

So, they would know from existing Scripture at that time, (Old Testament as the New Testament wasn't fully written or compiled yet) what God has done for the Old Testament saints, those that He “already knew, He predestined...
(and the Greek verbs here are different than in vs. 16) Here all the verbs in the Greek are aorist indicative, (i.e. already completed) in 16 they are aorist passive subjective (will happen). Why does Paul switch the tenses in the Greek? Because he's talking about the past here, not the present
...to be conformed to the image or likeness of His Son. Even though they all died long before Jesus was born, they are still a part of the promises of God! They are the example available at the time. God planned from the beginning to bring their salvation to completion in Christ Jesus. Moreover, those He predestined (aorist indicative, completed action) He justified (aorist indicative, completed action) and those He justified He glorified (aorist indicative, completed action).

I think that if Paul had intended to convey any notion that he was speaking to the Roman Christians as the "Saints" in this verse, he would have used the same tense he used previously in verse 16, (that being the aorist passive subjective). He didn't do that because he was speaking here of the Old Testament saints who had already died but God had provided hope for.

Agreed.

Cool!

Well, I believe we're given reason to hope that God will choose everyone!

"For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" (Rom. 11:32-33)

Blessings,
Lee

Are you espousing a form of Universalism here?!?

[tabibito]

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world..." (1 Peter 1:20) does not imply knowing Jesus' known-beforehand choices.

The Logos was known before the foundation of the cosmos ... Where is the problem?

But Jesus said "he who comes to me", not "he who comes to me and never leaves"...

Blessings,
Lee

Neither does it say that the one who comes will never be permitted to leave. However, lest it be thought that statement might indicate an impasse:
παραμενω (parameno - stays near) James 1:25 （παραμεινας - stays near) translated as persevere
μενω (meno - remain/stay) John 15:4,6,7 (μεινη it remains, μεινητε you (pl) remain) translated as abide [[John 15:6 If a person remains not in me, he is cast forth]] μενων (menon - remaining) 2 John 1:9 translated as abideth

He who comes to me and remains is well attested - even in this thoroughly incomplete list.

[The Remonstrant]

There is an argument I heard that is against the view that God ordains everything that comes to pass. How would you respond to it?

If God ordains everything that comes to pass, then God ordains that Christians will not use their God-given strength to overcome sin in certain circumstances.
If God ordains that Christians will not use their God-given strength to overcome sin in certain circumstances, then sin is unavoidable in certain circumstances.
If sin is unavoidable in certain circumstances, then this would be inconsistent with the teaching of 1 Corinthians 10:13, which teaches that God will provide a way to escape the temptation to sin.

Conclusion: If God ordains everything that comes to pass, hen[ce] this would be inconsistent with the teaching of 1 Corinthians 10:13, which teaches that God will provide a way to escape the temptation to sin.

As a non-Calvinist, I would deny that God foreordains all things. I would say that God foreordains some things and allows others. All falls within or under the scope of divine governance. However, I would deny that, in order to be considered truly sovereign, God must have an exhaustive, eternal decree that disallows any form of non-deterministic, contra-causal creaturely freedom.

[lee_merrill]

I don't understand the question, perhaps you can clarify? God does what he does, explaining HOW God does something is a tough task is it not?

No, I'm asking how God can logically love a group, how you logically could love your family, without loving the individuals within that group.

So, I don't think Paul's thinking all the sudden changed from group/corporate election to individual election. Chapter 11 seems to make that abundantly clear.

So Paul's commands to righteous behavior are not applicable to individuals? Only to a group?

"...and we know that..." How would these new believers in Roman know that? They are under persecution, and have been for a bit...so, how do these Roman Christians know that God works “all things out for good for those who love the Lord?” Answer: because they had been taught the Old Testament and they knew that God had worked in the lives of those Old Testament saints and He had brought them through untold difficulties!

"... to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints." (Rom. 1:7)

"... and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom 8:27)

Surely these verses mean Paul is addressing his readers as the saints.

(and the Greek verbs here are different than in vs. 16) Here all the verbs in the Greek are aorist indicative, (i.e. already completed) in 16 they are aorist passive subjective (will happen). Why does Paul switch the tenses in the Greek? Because he's talking about the past here, not the present

I'm not following you here, Rom. 8:16 is present active indicative.

I think that if Paul had intended to convey any notion that he was speaking to the Roman Christians as the "Saints" in this verse, he would have used the same tense he used previously in verse 16, (that being the aorist passive subjective). He didn't do that because he was speaking here of the Old Testament saints who had already died but God had provided hope for.

Well, again, I don't think you'll find this in a commentary. If what you are saying is correct Rom. 8:31 should read "if God was for them, who can be against us?"

Source: Believer's Church Bible Commentary

Paul introduces the thesis by setting in confrontation the present reality of suffering and future glory. The suffering Christians experience in the present age (lit., “the now time”) cannot be compared with the end-time glory to be revealed.

© Copyright Original Source

Are you espousing a form of Universalism here?!?

Yes, "soft universalism", being convinced that we are given reason to hope that all will be saved. As opposed to hard universalism, the claim that all will certainly be saved.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The Logos was known before the foundation of the cosmos ... Where is the problem?

That foreknowledge is about relationship, not about knowing a person's future choices.

He who comes to me and remains is well attested - even in this thoroughly incomplete list.

Yes, there are verses that indicate we must remain, and the way Calvinists have interpreted this is that those who are chosen will indeed remain:

"This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: 'I have not lost one of those you gave me.' " (Jn 18:9)

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Pe 1:10–11)

So part of not stumbling means being sure of our calling and election.

But I agree that there are verses that warn of falling away! Perhaps the best counsel is to teach all the verses as they stand, and the Lord will do his work.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

As a non-Calvinist, I would deny that God foreordains all things. I would say that God foreordains some things and allows others. All falls within or under the scope of divine governance. However, I would deny that, in order to be considered truly sovereign, God must have an exhaustive, eternal decree that disallows any form of non-deterministic, contra-causal creaturely freedom.

Or maybe there is real freedom only within the will of God! Real choices to be made by people, yet God remains truly sovereign, and in complete control.

Blessings,
Lee

[Littlejoe]

No, I'm asking how God can logically love a group, how you logically could love your family, without loving the individuals within that group.

Again, why is it impossible to love a group of people? I have a very close knit extended family on my fathers side. I love this family...I love how we support one another, how we respond to one another. Our yearly family reunions are happy fun filled times. It's something I'm familar with so I don't see the problem with God choosing a group and loving that group. I don't love every individual of that family, (though I certainly like them all...mostly ) So, I'm sorry, but your point doesn't make sense to me.

So Paul's commands to righteous behavior are not applicable to individuals? Only to a group?

You continue to confuse me with your points...and don't seem to be really addressing my points. Christians, as a group, are called to righteous behavior (though righteous behavior isn't even really the thrust of Romans 8 so...) That doesn't negate the individual mandate.

"... to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints." (Rom. 1:7)

"... and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom 8:27)

Surely these verses mean Paul is addressing his readers as the saints.

And again, not really answering the point, it's almost like a red herring. Again, Paul is telling the current Saints in Rome that they can KNOW ...God works all things together for good for those who love the Lord..." by looking to the Old Testament Saints. They haven't experienced it yet, so how could they know other than to look at what God has done in the past?

I'm not following you here, Rom. 8:16 is present active indicative.

Yes, you're correct, sorry, not paying close enough attention to what I was typing...
However, my point still stands as it's a different tense, 16 is (as you said) present active indicative (happening now) and in 29 it's aorist indicative (already happened)

Well, again, I don't think you'll find this in a commentary. If what you are saying is correct Rom. 8:31 should read "if God was for them, who can be against us?"

Well, commentaries aren't the end all be all...so forgive me if I take that with a grain of salt...
Nope, once Paul has firmly established in their minds that things are going to work out for them as they did for the O.T. saints, he can now lump them all together.

Yes, "soft universalism", being convinced that we are given reason to hope that all will be saved. As opposed to hard universalism, the claim that all will certainly be saved.

Blessings,
Lee

I'm not opposed to that concept that at least all are given a chance, it does say "...that evey knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."

[lee_merrill]

Again, why is it impossible to love a group of people? I have a very close knit extended family on my fathers side. I love this family...I love how we support one another, how we respond to one another.

And you love the group by loving the individuals, is what I am after--you can't separate the two.

Christians, as a group, are called to righteous behavior (though righteous behavior isn't even really the thrust of Romans 8 so...) That doesn't negate the individual mandate.

Yes, so the individual mandate and the command to the group are bound together.

Again, Paul is telling the current Saints in Rome that they can KNOW ...God works all things together for good for those who love the Lord..." by looking to the Old Testament Saints. They haven't experienced it yet, so how could they know other than to look at what God has done in the past?

Because knowledge can be given by God directly: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law." (Rom. 3:19) This knowledge here in Rom. 3:19 would not seem to be a knowledge based on past experience, instead it's based on insight.

Source: Bible Knowledge Commentary

Believers, Paul began, know of sanctification’s certainty, and that knowledge is gained by spiritual perception.

© Copyright Original Source

And how could Paul's readers know that all things work together for good by examining past history? Knowing this involves some measure of faith, that God will work out everything that happens to his saints, for good.

16 is (as you said) present active indicative (happening now) and in 29 it's aorist indicative (already happened)

But what I find in the commentaries is that past tense represents certainty, not time in the past:

Source: Bible Knowledge Commentary

Between the start and finish of God’s plan are three steps: being called (cf. Rom. 1:6; 8:28), being justified (cf. 3:24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9), and being glorified (cf. 8:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4), and in the process not a single person is lost. God completes His plan without slippage. “Glorified” is in the past tense because this final step is so certain that in God’s eyes it is as good as done.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Word Biblical Commentary

Paul is obviously looking forward to the consummation of God’s purpose (vv 29–30)

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not opposed to that concept that at least all are given a chance, it does say "...that evey knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."

Very true, and the Isaiah passage being quoted here is translated by some that "every tongue will swear allegiance" (UNASB, cf. Isa. 19:18).

Blessings,
Lee