Is Not-Choosing Still Choosing?

[Rey Reynoso]

Some folk believe that God does not elect individuals for damnation but passes over them to elect other individuals. They might then defend their position by stating God didn't choose to damn them to hell, he allowed them to go in the direction they were already going (or some nuanced version of that).

Question 1: Is not-choosing these individuals, in this system, effectively choosing them for damnation?

Question 2: Why or why not?

Question 3: Does it matter?

[ScottL]

Rey, you love to stir up, don't you. :)

(Side note: Everyone note that Rey is not saying what he believes, he is just pointing to what some believe. It might help alleviate some arguments) :)

In some sense, if one believed the theological position you have spoken of in your statement above, then answering question number 1 in the affirmative or negative will lead to argument around semantics. Based upon how we define our terms, one could argue either way.

In a sense, the answer to question one would be 'No'. God is not choosing the path. Humanity chose the path of sin, spiritual death, and eternal wrath. God did not make Adam and Eve sin, nor us. We have chosen it ourselves. The argument would go that God has chosen to be gracious to some (those called the elect), but passes over others, which then receive eternal wrath. This is not because He favors some over others. He said to Israel that He didn't choose them because they were greater, for they had sinned just as much as the other nations. It was simply God's plan of choosing one nation of which He would begin to outwork His plan of redemption (though this choice is not really comprehended by the finite). The same is true today - God chooses people in which He is bestowing His redemptive plan upon. Not because anyone deserved such. God didn't have to display it to anyone. But He chose to display it to some. The Scripture doesn't tell us how it all happened, but rather it was according the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:5, 11). (Again, this is the premise of the argument, not necessarily my specific belief.)

But one could also answer 'Yes' to question one. In a sense, because God does not choose/elect every individual to which He would display His special grace of redemption, then in that sense, He is choosing not to display that grace, and thus choosing to see them receive eternal wrath (which they deserve anyway because of their sin). Again, the argument goes that neither believers or non-believers deserve the grace. They all deserve wrath. But God chose a people to display that grace to, and 'passed over', and thus, in that sense, chose for them eternal wrath.

So, I guess it always depends on how we define words and terms. Hope you saw how the answer to question one could be 'yes' or 'no', at least from my perspective.

There is also the double predestination passage that Augustine pointed to in Romans 9:22-23 - 'What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...'. This passage speaks of 'vessels of wrath prepared for destruction'. Those who are in this more reformed/Calvanistic camp many time point to this passage for double predestination - God choosing some for grace and some for destruction.

[mem]

Interesting set of questions, Rey. I believe the standard Calvinist treatment of double predestination (though perhaps not Calvin's) is that reprobation is not symmetric to election, that is, that not-choosing is not the same as choosing.

Aristotle recognized four different types of causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. Wikipedia summarizes them for the interested.

My understanding of these is not very nuanced, but I think those who hold that choosing and not-choosing are in fact different recognize God as the final cause of damnation (that is, he ultimately damns the guilty), but recognize humans as the efficient cause of damnation (that is, they damn themselves by their own sin). Maybe this is the sense of Proverbs 16.4? At the same time, I think those who hold this position recognize God as both the final and efficient cause of regeneration—so that man is capable of damning himself, but not saving himself.

My guess is that you will make better sense of the causes than I, so maybe some followup commentary from you would be appropriate to dissect them a bit further.

[Rey Reynoso]

Oh but Scott is completely right: I love stirring up the pot when it comes to thinking these things through. I'll probably wait for more discussion since I know there's some double predestinarians out there.

[Vince]

My random thoughts…
I believe that God is sovereign and that he elects those, whom are his before the foundations of the world, I also believe that everyone is responsible to respond to God’s call to repent and follow Christ and that God will deal fairly with those that hear or don’t hear the Gospel. People who have heard the gospel message can’t say they didn’t have the ability to choose, they choose according to their greatest desire. We choose God if we desire him most or we choose other things if we desire them most, its our choice, maybe our choices are in bondage but never the less you can still call it a choice.
There is major tension and I don’t think any amount of arguments will ever solve it, I cant understand it however I think what’s most important is that we understand that our friends and relatives that do not know Christ are dead in their sins and trespasses, not sick, dead. Therefore it is only God, God alone that can raise them from the dead and make them Born Again. We must present them with the truth of the Gospel, it’s the message of the cross that God has chosen as his means to raise the dead. Thats how he raised us from the dead.

[ScottL]

Acutally, Rey, I think I answered both questions one and two in my post.

In regards to question 3 - does it matter? - I also again choose the double-path of both yes and no. Yes, I would say this matter and is important to discuss and consider, even if this involves discussing things that are less important than the 'essentials'. Thus, because this discussion falls in the 'not as important than the essentials' category, there is a sense in which it does not fully matter.

But, in the end, I lean a little more towards it mattering.

[Gina Mosko]

I'm indebted to Fr. Stephen Freeman's excellent blog for pointing out this commentary from St. John Chrysostom on Romans 9:

"Ver. 20, 2l. 'Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter (Read Jer. xviii. 1–10) power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?'

Here it is not to do away with free-will that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter’s hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone...

And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever..."

[Jennifer]

Question 1: Is not-choosing these individuals, in this system, effectively choosing them for damnation? Yes

Question 2: Why or why not? by not choosing to save them, he is choosing to let them be damned

Question 3: Does it matter?
Yes, because it is a matter of God's nature.
Is God Love?
If God is love then wouldn't he save all of his creation that he could?
Will all be saved?
if not, there must be another variable to deal with and I say that is our will.

[James Gibbons]

Q1. Yes.
Q2. Because there are only two choices, and they are both God’s
Q3. Yes. Because if this doctrine is correct, I do not need to choose Him. And if this doctrine is correct, I don’t get to choose Him. So, why should I even think about Him?

[ScottL]

Gina -

I do appreciate that application of Romans 9 that you quoted above - that the lump of clay is called to obey the words of the potter in all of matters of life. But I am not so sure that is the original context and purpose of Romans 9. It seems to deal more with the overall calling of God on a person's life - to salvation or to eternal wrath. Hence the reference to vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy (reading on to 9:22-23). I'm not sure the passage is about the intricacies of obeying God in our lives, for 'vessels of wrath' will not obey God in that sense of doing His will with their life choices, but they will still be molded as the potter molds, and they still can't talk back to the potter (9:20).

[mem]

Jennifer said:

Question 1: Is not-choosing these individuals, in this system, effectively choosing them for damnation? Yes

Or is God simply allowing nature to take its course?

When mountain climbers fall to their deaths, we can blame God, since he ordained gravity. He's ultimately responsible for the system in which we live. But obviously the climber made a choice to climb the mountain.

By not choosing to save them, he is choosing to let them be damned

This is obviously different than choosing the let them damn themselves, yes?


I don't know that anyone really disagrees with the idea that humans have a will (though precisely what it means for the will to be free is another discussion entirely), because we clearly do. Historically I think the church has rejected the idea that the human can will to do anything good without divine assistance (obviously there are various degrees of this perspective).

In the end, this discussion (like all discussions about predestination and election do) will get back to the Fall and how it has damaged our humanity. I'm not sure if this is exactly the direction Rey is hoping we'll go to answer questions about the causes of damnation.

What I think he's really asking is, "Does [the Reformed view of?] predestination imply that God positively damns the reprobate?" This supposes for the sake of argument that [the Reformed view of] predestination is true.

[Rey Reynoso]

What I think he's really asking is, "Does [the Reformed view of?] predestination imply that God positively damns the reprobate?" This supposes for the sake of argument that [the Reformed view of] predestination is true.


Right.

[Char]

Man I thought you would have posted on preterition long ago Rey.

Preterition is the most commonly held form of double predestination as far as I can tell so I don't see why anyone would deny it is such. Does God say, "Oh I totally forgot about those people"? No. But he does not have an active hand in their damnation except to judge them in the end. Usually when people ask either/or theological questions, I find the answer often ends up being both. So it is with the first question, the answer is both no and yes.

If we throw in the view of evil that I mentioned in the last thread (which as far as I can tell is recognized as an Augustinian/Thomist view usually called privation), it alters the entire discussion a little doesn't it? Not that I would necessarily argue for that since I haven't given it enough thought, but it would force us to think of this a little differently. If it is so, all who are damned must be passed over by God. That they continue in evil would by default mean he has not involved himself in their lives in a saving way. The light has not cast out the darkness of their hearts as it were.

James,

Means! Come on you guys!

Again if light shines darkness is cast out. Of course you choose God, because he has changed you in such a way that you are able to do so. You are no longer under this privation, the absence of God and the absence of doing good in obedience to him. No one denies that the saved has faith in God. It is not however a condition, but a result in this view.

One could say we are free to choose God-however we will never do so, just like we would not throw ourselves into a pit full of ravenous wolves even though we could do it. The will is still bound by it's desires.