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?

[James Gibbons]

Char said:

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.

A little grumpy today, sister?

[Rey Reynoso]

Char, let's tease that out a bit, I want to see some good discussion going on about this.

A kid is running downhill towards a cliff. The kid knows the cliff there but running full speed. I can stop the kid but I decide not to...I let him go in the direction he's going to which he flies over the cliff.

In the end, yes I let him go but it wasn't really me choosing for him to run down the hill towards the cliff and over the edge: the kid did that on his own.

So the answer in this illustration is both yes and no, but not symmetrically (as said earlier). My inaction didn't send the kid over the cliff. My inaction just secured that the kid would go over?

Mind you all, I haven't posited any arguments or anything so please others reading, don't declare a jihad.

[Josh Newmaster]

Rey,

I don’t think your illustration takes into account some of the aspects of the issue. In your illustration it is two human wills that would be interacting. Human wills cannot awaken, call (whatever other word you want to use), another human will into “change”. They can frustrate them, but if we were to follow your illustration to its logical conclusion, the moment you saved the kid he would run back up to the top of the hill and do it again, and again according to his will because all that you have done is frustrated it.

The issue with election (at least from a Augustine/Calvinistic) point of view is one where God opens an individuals eyes to see the glory of Christ, effectually renewing the will (among other things) in such a way that inclines it toward godliness as oppose to worldliness.

The real issue, in my mind is: in what manner does God “override” the human will through the Gospel and why does He do it with some and not with others?

[Rey Reynoso]

Josh, that actually wasn't my point at all in using that illustration. The point of the illustration was to paint Char's point within the confines of the topic stipulated. If you would rather a more convoluted illustration we can try this but I don't know how well it works:

A river is going downhill towards a lake. It hits every nook and cranny going down the hill but its final destination is the lake. Nearby there is a Bucket. The bucket is a moving bucket which can stop the water at any time but it doesn't...it lets the water run its natural course down the hill into the lake. The River was going down the hill and following its natural course. The Bucket could have interceded but it didn't so it is also causal in allowing the river go down the hill--but not equally with the river that was already going down the hill.

Also, I'm not asking about any other issues but the ones already stipulated. Does God's allowance within this system wind up being an effective choice to Damnation. Some have already stated: yes and no and that's what I'm trying to illustrate to see if that's what they're saying.
Josh Newmaster said:

Rey,
I don’t think your illustration takes into account some of the aspects of the issue. In your illustration it is two human wills that would be interacting. Human wills cannot awaken, call (whatever other word you want to use), another human will into “change”. They can frustrate them, but if we were to follow your illustration to its logical conclusion, the moment you saved the kid he would run back up to the top of the hill and do it again, and again according to his will because all that you have done is frustrated it. The issue with election (at least from a Augustine/Calvinistic) point of view is one where God opens an individuals eyes to see the glory of Christ, effectually renewing the will (among other things) in such a way that inclines it toward godliness as oppose to worldliness.

The real issue, in my mind is: in what manner does God “override” the human will through the Gospel and why does He do it with some and not with others?

[Char]

Ah when am I not grumpy?

Rey, I too think think the illustration doesn't totally work because there is an implication that the child did not intend or want to jump off the cliff but did so accidentally. This is incorrect. It implies a moral neutrality in the decisions of the damned. But they wish to do what they do. The law makes plain this non-neutrality for as soon as we hear it, we want the opposite of what it tells us. Yes I understand what you are saying about our "natural course" but our natural course is already bent because of sin, so I don't know that it equates to something like a force of gravity.

This is going to end up being a discussion of compatiblism you know, it always goes that way. Then it gets annoying.

[Jennifer]

Please correct me here if I misrepresent something because I am not a Calvinist, but assuming the Calvinist POV to be true
God ordained that Adam and Eve would fall; that is, he willed it to happen.
By that fall the whole human race is dead in sin and unable to answer Gods call; but God chooses to restore some to life giving them the ability to answer; and steps over the bodies of those that he chooses not to restore leaving them dead.
there is a clear choice made about who to save and who to damned.

and as far as nature taking its course if I PUT two people in a burning fire and then only pull one out; letting the other burn, am I just letting nature take it course by letting fire do what it does?
I don't understand how this view is a scriptural view of God's love for his creation.

mem said:

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]

But Char, can't we agree that there is no single illustration that will work out all the nuances that are found in life? After all life is complex and the only thing that equates with life is well, life. I mean, I can only do so much with an illustration and even adding needless details like "The Child is suicidal" just muddy the waters (and detracts from the points).

That being the case these things are merely thought models being used to examine specific things as outlined in the topic. These specific aspects being the direction of the one element (people in their sinfulness towards damnation) and the ability of interjection but non-interruption by the other (this being God). But perhaps there's a thought model that does justice to what you and Newcomer are saying and in that case I would rather someone else offer that thought model.

In the meantime: is my interaction with what you're saying incorrect. I thought you said, in effect to question one: yes and no--asymmetrically (which yes, I know is the Mirkwood Road through compatibalism but I want to make sure its presented accurately.)

Char said:

Ah when am I not grumpy?
Rey, I too think think the illustration doesn't totally work because there is an implication that the child did not intend or want to jump off the cliff but did so accidentally. This is incorrect. It implies a moral neutrality in the decisions of the damned. But they wish to do what they do. The law makes plain this non-neutrality for as soon as we hear it, we want the opposite of what it tells us. Yes I understand what you are saying about our "natural course" but our natural course is already bent because of sin, so I don't know that it equates to something like a force of gravity. This is going to end up being a discussion of compatiblism you know, it always goes that way. Then it gets annoying.

[Char]

Eh, I suppose it could suffice roughly. I am aware that all analogies eventually break down. The problem is if I affirm an illustration that I see problems with I usually end up getting kicked in the pants with it.

And I do think that the destruction is an act of will on the part of those destroying themselves is important. As is the muddying detail of issuing the child a warning against running to the cliff, calling him back. If indeed evil is privation, then yes those who do evil seek a life away from God and he does not always run after them to change it or it would change. We are bent and we run from him at the first chance. Neither is it incidental, but people run to the cliff and away from him. After adding those perhaps confusing but I think needed details, I think it is acceptable to say there are people he goes running after and people to whom he just says "get back here".

What is a mirkwood road? Compatiblist arguments annoy me just because they go so far off track.

Jennifer, do I have to trot out the force field thing again??

[Rey Reynoso]

Mirkwood Road is a horrendously geeky reference to the Old Forest Road that cuts through Mirkwood Forest in the Hobbit. Pro's: it's the easiest way to get from this side to the other. Cons: It's fraught with danger and might end with a dragon burning you in the rear.

I think your details do clarify things. They're not only going towards destruction their repudiating God as well.

Char said:

Eh, I suppose it could suffice roughly. I am aware that all analogies eventually break down. The problem is if I affirm an illustration that I see problems with I usually end up getting kicked in the pants with it.
And I do think that the destruction is an act of will on the part of those destroying themselves is important. As is the muddying detail of issuing the child a warning against running to the cliff, calling him back. If indeed evil is privation, then yes those who do evil seek a life away from God and he does not always run after them to change it or it would change. We are bent and we run from him at the first chance. Neither is it incidental, but people run to the cliff and away from him. After adding those perhaps confusing but I think needed details, I think it is acceptable to say there are people he goes running after and people to whom he just says "get back here".
What is a mirkwood road? Compatiblist arguments annoy me just because they go so far off track.

Jennifer, do I have to trot out the force field thing again??

[Rey Reynoso]

Okay folks, in the system as stated its not merely that God allows them to go to hell its that they willfully decide to reject God and the fact that God saves some is altogether a matter of mercy to those being saved.

The question has been answered by proponents of that system as both Yes and No and you can read earlier comments to see how its stated.

Does it work? Does both yes and no work or is this, as Scott earlier stated a semantical problem or is there another way to justify (or deny) the system?

[Aaron Rathburn]

Nobody in this discussion has yet delved here, so I will throw this out there-

What it boils down to is this: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism.

Each of these words derive from Latin. 'Supra-lapse' means 'before'-'fall,' and 'infra-lapse' means 'after-fall.'

Basically, the point in question is this- Did God decide his election of who would be saved before the Fall of man (supra), or did God decide his election of who would be saved after (infra)?

The implications are that if he elected before (supra), then it is "double-predestination," i.e., that God reprobated some people to Hell. If he elected people after (infra), then God merely elects some to eternal life, and others he lets succumb to their own whims of sin, that we all deserve.

Bear in mind, Ephesians notes that we are chosen in him before the foundations of the world. So the question is not when did God elect in the gamut of time, but rather, what was the process by which he elected. Was the process of election to take place before or after, even though it is predetermined before creation itself?

Historically, there were many/more supralapsarians. Eventually, the infralapsarian position became dominant, and the Westminster Confession is infralapsarian. There was/is a new rise of supralapsarianism, spearheaded by such renowned men as Geerhardus Vos.

Hope it helps,
-ACR

[Jack]

Aaron; Since Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world (in God's mind and plan) it was all decided before creation.

Aaron C. Rathburn said:

Nobody in this discussion has yet delved here, so I will throw this out there-

What it boils down to is this: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism.

Each of these words derive from Latin. 'Supra-lapse' means 'before'-'fall,' and 'infra-lapse' means 'after-fall.'

Basically, the point in question is this- Did God decide his election of who would be saved before the Fall of man (supra), or did God decide his election of who would be saved after (infra)?

The implications are that if he elected before (supra), then it is "double-predestination," i.e., that God reprobated some people to Hell. If he elected people after (infra), then God merely elects some to eternal life, and others he lets succumb to their own whims of sin, that we all deserve.

Bear in mind, Ephesians notes that we are chosen in him before the foundations of the world. So the question is not when did God elect in the gamut of time, but rather, what was the process by which he elected. Was the process of election to take place before or after, even though it is predetermined before creation itself?

Historically, there were many/more supralapsarians. Eventually, the infralapsarian position became dominant, and the Westminster Confession is infralapsarian. There was/is a new rise of supralapsarianism, spearheaded by such renowned men as Geerhardus Vos.

Hope it helps,
-ACR