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?

[Char]

Jack the infra/supra debate is about the logical order of election, not the chronological.

The Canons of Dordt also implied an infra view. I admit I am with those who think that the infra/supra debate is going into secret things and mostly an unprofitable argument. Then I guess the whole discussion does a little of that.

[Jack]

Aaron; I have a self-correction here: "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:8 (not before the foundation) but it doesn't change my rationale that God had it all planned before He created man, therefore, agreeing with Supralapsarianism. (btw) are there any bigger words in theology? :o)

Jack said:

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

[ScottL]

Rey -

I know you haven't made any arguments yet, but the illustration of the little boy running towards a cliff seems to be somewhat lacking, maybe? We are not talking about saving a little boy who is about to run over a cliff. We are talking about humanity that has grossly offended a pure and perfect and holy God. In our minds, we cannot comprehend the full justice of God (nor the fullness of His love). So, for us to say that all humanity has chosen eternal wrath/hell because of their sin, but God only chooses to save and redeem a particular amount out of all that deserve wrath - this does not set well with us. Hence, we think of 'little boy' illustrations. But we are in the same boat as the little boy. Hence, maybe why when we see someone about to run over a cliff, our response, I would say initiated by the love and compassion of God, is to save that person from dying. We have an ethical and moral responsibility as all part of the same human race made in the image of God. But God, as perfect and holy, has no responsibility to save anyone who has sinned against His holiness like we have. So, for Him to even save one of us is absolute and pure grace.

Anyways, I think that is how the reformed argument might go to show the illustration is somewhat lacking.

Rey Reynoso said:

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.

[Anselm]

Question 1&2: It's binary. I have to say yes. I can't see the logic of denying it.

Question 3: Yes, because God predetermining in such a manner damages the character of God, both his loving characteristic and his characteristic of justice. It makes god morally ambiguous. Though to be fair a calvinist would deny these logical conclusions. But for me, as opposed to a calvinist, this is not a paradox I can live with.

All Models are wrong some are helpful. This model isn't helpful from my perspective.

[Seismic Mike Lewis]

Answer 1: Not choosing is choosing. It's entirely illogical to say anything else. You can't have election without reprobation

Answer 2: Example, let's say you go to the grocery to buy three apples. You spend a few minutes and what do you do? You look at the apples and test their qualities - are they ripe enough? are they too ripe? do they have bruises, worms? etc... And mostly you say, "No, no, yes, no no, yes...." In other words you deliberately pass over some - choosing not to take them. In economics they call this "Opportunity Cost". When you choose one thing, you lose the opportunity to chose it's alternate: you chose against it's alternate. Of course these are flawed analogies because 1) God doesn't choose us based on our merits the way we choose apples based on theirs, but whatever the impetus is for why God choses one and not the other (His own will, read Romans 9), he chooses to elect some to reprobation and some to salvation. 2) The opportunity cost thing implies that God is finite, which he is not. Were it God's nature and will he could elect all to salvation.

Of course this still has weaknesses, because then what do you do with passages that say "God's will is for everyone to be saved" (paraphrase).

Answer 3: Pragmatically (ick) no. Whether we believe reprobation or not doesn't matter if we believe election. It doesn't have any more bearing on our view of evangelism than election does. But it does matter theologically because if it's true, then we ought to believe it.

But of course that still leaves open the question of whether it is indeed true.

[ScottL]

It still seems that we could answer the questions with both 'yes' and 'no' looking at the differing ways each person has understood the theological implications. Or maybe not?

Look forward to your thoughts, Rey.

[ScottL]

Ok, I just had a thought when looking at someone's recent blog post on Theologica.

Matthew 4:1 says, 'Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.'

Now, we could get into splitting hairs on what this verse is actually saying, but it generally looks to be saying that Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness/desert. And we go on to deduce that He was led there by the Spirit so that He would be tempted by devil. I believe that Jesus went through this 40-day period of fasting, with temptation, in the desert to show that He would fulfill in Himself that which Israel did not fulfill in their 40-years of wandering in the desert of Sinai.

But here is my point related to the topic: If the Spirit led Jesus into the desert, and this leading to the desert was so that He could be tempted by the devil, then our question arises if God is a tempter of sin because He was ultimately in control and part of leading Jesus to the place where He would be tempted. I think most of us would say that God is not a tempter of sin, considering a verse like James 1:13 - 'Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.' But if the Spirit led Jesus to the desert where He was to be tempted, then would we not officially be able to argue that God is the tempter? I would argue not, based upon verses like James 1:13, but some might. The Spirit led Jesus into the desert, and this is where He would be tempted by the devil, so God is ultimately responsible for the temptation, right? But I do not believe that makes the Spirit of God the tempter, for one, I read James 1:13, and for two, I read it was the devil who tempted.

So, in regards to whether or not God's not-choosing equals choosing (the question Rey has posed), the same argument comes to mind. God does not have the responsibility in choosing any human being to receive the grace of redemption and salvation, for we have all royally sinned in His eyes, a perfect and holy God. But God has chosen to bring some to Himself, elect them for salvation. Not that those who have been chosen/elected are any better than those 'passed over'. But, according to the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:5, 11), which we most times do not comprehend, He has chosen a people for Himself out of all of sinful humanity. But this does not mean that because God did not choose them, or passed over them, that He is choosing hell and eternal wrath for them. That was all of humanity's choice by our father, Adam's, sin and our own personal sin. It is He that chooses to redeem some for His glory.

So, my point: Just as it was not the Spirit who was responsible for the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1, because it was the devil who tempted, though the Spirit led Jesus to a place where He would be tempted. So the same argument arises that it is not God who chooses hell for sinful humanity, they choose it themselves, even in His passing over certain ones. Sin, and its punishment of eternal wrath, is still humanity's personal choice. But God does choose a group to redeem for His glory.

I hope all that made sense. But I am still wondering if we could lean either way?

[Jennifer]

I guess so, because no one has address my comments yet.

Char said:

track.

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

[Seismic Mike Lewis]

Jennifer - I believe this is the hardest thing for a Calvinist to explain. It is hard to deal with, and I don't think I have the answer. But if God is the all sovereign God we Calvinists paint him to be, then we have the issue of whence came evil. If God really is as sovereign as we say, then he had to be the source, ultimately. After all, by the same logic we say God made everything (even though I may have watched men pave a road the other day), then if God makes the thing that makes evil, then God made evil. But that's not just a problem for Calvinists, because Arminians also believe that God created Satan. Anyone who says that God did not create Satan, must say that Satan is self-caused, which makes him equal with God, and we have and eastern ying-yang universe.

But God created Satan, who created evil, so God created evil. Now the question is, did God create Satan so that he would create evil, or was Satan's creation of evil rebellion against God? Or does that even matter, for if God created Satan who created evil and therefore indirectly created evil himself, does that not make God evil?

These are tough questions that nobody seems to address. This isn't just a "Why would a good God allow 9/11 to happen." That's easy to talk about. But the existence of evil at all? We either come up with a wholly evil God or a wholly machiavellian God. Which is right? Are either right? Or is this just the point at which our systematic theology seriously breaks down? Or is there something we can learn from the east?

I do not have these answers.

Jennifer said:

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.

[Rey Reynoso]

I'm about to list 5 possibilities that I was able to think about.

[Rey Reynoso]

Possibility 1: The finite can only go back as far as the finite: its sphere is finite. Therefore it caused its own damnation. God is separate from this. So to get more technical: Damnation is the end event of the finite. Everyone is heading towards it. The fact that some get there and others don't has nothing to do with their direction of travel or their destination but on something interjecting into the system. To use a common example: two kids throwing rocks at a window. The first kid's rock hits the window and the window shatters. What caused the window to shatter? The first kid's rock, true but not ultimately true. If the second kid's rock hit first the window would've shattered. So what caused the shattering was a bunch of events (nature of the glass, nature of the rocks, speed of the rocks, contact of the rock, and strength of the throw) and all those things cumulatively add up to why the window shattered. So people are traveling down a road for a plethora of reasons but in the end, the destination is always the same. God interceding would be seen is stopping a stone from hitting the glass and others fly by. In this scenario the presence of the system exists separate from God who occasionally intercedes within it.

So in this first system: No, God's not-choosing isn't the ultimate cause of damnation but it does imply that God is not completely part of the System. The System is separate from Him and He breaks into it.

[Rey Reynoso]

Possibility 2: Since there are no probable worlds where a person wouldn't have been damned, they are damned. In other words, there are no options BUT damnation. So in this view there is no chance that a thrown stone would ever miss the glass and shatter. Even if you threw the stone at a wall, it would spin and hit the glass since the glass shattering is what always happens with no possibility of something other happening (glass not shattering). In this view God's interjection into the system is not technically possible—He is in effect, part of the system that is completely inalterable. There are no possible worlds where it doesn't end with damnation so even God's interjection into the world would still end with damnation.

So here the answers would be: no because for the damned everything leads to damnation and it would mean there is no possibility of salvation.