How am I supposed to feel?

I'm not sure the question of how you are supposed to feel is really a useful one here. Truth is truth whether it makes us feel good or bad. In simplistic terms, I need to lose some weight. I'm fat. The fact I don't like to think of myself as fat doesn't change the fact that I really need to shed a few pounds. If the reality is that God created some of us knowing very well that many would have no chance at all of salvation then that's the reality whether we think it's great or appalling.

That said, I don't believe that God did simply predestine some for eternal torment. I don't see how God could claim to be loving if he created unknown numbers of people knowing full well they faced an eternity that nobody would wish upon anyone, with no chance at redemption because they weren't part of a mystical group that were chosen based on nothing in particular. Logically speaking, if that counts as love then the commandment to love our neighbor could allow me to decide, based on nothing in particular, that I really dislike this particular neighbor and so hit him with a big stick every time I see him. Hey, it's nothing compared to what he's got coming, right? But then maybe I was predestined to think that way.

Seriously, I can appreciate the concept of eternal torment (as opposed to eternal torture) in the sense that it's the equivalent of the game show contestants being taken behind the screen to "see what you would have won" - if they chose to reject Jesus Christ they get to spend an awfully long time regretting that decision. The whole model just falls apart if you introduce the concept of people who were predestined to spend eternity regretting a decision they never actually made.

 

How about forgetting about trying to figure out how you feel, and actually present the Gospel to those friends and family members you're worried about. If it bothers you that much, and you care for them that much. tell them about Jesus. Forget about what you understand about Calvinism, and do what Jesus said before He left. Make disciples.

 

You're supposed to feel nihilistic. Or, you know, reject this notion you hold as many people do. (Not that you're framing a strictly Calvinist problem in terms of man's ability to respond to God.)

 

Aaron, you’ve received a lot of good responses. Tango’s first line was perfect (and he doesn’t agree with Calvinism). He’s got the right perspective. Truth is truth. Our feelings aren’t relevant.

How am I supposed to feel if Dawkins has it right? Who really cares? Does Dawkins have it right? If he does, my feelings don’t change a thing.

Add up what all are saying here:

HisLeast stated that the majority will be in Hell. That’s accurate according to Jesus. I think HisLeast is accurate about God knowing all possible futures. But this works on your concern to a similar end as Calvinism.

If God knows who will be saved and who won’t be, do those he knows won’t be saved have a chance at being saved? No, they don’t. Because if they got saved something then what God didn’t know was going to happen all of a sudden happened. Or to put it in a different way, what God knew was going to happen did not happen.

Same result as Reformed Theology: the number who will be justified is set.

HisLeast stumbles over free will and Reformed Theology. I’ll skip that tangent for now.

I already commented on Tango’s good observation. I think his objection to the Reformed view in his later paragraphs helps prove Reformed Theology. But that too is another tangent.

Manny gives great advice especially in light of the fact of all that’s been said above. If Reformed Theology is correct, who is going to be saved is in stone. If omniscience alone is true, who is going to get saved is in stone. So just share the gospel and let’s see who those people are.

In summary, study the Scripture and follow it. If Calvin got it right on this subject, so be it. If someone else did, so be it.

 

Just another thought on the whole issue of omniscience and predestination. It's the kind of topic that can very easily become a sticking point because if things are taken far enough we end up in a place of total futility - if every single aspect of our lives is predestined then the whole concept of any freedom of choice goes away and there's no point trying to achieve anything, no point praying about anything because everything is already predestined, no point evangelizing because those who will be saved are already set in stone and so on. The only sense that remains is one of fatalistic futility, where I may go out evangelizing but only because I had no choice - I must have been predestined to do so since before the dawn of time. But if God doesn't already know all things ahead of time we have the question of whether he is truly omniscient, which leads into the question of whether a non-omniscient god is much of a god, and indeed the question of whether God needs to have foreknowledge of every single thing that will ever happen.

To give an example (and I'm deliberately taking possibilities to absurd extents here), at my church there's a problem with some kind of unwanted software that attached itself to the web browser. I plan to go and try to fix it either this afternoon or tomorrow. Let's say I manage to fix it and the pastor is so appreciative that it's gone he preaches a particularly inspired sermon on Sunday, that gets the congregation fired up so more people go out and spread the word, and the numbers attending our church swell until a wave of revival spreads the country starting from a little church in a sleepy village in the back end of nowhere. Now let's say I decide I'm too busy this week and I'll do it next week, and the pastor ends up inadvertently visiting a porn site that causes him to be tempted and stumble. Now imagine word leaks out that the pastor of the church is visiting porn sites, and he resigns in disgrace. Word spreads that the local ministers are hypocrites, people abandon the church feeling disillusioned and spread the word about how betrayed they feel and how they are doubting their faith given how even the pastor has fallen. And from there a wave of apostasy spreads across the land. Obviously the chances of such extreme event sequences being consequences of whether I fix the church computer this week or next week are vanishingly unlikely, but roll with me for a minute here. If I have the freedom to choose whether to fix the computer today, tomorrow or next week that means God didn't know ahead of time which would happen - if God knew since the dawn of time that I would fix the computer at 3:47pm this afternoon then my freedom to choose is non-existent. If I have the freedom to make that decision I don't think it takes anything away from the divinity of God, nor from the nature of God. If I decide I can't be bothered God is perfectly capable of using a flat tire to keep the pastor from getting to church and stopping the negative sequence that way. God is perfectly capable of using another situation in the parish to draw the pastor's attention away from the church building and protecting him that way. Maybe a well-timed power failure could shut the computer down before the offending site loaded. Maybe the pastor would stumble, fall into sin, resign in disgrace, and God would raise up another pastor who would salvage the situation.

Of course this is all largely speculative because we cannot know the mind of God, I'm just looking to explore how things might all work together. And, as TrustGzus said, the truth is the truth whether we like it or not.

We are encouraged to pray, and commanded to spread the gospel. There would be little point in doing those things if all outcomes were already determined, if all dies were already cast and nothing we did could influence the eternal destinies of those we evangelized. There would be little point in praying "thy will be done" if it was already a foregone conclusion that every single thing that God willed would happen, right down to the finest detail.

Paul wrote about how God uses things for good. It would seem strange to write that if the intention wasn't that God used things for good but preordained them to happen in the first place - if the reailty was that God planned whatever ills befell us it would make more sense for him to have written something more like "this was always God's plan for you" than "God can use this for good"

 

Predestination is not a doctrine that speaks to every action by every human being throughout their lives. People post that way often. If it’s a joke, well ok, it’s a joke. But not everyone realizes the joke or distinguishes the joke from the fact.

The etymology of the word actually shows what it’s about. Destination: we all have one. Pre: before any of us are ever born our destination is in stone.

Your example of the church software falls under the doctrine of providence.

A drum I’m afraid I will beat for the rest of my life is be careful that we all understand what we are refuting.

Calvinism to many people seems obviously wrong after a small examination. Why then would a guy like Spurgeon be a Calvinist? Or Luther (yes, on predestination he agreed and he wrote about it more than Calvin)? Augustine (even though he lived before Calvin and Calvin really learned from him)? Aquinas (though he lived before Calvin and was a Roman Catholic as Protestantism didn’t exist yet)? Edwards?

Am I brighter than them all? Am I brighter than any single one of them? Am I holier than all of them? Am I holier than any single one of them?

Is that proof? Not at all. But should it give a person like myself pause about so quickly saying Calvinism is wrong and here’s my quicky paragraph or 5 on a blog or forum? Yes, it should give me pause that’s probably not as simplistic as I’ve summed it up or none of those guys would have been behind it - or at least most of them. But all of them being for it?

Here’s a thought that might sound strange. Since I have become Reformed evangelism makes more sense to me now than ever. Praying for people makes more sense to me now than it ever did when I wasn’t Reformed.

 

You make very good points (again) here. As you quite rightly say, if someone like Spurgeon believed in something it is unlikely to be so badly wrong as to be disproven with a couple of paragraphs on a blog. That said, whatever the merits or otherwise of any given stance it is possible that different perceptions of that stance introduce errors that are potentially such that they can be debunked with a couple of paragraphs. A simple example would be your differentiation between the idea that our eternal destination is predetermined even if the precise path that takes us there is not.

Of course it is possible that Calvinism is wrong, in which case Spurgeon was wrong even if only to the extent that he accepted the concepts of Calvinism. Although I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that such well-known names in the world of theology can be debunked with a couple of paragraphs indicating 10 minutes of idle musing, the fact that well-known names believe something cannot be considered adequate proof that a stance is correct. One might figure that acceptance of Calvinism is not universal and those who oppose it are equally unlikely to be debunked with a couple of paragraphs condensing 10 minutes of idle musing.

As you say it is important to understand what is being refuted, whether it be the essence of Calvinism or a parody of it (e.g. the articles on the Babylon Bee detailing the Calvinist health insurance company who rejected all claims because they were pre-existing conditions, and describing the Calvinist dog who corrected its owner saying nobody was a good boy). From the perspective of a search for truth it is clearly important to look at the actual issues to determine what Scripture has to say on a subject. From the perspective of a discussion like this one it is important to address perceptions, regardless of how well they align with reality. To take a silly example, if Aaron's OP indicated that he believed that Calvinists regarded the moon as being made of green cheese it would be reasonable for him to question that doctrine, and by extension the credibility of Calvinism, because we can easily see the moon is not green. A suitable response would be to agree that the moon is not made of green cheese while also pointing out that Calvinism doesn't assert that the moon is made of green cheese and therefore the agreement doesn't count as a blow against the doctrines of Calvinism.

 

Tango, I appreciate your posts. I am used to you posting well thought out posts and this is no exception.

I agree with your third paragraph entirely. We need to understand what something is so we can recognize a parody. Your crazy example is a good example. I think this often happens on the internet. Often, people are reacting to hyper Calvinism. Those reactions are deserved/earned by that movement.

People often don’t know what the line is between hyper Calvinism and standard Reformed Theology.

I’m thinking it might be good for me to start a series of posts here for such a purpose though I try not to start such threads. The subject is coming up often enough that perhaps I need to change my mind about avoiding starting threads on the subject but instead start some for clarity’s sake.

“What is the point of prayer?”
“What is the point of evangelism?”
“Calvinism eliminates free will.”

I see all of that as a blurring of the lines between hyper Calvinism and Reformed Theology. Those all describe forms of hyper Calvinism.

In saying that I agree with your third paragraph isn’t a put down of your other paragraphs. It’s simply ground I don’t see a need to plow more. We have both posted and agree on those points.

 

I'd be interested to discuss this in more detail. It's really gone beyond the scope of the OP although it is at least somewhat relevant to the overall concept. If you are willing to start a new thread and contribute your thoughts I'd certainly take part in it.

 

Aaron, I hope this thread is being helpful.

 

You guys that don’t like your understanding scripture f predestination should look up Molinism and read some William Craig Lane

 

I’ve got the t-shirt and the books and the podcasts. But people should read WLC - both William Lane Craig and the Westminster Larger Catechism.

 

Aaron, I tend to disagree. I think people that aren’t elect really could care care less. I think all your struggles prove you are. You care. You worry about it.

Even a person that could care less may be elect. Just because they could care less now doesn’t mean they will stay that way.

The elect exists in non-Reformed views. The word is a Bible word not a Reformed word.

If I put on non-elect shoes, God looked through the corridor of time and saw who choose him and elected them. The election is over there too.

This world is not your home. You have two natures. You will struggle until your glorified. I’d worry if you didn’t struggle.

 

If (and I stress the if, because I'm not convinced of it myself) predestination is the truth then there's still no need to worry like this. Perhaps your family who aren't currently Christians are predestined to be saved later. Perhaps they will be converted in their dying moments, like the thief who repented on the cross. Perhaps the person who seems so solidly saved is living a lie and not predestined for heaven at all - maybe they are faking it and in for a nasty shock. If you look at the concepts of Calvinism (at least as I understand Calvinism) you've got the concept of the elect and also the concept of perseverance, meaning those who are elect will make it through come what may.

I struggle with the concept of a God who created people who are predestined never to be saved, particularly in light of the verse (can't remember the reference offhand) that God wishes none should perish. It makes no sense to me that God should create people predestined to perish but at the same time wishes they wouldn't perish. To me it seems akin to making myself a tomato and avocado sandwich for lunch knowing I dislike both tomato and avocado, then wishing I had something tastier for my lunch.