Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
If all and only people whom God eternally and unconditionally chooses are saved, then why aren’t all people saved? In a recent episode of Dr. John Piper’s Ask Pastor John podcast, (#547 – If God Is So Happy, Why Did He Create the Non-Elect?), a listener wrote in with this question. In this episode of the trinities podcast, I interact with Dr. Piper’s answer, which focuses on Romans 9:22-23
With a little help from the LogicBot 2000, I evaluate a few of his arguments.
Then I discuss competing, valid arguments that any Christian must choose between:
Argument 1
G: God never does any action which is intrinsically wrong.
E: God unilaterally caused someone to suffer eternally who at no time and to no degree was able to do other than she actually does.
Therefore,
not-W: It is not the case that it is intrinsically wrong to unilaterally cause someone to suffer eternally who at no time and to no degree is able to do other than she actually does.
Argument 2
G: God never does any action which is intrinsically wrong.
W: It is intrinsically wrong to unilaterally cause someone to suffer eternally who at no time and to no degree is able to do other than she actually does.
Therefore,
not-E: It is not the case that God unilaterally caused someone to suffer eternally who at no time and to no degree was able to do other than she actually does.
Though both arguments are valid, it can’t be that both are sound – one must have a false premise. But is it W or E? I take it that Dr. Piper would endorse Argument 1. I discuss some exegetical reasons to doubt his premise E. If we have more reason to believe W than we have to believe E, then we should be persuaded by Argument 2. Clearly, though, the issue requires a full look at Paul’s doctrine of predestination.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on Youtube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
- validity and soundness explained
- trinities podcast episodes relevant to Jesus’s “I am [he]” statements
- Rethinking Hell (podcast)
- Edward Fudge
- Exodus 9
- Theologian Dr. Jack Cottrell.
- The Grace of God and the Will of Man, edited by Clark H. Pinnock, which contains Dr. Cottrell’s “The Nature of Divine Sovereignty.”
- This week’s thinking music is by Josh Woodward. It is “Under the Stairs” from his album Breadcrumbs.
- The whining dog sounds were recorded by “Tobiasz ‘unfa’ Karo?.” No dog was harmed in the recording, so settle down.
One point about judging those morally who couldn’t have chosen otherwise, wouldn’t that imply that moral judgement is only ever valid in a libertarian free will world?
Also judging people who couldn’t do otherwise is one thing, but in the Calvinist world God decrees people’s desires, and then judges those people based on the desires he decreed them. If I convince a guy to kill someone, I’m somewhat culpable if that guy kills someone, the more influential I am and the more authority I have over the guy the more culpable I am. In this case God has 100% authority over us and is 100% responsible for our desires both evil and righteous, so how could he not be judged for that evil desire (leading to concrete evil) which his decree caused, if on the other hand he is praise worthy for the good his same decree causes, you can’t have it both ways.
Also saying “oh he’s God, how can we judge him” or “our understanding is less than his,” doesn’t cut it, you’d have to explain what I could possibly be missing that would make my objection invalid.
Dale,
I think you did a good job of working with some of the issues with the argumentation that John Piper used here.
I think Piper completely misses the point of the context where the election took place when God “chose” Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:13-14) and that Paul’s illustrations pertained specifically to the relationship that certain descendants of Abraham had with respect to what God “promised” for the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (Romans 9:6-11).
Paul was simply making the point that, if God chose to divide the family of Abraham over His divine right to declare Isaac and Jacob as the only children who would become heirs of the promise, then there is no injustice with God should He intend to reject those among the descendants of Israel who were not receiving the promise through Jesus Christ (Romans 9:8, 24).
Comments are closed.