Why Did God Create Some Humans Only To Damn Them?

[paulhadik]

TJane

thanks for your questions. We would never say a perfect God created imperfect people. This of course leads to the 24 million dollar question of "if God knew what would happen why did He allow it"

answer

I have no idea. We have from His revelation the situation, and what He has done to remedy it. the entrance of evil into Creation is not fully explained.

Often now I hear "well LDS does it explain it" as if this automatically qualifies it as a better belief system. But I see many mysteries in Scripture for which I would love clearer answers, but for which I must place my faith in Him..

I have no problem saying "I don't know". But please understand that to many of us not LDS the idea of disobeying God in the Garden being a good thing, as it brought death, procreation and re-uniting with God into existence is just as confusing.

[paulhadik]

"Noah was a righteous man, the one blameless man of his time; he walked with God..."but with you I will make a covenant..."

Bernard

Hey Bernard:

is it the LDS contention then that Noah never sinned? Why then did he have to find "grace" in the eyes of the Lord instead of merit? Do you believe that Noah was not sacrificing? Were his wife and children and their wives also perfectly righteous? Do LDS then believe that Noah's first sin was drunkenness after the flood?

paul

[Calm]

I would like an explanation on how it adds to God's glory for Him to create beings that do not follow His will and thus are sent to unspeakable horror and misery for eternity?

Since Paul left this open, a speculation (of course based on the assumption that this theology is correct)--I suggest that the reasoning would be based on the knowing the bitter so that one knows the sweet principle.

Besides demonstrating the completeness of his power---there is no Law which is above God that will compel him to act in any way (and this is demonstrated by him acting in all ways that a holy God can act in).....

Wouldn't part of the glory that God receives from the creation and saving of at least some of his creatures (and perhaps many, most or even all of them.....since we don't know the complete criteria and process---please correct me if I go to far afield in my wanderings, Paul) be dependent on them understanding how great this blessing is for them? And how could they conceive of the greatness if they didn't have something else to measure against it. IOW, perhaps God allows some to condemn themselves to hell without stepping to save them so that those he does save understand fully what he has done for them and therefore will glorified him more completely.

Now my response to this reasoning would be 'well, why couldn't he just instill such knowledge into the minds of his creatures'....the speculating me would respond back "he would in some cases and not in others---again demonstrating his omnipotence."

Paul, could this be a valid supposition based on the Reformed Theology doctrine? Or does it contradict some premise I am not aware of?

[Calm]

Hey Bernard:

is it the LDS contention then that Noah never sinned? Why then did he have to find "grace" in the eyes of the Lord instead of merit? Do you believe that Noah was not sacrificing? Were his wife and children and their wives also perfectly righteous? Do LDS then believe that Noah's first sin was drunkenness after the flood?

paul

Rather than being a perfect man, he was a righteous one which means to LDS that repentance was probably a big part of his life as it is for those of us attempting to live righteous lives now. LDSspeak would equate...imo...'righteousness' with 'being on the right path' rather than with perfection. He was "blameless" in the sense that his sins had been forgiven.

We know little about his family, but I would assume that since he was able to convince his sons and their wives to follow him that they were at least partial believers in his teachings and therefore also were attempting at least then to be righteous people. Considering how he was 'spending' what they probably saw as their inheritance, I doubt that what they might get from him supportwise then and in the future would have been much of a motivator for their choice....though I suppose Noah might have carried a stash of gold and other valuables on to the ark and they were looking to make a score off of that,

Having said that, I am not completely sure what BG is driving at though I'm pretty sure I see the direction he's heading, just not how far he wants to take it.

[Calm]

FWIW, I am an LDS determinist. There aren't many of us, I think.

Unless you are a different type of determinist than I've encountered, I believe there are more than most suspect....they just haven't formalized their beliefs enough to get to that point.

However, just ask LDS why we make the choices we do and ultimately if you keep pushing back through 'past choices lead to current choices', etc you are likely to come up with 'it is because of our eternal natures'--personality--intelligences, etc. We are then both morally accountable for our choices because we are the ultimate source of them, but our behaviour is determined because our natures are eternal and our choices are ultimately based on our original desires and needs (linked with 'outside' influences from God).

This would be an interesting thread topic...perhaps I will start one if no one else beats me to it.

[johndoe]

JD

thanks for your comments. I am interested in knowing more of your LDS determinist beliefs as this is the first I have heard of it.

Of course we LDS believe solidly in free will, so I am a compatibilist. Still, I personally see no evidence in the scriptures that the sort of free will we enjoy must necessarily be libertarian. I hold to the view that limiting God's omniscience and accepting libertarian free will is less compatible with the scriptures than holding a deterministic view together with God's (classical) omniscience. It seems to me that adding the apparent randomness that libertarian free will requires doesn't truly add to freedom in any significant sense.

It also seems to me that the Arminian view has problems with logical consistency that the Reformed view does not.

Unless you are a different type of determinist than I've encountered, I believe there are more than most suspect....they just haven't formalized their beliefs enough to get to that point.

I imagine that's true, though I was mainly referring to those who are actually conscious of the fact that they embrace determinism.

However, just ask LDS why we make the choices we do and ultimately if you keep pushing back through 'past choices lead to current choices', etc you are likely to come up with 'it is because of our eternal natures'--personality--intelligences, etc. We are then both morally accountable for our choices because we are the ultimate source of them, but our behaviour is determined because our natures are eternal and our choices are ultimately based on our original desires and needs (linked with 'outside' influences from God).

This would be an interesting thread topic...perhaps I will start one if no one else beats me to it.

I agree here as well. If you start a thread, I promise I'll participate.

[Bernard Gui]

Hey Bernard:

is it the LDS contention then that Noah never sinned? Why then did he have to find "grace" in the eyes of the Lord instead of merit? Do you believe that Noah was not sacrificing? Were his wife and children and their wives also perfectly righteous? Do LDS then believe that Noah's first sin was drunkenness after the flood?

Gen 6:8-10 says Noah won God's favor. He was a righteous man and blameless. I don't see where he had to find "grace" in the Bible, unless that's what you believe "won God's favor" means. Moses 8:27 says he "found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God..." We LDS believe he was ordained

to the High Priesthood at the age of 10 by Methuselah (D&C 107:52), so God had his eye on him. Noah preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the people of his time, but they rejected it. (Moses 8:20-24).

I assume he was sacrificing because he was a "righteous man." Moses 8:27 says his three sons also walked with God. I also assume his wife was righteous, too, but the scriptures are silent on that. Regarding his first sin...

who knows? If you mean did he violate the LDS Word of Wisdom and therefore sinned, I don't find any support for that in the scriptures. If it were a sin, I'm quite sure he repented and was forgiven, because D&C 133:52-54 says he was redeemed by Jesus.

I gather from all this that Noah was chosen because he was a righteous man who obeyed God from an early age. God looked on his creation, saw it was corrupted, found one man who was obedient, and saved him and his family. On the other hand, one could say he was chosen by grace at an early age and he lived righteously as a result of God's in-dwelling presence,

but that would contradict Moses 8:27 and Gen 6:8-10, IMO.

BTW, thanks for your responses!

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Having said that, I am not completely sure what BG is driving at though I'm pretty sure I see the direction he's heading, just not how far he wants to take it.

Paul gave a very long list of events in the OT to support his idea of God's

sovereignty, which I think means God dictates all that happens, but that certainly can be a wrong interpretation. At first glance I saw some problems with the list. If you know where I'm heading, please give me a clue...I'm usually just wandering about aimlessly in my normal befuddled state.

Bernard

[johndoe]

Paul gave a very long list of events in the OT to support his idea of God's

sovereignty, which I think means God dictates all that happens, but that certainly can be a wrong interpretation. At first glance I saw some problems with the list. If you know where I'm heading, please give me a clue...I'm usually just wandering about aimlessly in my normal befuddled state.

Bernard

When creatio ex-nihilo, absolute omniscience and absolute omnipotence are all part of a particular view, God indeed is ultimately responsible for all that happens, and all that exists. I don't think that's quite what sovereignty means though. If I understand correctly, sovereignty is more along the lines of God having the right to do with His creation as He pleases, since it is His.

[Alma Bound]

Of course we LDS believe solidly in free will, so I am a compatibilist. Still, I personally see no evidence in the scriptures that the sort of free will we enjoy must necessarily be libertarian. I hold to the view that limiting God's omniscience and accepting libertarian free will is less compatible with the scriptures than holding a deterministic view together with God's (classical) omniscience. It seems to me that adding the apparent randomness that libertarian free will requires doesn't truly add to freedom in any significant sense.

It also seems to me that the Arminian view has problems with logical consistency that the Reformed view does not.

Classical Arminianism is compatibilist, and not liberterian.

[johndoe]

Classical Arminianism is compatibilist, and not liberterian.

Really? I must have been mistaken. I've had discussions here with others who have led me to believe otherwise - but maybe that was me reading too much into what they were saying.

Do you have any references I could check out on this?

[Alma Bound]

I'll take a stab at a biblical exegesis for the Arminian position.

Please forgive the wordiness...

------

Romans chapter 9, which speaks to vessels fit for destruction, falls within the context of Paul's justification, using Old Testament scriptural references, of a change in the covenant people of God wherein righteousness is credited to a believer -- whether Jew or Gentile -- based on faith and not on observance of the law.

The passages he chooses focus on the work of God within and upon this community, in a corporate sense, with headship through the figures mentioned -- the people are "in" each of the heads he cites.

He mentions the children of the promise, Isaac and Jacob, and tells us how they were selected, not by anything they had done, but rather because it is by God's calling that He shall save, not dependent upon the will of man and his works, but because of the promise to Abraham of a seed "in" Isaac and, by extension, Jacob, though even before that, to a promise to Adam and Eve of a "seed."

Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God's mercy is going to fall not based on ethnic origin, but on whom he chooses, which is on those who are in Israel -- in the promised seed, who ultimately is the Christ -- by faith, whether Jew or Gentile, as seen in Paul's conclusion of the chapter as well as in Romans 9:7.

But what about Pharaoh? Did God raise him up simply to destroy him? Or is Pharaoh's fate just, according to his own actions and state of his heart, influenced and allowed by God to further His purposes?

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Is this clear evidence that God makes some people to be "hardened" to destruction, or was Pharaoh hard of heart to begin with and God provoked this hardness for a purpose?

Paul cites Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. In Exodus 9, God is speaking in general terms concerning his people as a whole; Paul sets up ethnic Israel as being found "in" Pharaoh, sharing in his hardness of heart with Pharaoh serving as the example.

Exodus 9:33 And Moses went out of the city from Pharaoh, and spread abroad his hands unto the LORD: and the thunders and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth.

34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

35 And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.

Notice how Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God -- it was after the rain and hail and thunders ceased. The mercy of God, His cessation of punishment, served to further harden the heart of Pharaoh, and instead of acting in faith in the cessation of punishment and what had been done for him, Pharaoh withstood God all the more.

The Lord says this about Pharaoh's intentions, why he acts in the way he does:

Exodus 9:17 As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?

Pharaoh is exalting himself over the people, through his own efforts to "take the throne" over the people of God, in effect placing himself in the place of God over God's people.

Yet when shown the example of mercy, as God does when he relents from the punishment, Pharaoh renews his attack, his assault on the throne to exalt himself over the people.

In this same sense, people who are "in" Pharaoh, who intend to take the throne of God by force, have had their hearts hardened through God's influence upon them -- His mercy serves to harden them all the more to take the throne by force; His mercy even provokes them to jealousy.

In other words, from an Arminian point of view, there is no "switch" inside of a person's heart that God somehow turns on to "make" that person believe. Rather, God effects His creation through His mercy -- in some cases this results in belief to salvation and in other cases this results in hardness, as in the case of Pharaoh and those who follow his example of trying to achieve the throne, to achieve righteousness through their own efforts and not by faith.

However, even Pharaoh's hardening was allowed and accomplished for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was accomplished so that God's name would "resound through all the earth," just as God's hardening of Israel was accomplished so that salvation would come to the Gentiles and resound through all the earth. Israel's stumbling is for a purpose external to their own salvation, similar to Pharaoh's, who serves as the example of how and why they have been hardened.

This hardening of Israel becomes an instrument, a vessel like unto the vessels in the Old Testament Temple, in God's hands to accomplish his will in bringing the Gentiles into the covenant community of Israel through that hardening.

But if God hardens hearts through His will, then logically the next question becomes -- why does God find fault in anyone?

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Paul begins his response with a rhetorical question:

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

And then extends his explanation to show that the vessel, in this case, Israel in the corporate sense and man in an individual sense, was not "made" that way, was not created "marred," but rather was "marred" after it was made, we are told this is due to the sin of the creation in the book of Jeremiah.

Paul explains that God, in spite of the marring of His creation through sin, makes a new creation, a new vessel, with a reference to Jeremiah 18 - the potter and the clay.

Jeremiah 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

God is re-working the covenant community and even individuals into something else, as evidenced from the text in Jeremiah and also in Hosea, which Paul references as well.

Hosea 1:9 Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

In this new vessel, not only the Gentiles are included, there is also a remnant of believers from Israel as well, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, again cited by Paul:

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

Here Israel is numbered as the sand of the sea, through the inclusion of the Gentiles into Israel by faith, only a remnant of physical Israel returns, accomplished through the means described above.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Therefore, those who are "in" the vessels of wrath are those that are marred through sin, having sought to attain righteousness through obedience to the law and are fit for destruction because they were unable to do so, yet God has reshaped the vessel into one which includes both Jew and Gentile, and can be entered into by faith.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

In this sense, the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh and those who seek to attain righteousness, to "take the throne" and exalt themselves over the people of God through their own efforts, rather than through faith in the mercy of God, are similar.

Therefore, from an Arminian position, the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh, and those who follow his example and are "in" him, is due to their rejection of the righteousness that comes by faith and a reliance upon a righteousness attained through their own efforts -- in the case of Pharaoh due to his efforts to exalt himself over the people of God through his own will.

[Alma Bound]

Really? I must have been mistaken. I've had discussions here with others who have led me to believe otherwise - but maybe that was me reading too much into what they were saying.

Do you have any references I could check out on this?

The 3rd Article of Remonstrance.

[Alma Bound]

Which states:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, â??Without me ye can do nothing.â?

And is continued in the 4th Article, which states:

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei

[johndoe]

Which states:

And is continued in the 4th Article, which states:

Thanks for the information. I haven't gone through the whole post about corporate election, but I will.

Regarding the 4th Article that you quote, who is ultimately responsible for the choice of each individual whether to resist grace or not? With a determinist view, I would think the answer to that question has to be God.

[Alma Bound]

Thanks for the information. I haven't gone through the whole post about corporate election, but I will.

Regarding the 4th Article that you quote, who is ultimately responsible for the choice of each individual whether to resist grace or not? With a determinist view, I would think the answer to that question has to be God.

From a determinist point of view, God is responsible for the resistance.

But according to Arminian thought, a person can resist the grace of God, resist His calling.

An example is Jonah, who fled when called to go and preach, he resisted the call until finally he cried out for salvation.

Jonah's own decisions to resist the will of God placed him in in positions that ultimately resulted in Jonah's submission to the will of God, though Jonah was not forced to do so, his actions simply continued to narrow until his own will to resist reached a point where he cried out to be delivered from the predicament he placed himself in through his resistance.

[johndoe]

From a determinist point of view, God is responsible for the resistance.

But according to Arminian thought, a person can resist the grace of God, resist His calling.

An example is Jonah, who fled when called to go and preach, he resisted the call until finally he cried out for salvation.

Jonah's own decisions to resist the will of God placed him in in positions that ultimately resulted in Jonah's submission to the will of God, though Jonah was not forced to do so, his actions simply continued to narrow until his own will to resist reached a point where he cried out to be delivered from the predicament he placed himself in through his resistance.

I apologize if it seems that I'm being dense, but I want to make sure I understand you. When you state that the Arminian view is compatibilist, not libertarian, do you mean that Arminians accept determinism? From what you state above, it seems that you do not accept determinism, but a compatibilist would accept both determinism and free will (as I do).

[William the Conqueror]

I would like to hear from a hard core Calvinist, or someone who leans strongly in that

direction. Why did God even bother, when everything went so wrong from the start?

What was the point of making humans just to damn them to hell? I don't buy the argument

that it was to show his Sovereignty. He can do that by creating galaxies. Creating a bunch of sinners

to damn and a few saints to worship him seems like a petty show of arrogance by someone

up on Mt. Olympus. For what purpose did he do this?

Bernard

This is a tome, but I thought pasting it would be better than the link as more people will look at it. Rev. Pendleton has done an excellent job in my view of explaining this subject. Also notice how well he shows the erroneous points of national election, which some LDS on this board believe.

ELECTION

By J. M. PENDLETON

(1811-1891)

Outstanding Baptist Scholar of the late 19th Century; Author of CHURCH MANUAL, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, DISTINCTIVE BAPTIST PRINCIPLES, etc.

While there is nothing in predestination which forbids its use in the sense of the foreordination of all events, it is commonly employed with reference to human beings. It comprehends the purpose of election, and also, as will be shown, the purpose of "reprobation," as it has been called, which, as has been well said, "is nothing more than withholding from some the grace which is imparted to others." These two purposes may be expressed thusly:

"That God chose in Christ certain persons of the fallen race of Adam, before the foundation of the world, unto eternal glory, according to His own purpose and grace, without regard to their foreseen faith and good works, or any conditions performed by them;" and that from the rest of mankind He withheld His grace and left them to dishonor and the just punishment of their sins.

The ideas brought to view in this statement need and deserve expansion. I may therefore sayâ??

1. Election Is Personal

The choice exercised is a choice of persons. It is a choice of persons as distinguished from nations. The Jews were in one sense an elect nation, but their election from among the nations had no special reference to eternal life, to which persons are elected; and in addition to this, they were the only elect nation the world ever saw. But to see that election is not national, we need only turn, to Revelation 5:9:

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

Here we are plainly taught that salvation is not national deliverance, but that the saved are redeemed out of every nation. An electic operation is referred toâ?? persons selected out of nations. The theory of national election cannot be maintained as the doctrine of the New Testament.

Election is not only personal as distinguished from national, but it is of individuals as distinguished from individuals. The line of discrimination runs between persons. When Paul says in Romans 16:13, "Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord," the reference must be to personal election, as also when he writes to the members of the Thessalonian church,

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." â?? II Thess. 2:13.

Peter, in writing to the "strangers scattered abroad," addressing them as "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," must have meant personal election.

If it is said that the election of some is the rejection of others, it may be remarked: Rejection is a term needlessly strong, and it is preferable to say that God has left others as they were. The decree of election leaves them where they would have been had there been no election of any. No injustice is done them. The truth is, election is injustice to none, while it is an unspeakable blessing to some. It takes a multitude which no man can number, but which God can number, out of the fallen race of Adam, and raises them up to hope and Heaven.

II. Election Is Eternal

In proof of this, the following passages may be quoted:

"According as he hath chosen us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." â?? Ephesians 1:4.

"Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN."â?? II Timothy 1:9.

"God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." â?? II Thess. 2:13.

After what has been said concerning the eternity of God, and the consequent eternity of His purposes, it is not necessary to enlarge on a point so plain as that His election of His people is from eternity. Election, being inseparable from the divine purposes, is as eternal as they. As it has to do with eternal life, it is eternal, as going back to the un-beginning past and forward to the unending future.

III. Election Was Not In View of Foreseen Faith And Good Works

There are some who make faith and good works the ground of election. That is, they suppose that God elected His people because He foresaw their faith and good works. This view transposes cause and effect, for it makes election dependent on faith and good works, whereas faith and good works are Scripturally dependent on election. When we read, "chosen . . . that we should be holy," it is obvious that the election is not because of holiness, but in order to holiness.

The purpose of election contemplates the sanctification of the elect, and therefore regards them as sinners needing sanctification. The same truth is suggested by the words,

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."â??Romans 8:29.

Here evidently the predestination, including election, did not find its basis or reason in the conformity of the predestinated to the image of Christ, but the conformity is the result of the predestination.

As to the much-controverted passage in Acts 13:48. "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed," the only natural interpretation is that they believed because of their ordination to eternal life. The Arminian view is without foundation in the Word of God; for election is the source, the only source, whence spring faith, holiness, and good works.

IV. The Purpose of Election Is Irreversible

This is the only view of the matter that is worthy of God, changeable purposes would detract from His glory as an infinitely perfect Being. The purpose of election is not arbitrary; is not without reason. God does nothing without reason, but the reason or reasons of His action, He is not always pleased to reveal. Why He chose some persons to eternal life in preference to others, we do not know. But if the reasons of His choice were satisfactory to Him when the choice was made, they will be satisfactory forever, unless better reasons should present themselves to His mind â?? a supposition which the perfection of His character does not for a moment tolerate.

In short, there can be no philosophic belief that God will reverse His purpose of election, and the Scriptures confirm the teachings of sound philosophy.

Jesus says of His disciples, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." â?? John 10:28, 29.

Here the security of believers is strongly asserted; but whence arises the security? Chiefly from the fact the Father gave them to the Son in the purpose of election. If, however, the purpose is reversible, there is no security.

We are also taught that "God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation." â?? Hebrews 6:17, 18.

The "strong consolation" grows out of the immutability of the divine counsel, which is confirmed by an oath; and the purpose of election, being included in the divine counsel, is as immutable as the counsel itself. It is not necessary to enlarge. Surely the purpose of election is irreversible.

V. Election and Means

It is well at this point to answer an objection that is often made to the doctrine of predestination. It is said that while the economy of Nature and grace illustrates the use of means, predestination renders their use unnecessary. Why unnecessary? Because the objector supposes a predestinated end will be accomplished without means.

There is nothing, however, to justify such a supposition. We can find nothing in the realm of Nature to countenance it. God said to Noah, "While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." â?? Genesis 8:22.

The object in view requires me to refer only to "harvest" as included among the purposes of God. It will not be denied that God has decreed the production of harvests while the earth remains; but has He decreed the production of miraculous harvests, that is, harvests without the sowing of seed? Manifestly not. "Seed-time" is mentioned as before "harvest," and clearly preparatory to it. No harvest is predestinated apart from seed-sowing. The means are appointed equally with the end.

Let the nations practically adopt the philosophy of the objection under consideration â?? namely that predestination supersedes the use of means â?? and what must follow? Universal starvation. But we need not anticipate this worldwide calamity, for men exercise common sense on every subject except that of religion.

An Illustration of This

Paul's voyage to Rome is often referred to as illustration of the connection between means and ends. The apostle had been assured by an angel of God that of the two hundred and seventy-six persons on board the ship, not one should be lost. But when he saw that "the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship," he "said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved."

The safe deliverance of all on board the storm-tossed vessel was the predestinated event, but it could not be accomplished unless the "shipmen" remained in their position and performed their duty. Thus in the natural world, on the land and on the sea, we see that means are predestinated as well as ends, and that ends cannot be accomplished without the use of means.

How is it in the realm of grace? The principle is the same, showing the God of Nature to be the God of grace.

God's Eternal "Chain"

"Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them, he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified."â??Romans 8:30.

In this verse we have, if I may call it, a golden chain of four links, and this chain reaches from eternity to eternity. The first link is predestination, and the last glorification, while the two intervening links are calling and justification. The first link has no connection with the last, except through the intermediate links. That is to say, there is no way in which the purpose of God in predestination can reach its end in glorification, if calling and justification do not take place. But calling and justification are inseparable from "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

Repentance and faith, then, not to name other things, are means through which the purpose of God in election is accomplished. (Editor's note: Repentance and faith are termed by Arminians to be "conditions" of salvation. This is in harmony with the Arminian scheme; but repentance and faith are not conditions of salvation but rather, means of salvation, as Bro. Pendleton here points out, if the two were conditions of salvation, then the sinner would be the one to perform the conditions of himself, and salvation would be, in part, the work of the sinner. But since repentance and faith are means to salvation, not conditions of salvation, and since the means are the gifts of God, salvation is wholly of God's efficacious, irresistible grace.)

God, therefore, in predestinating the salvation of His people, predestinated their repentance, and faith, and all other means necessary to their salvation. If any inquire, as is sometimes the case, what will become of those elected to eternal life if they do not repent and believe, it is best to answer by asking what would have become of the persons in the ship with Paul if the "shipmen" had not remained at their posts of duty. If it is said that the "shipmen" did remain, I say, those chosen to salvation will repent and believe.

The following passages teach the use of means in connection with the purpose of God in election:

"God hath from the beginning chosen, you to salvation THROUGH SANCTIFICATION of THE SPIRIT AND BELIEF OF THE TRUTHâ? â?? II Thessalonians 2:13.

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also OBTAIN THE SALVATION which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." â?? II Timothy 2:10. (Also I Pet. 1:2; Eph. 2:10).

From the first of these Scriptures, we learn that election to salvation is indicated by "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;" from the second, that Paul's many trials as a minister had an instrumental connection with the salvation of the elect; from the third, that election is not only through sanctification of the Spirit, but unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; and from the last, that the purpose of election embraces foreordination to good works. In view of these passages, it is plain that the doctrine of predestination does not supercede the use of means, but requires them.

VI. Election Only Known By Calling

Before dismissing this topic, it should be said that as God's purpose of election is "in Himself," we can know nothing about it till it is disclosed in the "calling" already referred to. Paul, for example, when he preached in Thessalonica, knew nothing of the election of any of its citizens to eternal life, but after the grace of God was displayed in "effectual calling," he did not hesitate to write,

"Knowing, brethren, beloved, your election of God." I Thess. 1:4.

Hence, too, Peter wrote to his brethren,

"Give diligence to make your calling and election sure."â?? II Peter 1:10.

It is observable that he puts calling before election. God begins with election, but man cannot. He must begin with the calling, and when he makes that sure, the election is sure. The calling is the only attainable proof of the election.

It will be seen, therefore, that the question of election is, in the hands of a sinner, the most unmanageable of all questions. The reason is, it is none of his business, and he can do nothing with it.

The time has been when in some places sinners, becoming serious on the subject of salvation, instead of repenting and believing in Christ, employed themselves in efforts equally earnest and fruitless to ascertain whether they were elect or non-elect. This was, is, and ever must be, an absurdity. That which is required of sinners is expressed in the words of Peter:

"Repent ye, therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."â??Acts 3:19.

[Alma Bound]

I apologize if it seems that I'm being dense, but I want to make sure I understand you. When you state that the Arminian view is compatibilist, not libertarian, do you mean that Arminians accept determinism? From what you state above, it seems that you do not accept determinism, but a compatibilist would accept both determinism and free will (as I do).

I accept both determinism and free will. God is sovereign, and yet holds His creation accountable for its actions, for sin.

[fox_goku]

I don't agree with the premise of the question. I don't think God created people only to damn them. The plan of salvation is a plan for success, NOT failure.

The dead (those physically and spiritually) will be redeemed, unless they damn themselves.

[ed2276]

I don't agree with the premise of the question. I don't think God created people only to damn them. The plan of salvation is a plan for success, NOT failure.

The dead (those physically and spiritually) will be redeemed, unless they damn themselves.

Damn themselves? I like this saying. It places responsibilty on each person's shoulders for the choices each of us make with the agency given to us.

God created us for success and laid out the conditions for the ultimate success , Eternal Life and Exaltation , before each of us. Having done that , God made all necessary preparations for us through the Plan of Salvation , gave us our agency and left it to us to choose if we would accept and meet those conditions. So , as you say , unless we damn ourselves by our own choices God will not damn us.

Peter makes it clear that the Lord doesn't want to damn anyone , but the action required for repentance is placed squarely on our shoulders. We must choose to "come" to repentance :

2 Pet. 3: 9

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Not only is the Lord desireous that none should perish , He has said that when we do what He requires of us then He is bound to give us the promise we hope for :

D&C 82: 10

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

Again , it is largely up to each of us , as measured through our willingness to do the Lord's will , whether we receive the ultimate success :

D&C 88: 32

32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

[Bernard Gui]

I appreciate the lengthy replies, and I've read each through a couple

of times, since they are somewhat complicated. Thanks. I will study

them some more.

However, I would like a simple response to the OP question...

Are some people created and predestined to damnation?

Thanks.

Bernard

[Alma Bound]

Are some people created and predestined to damnation?

No, not according to Arminian thought, from a compatibalist point of view.

[Alma Bound]

The dead (those physically and spiritually) will be redeemed, unless they damn themselves.

According to both Arminian and Calvinist thought, mankind has already "damned" himself due to disobedience.

Total depravity, due to the fall and original sin - echoed in the Book of Mormon - is common to both Arminianism and Calvinism.

One of the issues between the two schools of thought is how does a person respond to the sacrifice of Jesus?

Is the response due to a person's ability to respond in faith to the grace of God in recognition of his inability to be righteous and subsequent regeneration by grace through faith, or does God automatically regenerate or damn those who were chosen from before the foundation of the earth, regardless of their culpability?

[paulhadik]

Bernard

While Paul in Romans raises the possibility of such a thing, nowhere in Scripture is it explicity taught. Scripture is very clear however, that at no time is God to be blamed for man's sin and his ultimate judgement.