We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to 2 Thessalonians 2:11–12?
Of those who disobey the truth Paul says, “…God sends them powerful delusions, leading them to believe what is false so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.”
This passage is sometimes cited as evidence that the delusions that unbelievers embrace are as much a part of God’s sovereign will as believers’ enlightenment. Yet, compatibilists insist, this occurs in such a way that unbelievers are responsible for their delusions though believers have only God to thank for their enlightenment. But there is a less paradoxical (less contradictory?) interpretation of this passage available to us.
First, we should note that the passage says that God “sends…powerful delusions…so that all who have not believed…will be condemned” (emphasis added). The delusions God sends aren’t an explanation for why unbelievers don’t believe. They are instead the way God responds to their unbelief: he condemns it.
Second, it is not too difficult to surmise how God might “send powerful delusions” in response to unbelief without directly attributing deception to God. Sometimes the intentions of evil spirits fit in with God’s intention to judge people (e.g.Judg. 9:23; 2 Sam. 24:1, 1 Chron. 21:1). There is a certain poetic justice in letting deceiving spirits delude people who have already demonstrated that they want to believe lies. It’s significant that elsewhere Paul says that Satan, “the god of this age,” blinded the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor. 4:4). I believe that this conception lies behind Paul’s word to the Thessalonians.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will
Verse: 2 Thessalonians 2
Related Reading
Tragedy Strikes and Coherence Goes Out the Window
I encourage you to read Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief, written by Electa Draper and published on the front page of the Denver Post Monday. The article shows how differently believers process tragedies, and illustrates the centrally important role one’s picture of God plays in these responses. For today, I’d like…
How does an Open Theist explain all the prophecies fulfilled in the life of Jesus?
Question: Throughout the Gospels it says that Jesus “fulfilled that which was written.” Some of these prophecies are very specific and involve free decisions of people. For example, a guard freely chose to give Jesus vinegar instead of water (Jn 19:28), yet John says this was prophesied in the Old Testament, hundred of years before…
What is the significance of Hosea 8:5?
The Lord asks, “How long will they [Israel] be incapable of innocence?” The Lord’s continual striving with Israel regarding their lack of innocence suggests that this question was not merely rhetorical. If God knows the future to be eternally settled, however, he could not in earnest ask this (or any other) question about the future.…
What is the significance of Matthew 26:39?
Jesus threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” Scripture indicates that much about the life and death of Jesus Christ was foreordained and thus foreknown long before it came to pass. Given that this…
What is the significance of Numbers 16:41–48?
The day following the Korah incident (see vs. 20–35), the Israelites rebelled against Moses again, this time because they blamed him for the death of those who were judged the day before (vs. 41). The Lord was very angry because of this and said to Moses and Aaron, “Get away from this congregation, so that…
Do you believe God is pure actuality?
The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…