When someone dies before their time—whether by disease or tragedy—Christians often ask why God allowed it to happen. This is particularly the case when the person was killed tragically in an unsaved state. As Christians we wonder why God did not intervene to prolong their life, affording them more time to make a decision for Christ. Maybe—we muse—they would have turned to Christ five, ten, or twenty years from now if only afforded the time, but now that possibility is gone.
I propose that every person who dies prematurely in an unsaved state would not have accepted Jesus as Savior even if they lived a full life—and God, in His omniscience, knows this. On the basis of such knowledge God allowed them to die, rather than intervening to prolong their life. On such a view there is no need to wonder “what if they had more time?” because their untimely death proves they never would have accepted Christ. Would they have done so in the future God would have preserved their life in the present. My rationale for this position is as follows:
First, God’s omniscience includes knowledge of all true propositions, including counterfactuals. Not only does God know all that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be, but He also knows all that could have been, all that could be, and all that might have been in the future had the circumstances and set of facts been other than what they were (hypothetical vs. actual). This knowledge allows God to know what person X would do if he continued to live beyond the time of his untimely death. God, seeing that person X would not serve Him even if he lived a full life, can allow him to die without impeding his chances for eternal life.
Secondly, according to Paul God wants every person to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (I Timothy 2:4). Furthermore, God is tolerant and patient with man so that he will come to repentance (Romans 2:4). If God’s greatest desire is for His children to come to saving faith, and he knew person X would come to saving faith in the future, it is stands to reason that He would have intervened to prolong his life, and then patiently waited for him to make that decision in the future. To believe God would allow a sinner to die prematurely with the knowledge that she would have chosen to serve Him in the future if given the time is inconsistent with God’s will as expressed in Scripture.
I would even argue that a sinner’s premature death might be a blessing in disguise, because it prevents him from accumulating more sins for which he will have to give an account. The less sin, the less punishment.
What do you think of this argument? Is it theologically sound? Is it Biblically based? Is it rational and logical?
While we’re talking about this, what do you think about saints who dies prematurely? I’ve heard many Christians claim God might take these people prematurely because He knew they would turn away from Him in the future if given the time to do so. What do you think of this claim? Do you think God would do this at times?
Thinking to Believe 
June 28, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Jason,
Very good questions! Wow. This is an Excedrin-level mind buster.
Recently, you thought I was sounding like a Calvinist. I do indeed have strong inclinations towards a Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty and human free will. Thus, I’ve not denied your accusation and my inclinations will show through once again in this reply. However, such issues are very difficult regardless of one’s “leanings.” Ultimately, Scripture must decide.
Your position is interesting and is obviously trying to navigate the difficulties of God’s sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience and human free will and responsibility to respond to God’s revelation.
There are several counterpoints or questions which I always wrestle / struggle with in responses such as this one.
First, the position (seems to) assumes God owes humanity something, in particular, the opportunity for every human being to come to God.
The problem with the former is obvious, God does not owe sinners anything. The problem with the latter, is that it is manifestly obvious that at given points in history, entire civilizations, people groups, tribes, etc. passed in and out of existence without knowledge of Jesus Christ in any form. So did God know that absolutely no one in the people group would come to Him?
Second, the position (seems to) assumes that we choose God rather than God choosing us. Granted we do choose God but the question is upon which is the emphasis, or priority? Scripturally, every where I look, the emphasis is upon God’s choosing. There are no discussions in the Bible similar to the position you state. It is always God choosing. God chose Abraham, God chose Israel (Jacob over Esau), God chose David, God chose the prophets. Jesus chose the disciples, Jesus stopped Paul on the road to Damascus. If Jesus had not stopped Paul on the road to Damascus he would have never been saved! And Paul never states in the epistles, “God stopped me because He saw something on the inside…” (Which I’ve heard in many testimonies).
Third, the position doesn’t seem to fit well with texts such as Matthew 11:23 which show us that God could give greater revelation to someone which would change their response BUT God may not choose to do so. Again, God is the one choosing, in this case, the extent of His revelation to a person(s). And this seems opposed to your position because such an instance shows that God could have given a person(s) a different set of circumstances in which they would have responded differently to Him.
Fourth, the position still cannot get around the fact that God created, or allowed for the birth, of a person which He knew would go to hell. Of course, one could argue, such is the case but God chose the best case scenario for all in which His plan is still performed and so on and so forth… In this sense, one cannot get around God’s choices because either: God predestined individuals (in a Calvinistic sense)and knew who would be damned (NOT double predestination) or God created a universe in which He already knew the specific individuals which would choose/reject Him.
Fifth, how does this position relate to God just killing people? What about the people God himself killed in the OT & the NT? Uzzah, the first born of Egypt, Ananias and Saphira? This doesn’t relate directly to the question but it demonstrates that the Bible’s approach to life and death are different from ours. Again, the idea of “dying before one’s time” seems to suggest that God owes us more time and life. I don’t think we take seriously the idea that God holds life, death, and judgment in His hands. In other words, ultimately, is there such a thing as dying before one’s time?
Sixth, how would this position relate to the death of infants or the unborn? I’m just curious about that! Or what about abortions (and even murders of adults)? No matter what your position (Arminian, Calvinistic or somewhere in between) these are tough to navigate.
Seventh, (and last) why then does God allow some sinners to live so long? Look at Hugh Hefner now in his 80s! Is God unjust be allowing the death of some sinners early with less punishment but allowing others to keep sinning and earning greater punishment?
LikeLike
June 28, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Also, let me say that I don’t buy the argument that God may take a saint “before their time” because He knows they may turn away from Him in the future had they lived longer. I’ve even heard this prayer: “…and God, if you see that my children will turn away from you somewhere down the road, then take them right now while they are walking with you…” What kind of confidence in God and His people is that? Why not pray this prayer: “God deliver my children from evil (i.e. the evil one) and lead them not into temptation, Lord give them grace and strength and knowledge and wisdom and keep them until the day they are glorified with You!”
In the final analysis, we do not, nor ever will (on this side of glory) have all the answers on these issues nor understand it fully. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try through Bible study, reason, and wisdom to understand them. But in the end: “we’ll understand it better by and by!”
LikeLike
June 28, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Jason,
I’ve been thinking about this post all day. In my first post I had a Reformed reaction to your position which was related to this question but perhaps didn’t address your position directly as well as it should have though I still hold to my first post. Please understand that I’m not a 5-point Calvinist or something like that, I just find that, on the whole, my theological leanings concerning the sovereignty of God and human free will are more Reformed than most. Like many of the things we argue on this site I need to slow down long enough to formulate a more formal personal position!
First, as should seen obvious, I have no problem with your position concerning God’s absolute knowledge. Indeed God does know all things including knowledge of potential events, actual events past, present, and future, and all possible events.
That being said, let me state several specific questions/contentions I have concerning your argument.
For one, the statement “their untimely death proves they never would have accepted Christ,” seems an overreach. Granted I can see how you get there with your reasoning but I await some Scripture! This bit of logic seems similar to the Calvinist line-of-reasoning that an apostate person never believed, or was born again in the first place. I’m saying the logic, or reasoning is similar, not the actual position. You are arriving there by beginning with the principle, essentially (you can correct me), that God’s knowledge, nature, and will are exercised in such a way that anyone who will respond to Him positively are given the chance. From there you arrive at the idea that untimely death of the wicked proves that they would have never come to Christ. That just seems farfetched to me. As stated in the previous posts, are you willing to extrapolate that and say that God wiped out entire peoples, or allowed for their destruction, because He knew that not one would come to Him given the right circumstances, more time, or more revelation?
How do I see the untimely death of the wicked? At this point I’ve been thinking a lot on Matthew 11:23-24. Going back to Genesis 18-19 we know that God destroyed Sodom for its exceeding unrighteousness. Yet here we have Jesus admitting that God could have provided greater revelation which would have certainly led to the repenting of Sodom! And on the other hand, God was permitting the continued existence of Bethsaida and Capernaum. Jesus did claim that the judgment would be greater for those with greater revelation but that doesn’t diminish the point. God completely obliterated the people of Sodom, entirely wiped them out, man, woman, and child. So I would say that the time of death is entirely in God’s hands and whenever we die we will be fully culpable for our sins, sinfulness, and the response/lack of response to the revelation of God (however limited) we did have. That God smote Sodom but sent Jesus to Capernaum was entirely God’s choice.
I would argue that God could destroy every unregenerate sinner without His justice being impugned (Rom. 1:32). The only reason we are not consumed, is that like Paul, God Himself intervened. So, when you state, “To believe God would allow a sinner to die prematurely with the knowledge that she would have chosen to serve Him in the future if given the time is inconsistent with God’s will as expressed in Scripture,” I have to say that more time won’t do anything. Apart from God’s intervention, given only more time, a unbeliever will continue to unbelieve, a sinner to sin, the wicked to hate God. The only thing that can save a person is the absolute intervention of God and His gracious work in us. And God does choose to whom He will reveal His grace and in what measure. So even the offering of a choice to which individuals must respond (greater revelation) is of grace, never owed nor earned. It is all of grace.
LikeLike
June 30, 2006 at 6:53 am
Jason,
I’ve posted already three times but I must ask one more question. The more I’ve thought about this question the more I wonder this: what do you mean by “dying before one’s time?”
Do you mean dying before age 70 or something like that? Is this the “threescore and ten” of Psalm 90:10?
LikeLike
June 30, 2006 at 9:50 am
I think Jason defines “Dying Before One’s Time” as an indefinite period Chad. For example, when we see the tragedy of infants or adolescents being killed accidentally or otherwise our refrain is something like, “that shouldn’t be”. There is that inherent understanding that that person died before they should have.
LikeLike
June 30, 2006 at 9:55 am
Jason,
I am unsure of your hypothesis at this point. For example, I think in some you we may be infringing upon the instrument of free will in some way. Meaning, we are free to do as we choose and consequently those “choosings” or choices have consequences–positive or negative. Thus, if someone makes the negative decision to put themselves in harm’s way by associating with the wrong crowd it is no wonder that they would be murdered or killed.
Also, I think your hypothesis paints a picture that God will involuntarily, thus suspending free-will momentarily, intervene in a situation to accomplish the ultimate end. So, should we ask then why doesn’t God make such interventions in others who die lost? Are they willed from eternity to be lost? Just some thoughts.
LikeLike
July 12, 2006 at 9:39 am
bump for Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2006 at 2:39 am
Chad,
Sorry for the long delay in my response, but I said I would respond, and I am responding. You really caused me to rethink a lot of things. I spent many hours pouring over my response both before and after my big interruption: moving.
It’s been so long that you may have to re-read what you wrote to make sense of my response, although I do try to quote what I am responding to as much as possible.
You identified what you perceived to be two overarching assumptions of my view. Actually, I assume neither. I do not assume “God owes humanity…the opportunity for every human being to come to God.” He would be entirely just in allowing everyone of us to be punished for our deeds with no offer of salvation. I agree with you that God could destroy every one of us without being unjust. It is only in His mercy that He does not destroy us, offering salvation instead. Neither do I assume we choose God as if it was our initiative or effort. None of us would come to God apart from His divine intervention and grace in our lives. We do not pursue Him; He pursues us. Left to ourselves we would only continue to rebel against, and run from Him. I hope you don’t think these two assumptions make you Reformed! They are quite at home in an Arminian worldview.
You wrote, “It is manifestly obvious that at [any] given point in history, entire civilizations, people groups, tribes, etc. passed in and out of existence without knowledge of Jesus Christ in any form. So did God know that absolutely no one in the people group would come to Him?” At any point in history? Surely you must be referring only to the last 2000 years because Jesus did not exist before then. I’m assuming you are referring to the knowledge of God in general, but why would you think that given Romans 1-2? According to Paul no one is without the knowledge of God. People simply reject the revelation God has given to them in creation and conscience.
I had not thought of Matthew 11:20-24. That is a powerful verse that seems to defeat my hypothesis. Thank you for remembering it and bringing it to my attention. I need to think about it a little more, but on the face of it this verse provides a serious challenge to, if not a devastating blow to my hypothesis.
One thing I would point out is that the text is not entirely analogous to the point I was making. The notion communicated by the text is that if God had done the extraordinary things in Tyre and Sidon that He was doing in Chorazin and Bethsaida, the fate of Tyre and Sidon would have been positive rather than negative. But God did not do those things there. Why? At a bare minimum I think it is safe to say He did not INTEND to do them there, whereas He did intend to do them in Chorazin and Bethsaida (why that is so is beyond me). The question, then, is how people respond to God GIVEN THE WAYS HE INTENDS TO DEAL WITH THEM? Given the way God intended to, and did deal with Tyre and Sidon they would not repent. Given the way God intended to, and did deal with Chorazin and Bethsaida they would not repent either (even though God gave them more reason to do so than He did Tyre and Sidon).
In contrast, my contention is that given the way God intended to deal with person X in the future, they WOULD NOT have repented. God, knowing person X will not respond positively to the ways He would work on their heart in the future, does not spare their life in the present. Likewise, given the way God would deal with person Y in the future, they WOULD repent. God, knowing person Y will respond positively to His work on their heart in the future, spares their life in the present. In other words, I am talking about divinely intended counterfactuals, not an indefinite number of hypothetical counterfactuals God never INTENDED to actualize in this world.
Sidepoint: ***I use the word “intend” (in relationship to the premature dead whom God knows would not have repented later) with some hesitancy, because in a strict sense God cannot have intentions to do something in the future all the while knowing He will not do it. It leads to the strange conclusion that God intends to do what He will never do. I use the word loosely for lack of a better term to express what God would have done had the individual lived a full life. On the view I proposed, God’s knowledge of future counterfactuals logically precedes His decision to allow someone to die prematurely. Once God makes that decision, however, it can no longer be said that He intends to do anything with that individual in the future. It is a hypothetical intention of sorts, based on God’s omniscience of all counterfactuals.****
The above is my attempt to show how my claim is disanalogous to Mt 11, but at the same time it is strikingly analogous. Jesus spoke of past counterfactuals that did not happen, while I speak of future counterfactuals that will not happen. If Jesus said people who died in the past without God would have had a different fate if God had intended to act in a different manner, then it could be that people who die prematurely in the present without God might have had a different fate as well. If God let the people of Tyre and Sidon die in sin, knowing their fate could have been different if He intended to act differently toward them, then it is possible that God let the sinners who die prematurely in our day die in sin knowing their fate could have been different as well. But wait (as I think out loud). The REASON for the fate of each group would be different. The first group’s fate was due to God’s intention to do X rather than Y. The second group’s fate would be due to their untimely death. Given what God intended to do in their life they would have repented (unlike Tyre and Chorazin), if only they were allowed to live until such a time when God’s intended acts would be actualized in time. Once actualized, the person would have responded positively to God.
So I am at an impasse. In one sense Mt 11 seems to disconfirm my hypothesis. On the other hand, it’s not entirely analogous. I’m just not sure if the dissimilarities are enough to salvage my hypothesis or not. It’s clear that God does what He intends. The question is whether it is possible for God to intend to do X in someone’s life in the future, knowing they will respond positively to Him, but let them die before that time so that they will never respond positively to Him even though they would have given the time to do so. It just seems to me that God would not do that. But then again, why would God—knowing that Tyre and Sidon would have repented had He done X+Y rather than just X—not have done X+Y? That is even more troubling to me…which leads me to my next point.
To be continued…
LikeLike
October 13, 2006 at 2:40 am
Continued…
You wrote, “The position still cannot get around the fact that God created, or allowed for the birth, of a person which He knew would go to hell.” It doesn’t attempt to. That is a separate problem with a separate answer, even though the two are logically related questions.
The principles I employed to deal with the question of those God allowed to die prematurely would be equally applicable to the situation in which God actively killed them.
“Dying before one’s time” is not a theological statement, but a description of human perception based on the “normal life.” A normal life, free from disease and accidents, will end after 70 years or so. If someone dies before then, from our perspective it seems as though they died before their time. From a theological perspective, however, you are right. God has appointed our times of death (although the Hezekiah situation is a weird case example that casts doubt on exactly what the doctrine means) for each of us. None of us die apart from His knowledge and will.
You wrote, “For one, the statement ‘their untimely death proves they never would have accepted Christ,’ seems an overreach. Granted I can see how you get there with your reasoning but I await some Scripture!” If you mean you await a verse that states my explanation the way I state it, your expectation is both unrealistic and unfair. Let me explain.
We must differentiate a Biblical statement from a Biblical explanation. The Bible is not a theology book. We don’t find a book in the Bible that teaches on sin, and another book that teaches on God. No, we find books that randomly deal with many issues, none of which are systematically and methodically examined. We are provided only with a series of random factoids with no explanation of how factoid A in book X relates to factoid B in book Y. That is where theology comes in. Systematic theology in particular is the human attempt to explain the relationship between these factoids, and address the questions they raise (but either are not addressed, or not resolved in the text itself). Systematic theology, then, is both a connector of dots and a filler of gaps for issues/questions not addressed/answered in Scripture. See my article entitled “Bias, Systematic Theology, and Exegesis” at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/systematic.htm for a more detailed presentation of the indispensability, role, and relationship of systematic theology to Biblical theology and interpretation.
If I asked you to tell me your view of God I am confident you would appeal to many verses in support of your view, but invariably your view of God will transcend the propositional content presented in those passages; i.e. you will claim more than is stated in Scripture. Why? The most obvious reason is that if you limited yourself to the propositional content of Scripture to state your view on any given issue you would be limited to a mere quotation of Scripture. As soon as you try to explain what those words in Scripture mean you transcend the text.
To be continued…
LikeLike
October 13, 2006 at 2:41 am
Continued….
You asked if I was “willing to extrapolate that and say that God wiped out entire peoples, or allowed for their destruction, because He knew that not one would come to Him given the right circumstances, more time, or more revelation?” Yes. I don’t see anything problematic with that. I do want to qualify your comment about the right circumstances, however. I’m not talking about any possible set of circumstances the person might be put in (all possible worlds), but the circumstances as they would have been in had they continued to live on.
You wrote, “So, when you state, ‘To believe God would allow a sinner to die prematurely with the knowledge that she would have chosen to serve Him in the future if given the time is inconsistent with God’s will as expressed in Scripture,’ I have to say that more time won’t do anything. Apart from God’s intervention, given only more time, a unbeliever will continue to disbelieve, a sinner to sin, the wicked to hate God. The only thing that can save a person is the absolute intervention of God and His gracious work in us. And God does choose to whom He will reveal His grace and in what measure. So even the offering of a choice to which individuals must respond (greater revelation) is of grace, never owed nor earned. It is all of grace.”
You seemed to have missed a vital portion of my quote: “with the knowledge that she would have chosen to serve Him in the future”. You seem to be talking only of those who will never repent. It goes without saying that more time will not do them any good.
LikeLike
October 13, 2006 at 3:00 am
James,
You wrote, “I think in some you we may be infringing upon the instrument of free will in some way. Meaning, we are free to do as we choose and consequently those “choosings” or choices have consequences–positive or negative. Thus, if someone makes the negative decision to put themselves in harm’s way by associating with the wrong crowd it is no wonder that they would be murdered or killed.”
I’m not claiming God does suspends the “law of consequences” for those whom He knows will accept Him in the future. If they do stupid stuff they will experience negative consequences: emotional pain, jail time, family problems, etc. I’m only claiming that God intervenes to prevent one very specific consequence: death. Furthermore, He only does this for those whom He knows will accept Him in the future. For those He knows will not accept Him in the future, He allows the law of consequences to run its course.
You went on to say, “Also, I think your hypothesis paints a picture that God will involuntarily, thus suspending free-will momentarily, intervene in a situation to accomplish the ultimate end. So, should we ask then why doesn’t God make such interventions in others who die lost? Are they willed from eternity to be lost? Just some thoughts.”
It’s not a matter of God suspending free will. It’s a matter of God preventing particular consequences that result when we exercise our free will in a certain way. That said, I wouldn’t have a problem with God suspending our free will. I don’t think Scripture teaches a radical human sovereignty as is commonly conceived in Arminian circles. God is actively involved in His creation. He’s not just an observer. Our freedom of will is limited by His freedom of will much in the same way both child and parent have free will, but the former’s free will is limited by the latter’s. I find plenty of examples in Scripture where God’s involvement in a person’s life changed what they willed to do. Of course, I’m not even talking about changing someone’s willing, though. I’m just talking about preventing certain consequences of a choice we make, or circumstances we fall victim to that having nothing to do with our will. On an experiential level I’m sure we’ve all heard many stories of those who came to Christ later in life say, “I should have been dead so many times, but the Lord spared me time and time again.” Why? So they could be saved at a future time.
Why doesn’t God d the same for the lost? As I argued in my original post, it’s because they will never accept Him anyway. In fact, I argued that allowing them to die prematurely may be part of God’s mercy toward them because it prevents them from heaping up more eternal damnation against themselves.
Jason
LikeLike
October 14, 2006 at 12:40 am
Have we settled the issue that God really does know absolutely everything….even contingencies?
Is it possible God does not know everything except maybe what He knows are essential for His Will to occur (the greater scheme of things)?
Or maybe the only things in the future He knows will come to pass are the things He intentionally manipulates in the present, knowing through His vast intellect what the results would be..
If God really does know all things, then the idea that He would even know what choice you would have made had you not died seem redundant…because there WAS no choice had you not died….there was NOT a scenery of “had you not died before your time” if God truely KNEW you were going to die before your time.
If God truely knew at what date you were going to die, then there is no other option for God to know had you lived.
Is that logically sound to say He knows things that will not happen anyways.
How can you know a future event that won’t be happening?
Not unless each individual has several threads of existence that all play out…somehow with the same person. Such is the domain of Star Trek though.
LikeLike
October 15, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Jason:
Put that way I agree. I am definitely not a hyper-Armenian and do believe that God’s sovereignty is somewhat mitigated by His foreknowledge. If we can say it like that.
LikeLike
May 9, 2012 at 11:14 am
“their untimely death proves they never would have accepted Christ.” – Well that’s a heap of trash. Countless people die at old age without having accepted Christ. According to your view, God should have killed them all off while they were young since He knew they would never believe.
LikeLike