U: By far, the most uttered complaint against election is that it’s not fair. And yet, every Christian acknowledges they don’t deserve God’s mercy and His salvation – that it’s “fair” if God chose to judge all sinners as being unworthy of spending eternal life with Him. That being the case why is it considered repugnant if God chooses to show mercy to some and allows His justice to fall on others who willingly continue in their sin? Would a governor be considered an ogre and unfair simply because he/she decided to grant amnesty to one criminal while others are left to carry out their proper sentence? Those who reject election believe in choice, but they don’t want God to choose; they want humanity to choose instead. This seems more fair and just to them.
L: …“Now, who is it that limits of the death of Christ? Why, you - you say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon. When you say we limit Christ’s death we say no my dear sir it is you that do that. We say that Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but will be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
I: J. I. Packer sums up this doctrine in a very succinct manner when he says, “Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist.” A passage in Acts showcases this efficacious call of God in action: “And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. ” (Acts 16:13–14).
P: ...the fruit of the tree identifies the type of tree (Matt. 12:33). In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator. Instead, reformed theology upholds just the opposite: that a true Christian will manifest holy affections that prove their salvation, although they will always struggle with the sin nature that they have (see Romans 7).
I don’t see where this addresses the problem in Calvinism of salvation by election instead of by grace through faith.
Quick question about Calvinism and its relationship to Puritanism - I vaguely remember reading that John Milton, by all accounts an archetypal Puritan, wrote a critique of the doctrine of Predestination. If that’s the case, how was he (and others like him in the Puritan movement) reconciled with Puritanism’s Calvinist roots?
The fundamental problem with reform theology in general and Calvinism in particular is that there is little room for the concept of a loving God, and that fundamental moral transformations in individuals are probably not possible at best and futile at worst.
If you believe that God picks a subset of humanity to save then logically you believe that God created the rest for the specific purpose of torturing them eternally in Hell.
Aside from the “P”’, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between the ‘misperception’ and the ‘facts’ as he explains them.
I once went to a family Bible camp where Edwin Palmer spoke on “The Five Points of Calvinism”.
His entire presentation on Perseverance of the Saints was, “Once saved, always saved; no exception.”
Even Calvin believed in common grace.
While in college, after once arguing until 3:00 with a Calvinist, both of us honestly using scripture to support our point of view, I came to the conclusion that I would never embark on that discussion again. Something was wrong.
After study quantum mechanics, I came to the conclusion that what was wrong was a form of “indeterminacy,” an inability to process the true state of things, because we see in three dimensions. An electron is a particle if tested for particularity and a wave if tested for waveness.
When tested from God’s point of view, it’s 100% election. Tested from man’s point of view, it’s 100% free choice.
So, I assume election is true and free choice is true, and the contradiction bothers me no more than an apparently self-contradictory theory which attempts to model reality.
And, BTW, God isn’t telling me whom is predestined. To try to guess is hubris.
Limited Atonement - arrived at by reasoning backwards. Rejected. Hey, no one gets it all right...
1. Most of its subscribers I have encountered on a discussion basis have been pompous, arrogant, jerks who think they have God figured out. I have no doubt that there are fine Calvinists out there who do not take such an approach -— and most certainly those on FR would be some of the finest.
2. Calvinism is a man-developed system of beliefs that Calvinists use as a filter or mold into which scripture is to fit.
3. I have a very hard time believing that a significant portion of the earth’s population from the beginning of time to the end of time will have been born, lived their lives, and died into eternal damnation NEVER HAVING ANY CHANCE WHATSOEVER because they were not part of the pre-determined, elected, privileged class.
I’d much rather see Christians take a “let Sciprture speak for Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit” approach to the Living Word, rather than parsing, dicing, slicing, twisting, and weaving God’s Word into a set of beliefs that are, in reality, a component of the mysteries that our Heavenly Father has not revealed to us.
I have many of the same concerns with hard core Arminians.
Here’s the reality: when it all ends and you, I, or any other person who has been washed by the sacrificial blood of the Lamb and are standing in God’s presence in Paradise, the absolute LAST thing on our mind will be whether Calvinism or Arminianism or any other man-made theological theory was right or wrong.
Ah, the old game of making up myths to debunk. So fun for apologists of all kinds.
This could easily go up to 10,000 replies and it probably would convince few people to switch positions. I recently read through the whole NT for verses that applied to this very subject. From my reading it seems there are more verses that emphasize the faith aspect of salvation rather than the election aspect. That being said both are definitely mentioned, so whatever a person decides it has to incorporate both concepts.
My take on it is this, from Rom 8.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
The order is foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. The process starts with foreknew, which leaves a door open for a meaningful decision by a person not predetermined by god.
Acknowledging we are dead in our sins and trespasses, it seems we need some power to quicken us, like Rom 1 says here For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. There are a number of other verses that mention the power of Gods word and the gospel. So God offers us the Gospel and gives us the free will to choose, and those he foreknew would believe he predestined to all kinds of good stuff.
I personally do not think love and faith can exist at all in robots who are pre-programmed to make a certain choice, which is something Calvinism seems to require. Reading through the whole Bible, there would be an awful lot of wasted pages discussing love, faith, and choosing, believing etc, like they matter. Why put a tree in the garden of eden, at the beginning, if God’s intention wasn’t to give them a choice.
If God lined up a bunch of criminals, and then pulled the trigger of a gun, shooting 9 of 10 people, some may say he would be just since they are all criminals. However, if he made them, before they were born, some to be saved and some to burn in hell forever - well let’s just say I have a hard time reconciling that with “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.”
So I’m still meditating on it, and probably will be 20 years from now. I’m sure when we get to heaven and he explains it, we have a duh moment.
While I would agree with this statement, I can see no reason why a Calvinist would say it. If the woman's eventual spiritual outcome is predetermined by God's election, then no amount of encouragement or rebuke will make any difference in whether she repents. He might as well have forcefully said "The sky is blue!" for all the good it would do.