Are God's choices arbitrary?

[seer]

Are God choices arbitrary in Calvinists election?

You have two lumps of clay,both equal,neither one having any intrinsic quality to commend it's self to you. And you wanted to create something beautiful with one lump,and create something unlovely with the other - how would you go about making that choice? Which lump would you use for which purpose? How could your choice be anything but arbitrary?

[joelkaki]

Are God choices arbitrary in Calvinists election?

You have two lumps of clay,both equal,neither one having any intrinsic quality to commend it's self to you. And you wanted to create something beautiful with one lump,and create something unlovely with the other - how would you go about making that choice? Which lump would you use for which purpose? How could your choice be anything but arbitrary?

You say, "create something unlovely". I don't think that is exactly accurate. We are already unlovely. We are naturally ugly. God doesn't have to actively make some people unlovely. They are already that way. He graciously, though, transforms some of those unlovely lumps into vessels of mercy and honor.
I don't believe "arbitrary" is a good choice of words when it regards God's sovereign electing choice. God is all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Whatever he decides is the best decision, and will ultimately bring him the most glory. So is it arbitrary? In one sense, possibly yes, because there are not outside factors that would influence him (such as a person being good or whatever). He decides sovereignly. So in another sense, no, because it is sovereign. He does whatever is best.
Whether it is or not, though, really should not affect our response. Our response cannot be "WHy does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? Why have you made me like this?" (Romans 9:19-20). He is the Potter, we are the clay. And not only that, but we have rebelled against him. He has the right to do whatever he wants with us. And we must realize that no matter how he accomplishes his purposes, it is for his glory and our good.

Joel

[seer]

Thanks Joel. But when it comes to choosing a lump (since all lumps are equally unlovely as you say,and I would add, interchangeable) I think the choice of a lump must logically be arbitrary,at least as far as a specific lump goes. So in reality God's love for you was an arbitrary decision.

[Pilgrim]

Spurgeon makes a good obervation about questions such as yours seer...

Now I hear some saying, "You are a fatalist Preacher!" No, and far from it, for there is just this difference between fate and providence, fate is blind but providence has eyes. Fate is and arrow shot by a blind archer going on its course but providence has a purpose.

Of course one also has to realize that Calvin himself was not so concerned with predestination as most would think. In fact, he didn't even really address the concept in his first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. One idea that might make it more plaitiable is that for Calvin, as he stated it, "The foundation of all theology is the fundamental Benevolence of God." In other words Calvin saw that God is the definition of good and realized that while he might be wrong on any point of theology (predestination included) he could rest assured not in the points of theology or doctrine, but in the goodness of God.

In other words, God is God all the time.

[joelkaki]

Thanks Joel. But when it comes to choosing a lump (since all lumps are equally unlovely as you say,and I would add, interchangeable) I think the choice of a lump must logically be arbitrary,at least as far as a specific lump goes. So in reality God's love for you was an arbitrary decision.

My basic point is, no matter how God does it, we cannot respond to it as Paul's imaginary adversary did in Romans 9.


Joel

[Kenny]

God’s choices in election are not arbitrary. They are simply completely unrelated to any positive human merit. We see hints throughout Scripture, in fact, of God’s divine purpose of electing certain individuals but passing over others. In Romans 9-11, for example, we see that the current hardening that has come upon Israel is part of God’s larger redemptive purpose for the whole world – Israel was hardened so the Gospel might go to the Gentiles. In I Corinthians 1:27-29, we read that God choose the uneducated and lowly Corinthians so in order to shame the lofty and educated and to remove all ground for boasting in the presence of God. In Acts and in Paul’s letters, we read that Paul was called in order to be an Apostle to the Gentiles and Paul says that he is himself a “debtor” to the Gentiles. I had an NT prof who believed that Paul meant that quite literally – he owed the Gentiles his salvation! – since it was for the sake of the Gentiles that Paul was saved. In Ephesians 2:8-10 we read that we have been saved by grace through faith so that we might do the good works which God has prepared in advance for us to do.

God has reasons for choosing certain individuals and passing over others, but these reasons, whatever their ground, are not grounded in the positive merits of these individuals. Ultimately, God’s purpose is to maximize His own glory because, in the end, that is the highest good and the highest aim for all creation.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

...Now I hear some saying, "You are a fatalist Preacher!" No, and far from it, for there is just this difference between fate and providence, fate is blind but providence has eyes. Fate is and arrow shot by a blind archer going on its course but providence has a purpose.

Actually Pilgrim, I think that Calvinism fits the definition of fatalism perfectly:

Websters:

"a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine."

Wordsmyth:

"a belief or doctrine that the events of life are predetermined and cannot be altered by human free will."

It seems that Calvinism = fatalism,by definition...

[seer]

It still seems to me Kenny, that your non-elect neighbor could serve the exact same purpose as you. That you and him would be completely interchangable. Now perhaps you have a quality that your non-elect neighbor does not. Now this quality may not be a "positive merit " but it is something that your neighbor does not have. Which puts God in the position of needing men to have certain natural qualities (i.e. proverty,moral weakness, ignorance, etc...) before He could use/save them. Of course many of your non-elect neighbors would probably already have these natural qualities - yet God still does not save them.

So we are back to arbitrary choice.

[joelkaki]

Still, whether it is arbitrary or not is really not our place. That is God's decision. And since we have all rebelled against him, he has the right to make any one of us vessels of honor, while passing over others, based on nothing in us. And you know what, if it was based in us, then probably none of us would ever have been elected. We aren't lovely. We do awful things. We commit horrendous sins. There is no reason in us for God to choose us. But he graciously did choose to save some of us. And for that we must be truly thankful.

Joel

[Kenny]

Today @ 11:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74932#post74932)
seer:

It still seems to me Kenny, that your non-elect neighbor could serve the exact same purpose as you. That you and him would be completely interchangable.

Not necessarily. At the very least, my non-elect neighbor does not have the same set of relationships to the world that I have nor the same sets of influences that I have. Regardless of any difference between me and my neighbor, I know that God’s decision does not have to do with is any intrinsic positive merit or talent that I have over and above my neighbor that somehow makes me more useable to God. However, I stand in a different causal and historical relationship to the world than my neighbor does, and so God’s choice to elect me and not my neighbor in order to accomplish his purposes is not necessarily arbitrary either. We have to remember that God’s plan of redemption relates to the entire causal structure of the world, and does not focus exclusively on individuals but also on how those individuals are related to the larger scheme of redemptive history.

Now perhaps you have a quality that your non-elect neighbor does not. Now this quality may not be a "positive merit " but it is something that your neighbor does not have.

Yes, but I would say that if there is such a quality, it is one that is extrinsic to myself and not intrinsic to myself – not something within me but something that is embedded in my causal relationships to the world. You may ask why, then, God arranged things so that I found myself in that set of causal relationships and not my neighbor, but then we are pushing things to a point where our knowledge is extremely limited. A speculative answer might be found in something like the doctrine of traducianism (sp?) – the idea that one’s soul or personal identity is handed down to one by means of one’s parents. If something like this view is correct, I could not have existed without my entire family history preceding me. In order for my particular family history to precede me, the contingent factors related to the fact that my ancestors encountered one another and produced the offspring that they did might put fairly tight restrictions on the ways the world could have been different and yet be so that I still existed, and thus tight restrictions on the sort of differing causal relations I could have had with respect to the world (and by extension, my neighbor). If we push things back any further than this we start to ask questions like “Why was I born and not some other possible person?”. I trust that the answer to such questions rests in the fact that God’s good purposes were better served by the world being the way it is rather than some other way, but beyond that our knowledge is much too limited to even speculate here.

Still, God is good and He has a reason for everything He does, and that is the confession of our faith even where our knowledge runs out.

Which puts God in the position of needing men to have certain natural qualities (i.e. proverty,moral weakness, ignorance, etc...) before He could use/save them. Of course many of your non-elect neighbors would probably already have these natural qualities - yet God still does not save them.

Well, if we reflect on Romans 9-11, it wouldn’t have done much good for God to harden large numbers of individual Gentiles rather than large numbers of individual Israelites in order to accomplish his purpose of hardening Israel so that the Gospel could be spread to the Gentiles (and just so you know, I understand God’s hardening in a passive rather than an active sense – God merely withholds grace to some that He gives to others). There are no intrinsic differences between the individual hardened Israelite and the saved Gentile of Romans 9-11 that caused God to select one over the other, but in terms of their respective extrinsic relationships to the world, there were differences and larger redemptive purposes at stake beyond those individuals.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

....It still seems to me Kenny, that your non-elect neighbor could serve the exact same purpose as you. That you and him would be completely interchangable. ”



....Not necessarily. At the very least, my non-elect neighbor does not have the same set of relationships to the world that I have nor the same sets of influences that I have. Regardless of any difference between me and my neighbor, I know that God’s decision does not have to do with is any intrinsic positive merit or talent that I have over and above my neighbor that somehow makes me more useable to God. However, I stand in a different causal and historical relationship to the world than my neighbor does, and so God’s choice to elect me and not my neighbor in order to accomplish his purposes is not necessarily arbitrary either. We have to remember that God’s plan of redemption relates to the entire causal structure of the world, and does not focus exclusively on individuals but also on how those individuals are related to the larger scheme of redemptive history.

So you are saying then that God chose you because you have a different causal and historical relationship to the world that your neighbor does not? And that God is locked into using your particular causal and historical relationship to the world? That He couldn't use your neighbor's relationship just as easily?

Of course Kenny, if this is true, then when God set His love on you, He did it for completely utilitarian reasons. That thought does not really warm the heart....

[seer]

...And since we have all rebelled against him, he has the right to make any one of us vessels of honor, while passing over others, based on nothing in us.

Now that is interesting Joel. How is a man born in 1960 morally accountable before God - since he was born with a sin nature that irresistably compells him to sin?

[Kenny]

So you are saying then that God chose you because you have a different causal and historical relationship to the world that your neighbor does not? And that God is locked into using your particular causal and historical relationship to the world? That He couldn't use your neighbor's relationship just as easily?

Even God is subject to logical constraints and subject to the decisions He has already made about the world.

Of course Kenny, if this is true, then when God set His love on you, He did it for completely utilitarian reasons. That thought does not really warm the heart....

You have a point there. I don’t believe that the reasons here are entirely utilitarian, though utilitarian considerations do play a role (Romans 9-11). We need to remember that behind all of God’s redemptive purposes is God’s grace and God’s grace is, in turn, grounded in God’s love. God’s love, in turn, extends both to universal dimensions (love for the whole world) and individual dimensions – and those two are somehow wrapped up together – God’s loving purposes for the world are coincident with God’s loving purposes for individuals. I believe that God saved me not only for larger utilitarian purposes but because He had mercy and compassion on me, but God also saved me for larger purposes – and these two aspects of God’s decision can’t be fully sorted out by our minds. The sort of utilitarian explanations I have offered here do have Scriptural support and they do show, logically, how God’s purposes aren’t necessarily arbitrary, but you’re right in pointing out that such explanations should not be overplayed. There is still a mystery of love behind God’s electing purposes which Scripture also affirms. Still, my arguments here show that the Calvinist need not logically be committed to saying that God’s decisions are arbitrary.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

...Even God is subject to logical constraints and subject to the decisions He has already made about the world.


Well I would't think that God would be subject to mere natural circumstance.

“ Of course Kenny, if this is true, then when God set His love on you, He did it for completely utilitarian reasons. That thought does not really warm the heart.... ”



....I believe that God saved me not only for larger utilitarian purposes but because He had mercy and compassion on me, but God also saved me for larger purposes – and these two aspects of God’s decision can’t be fully sorted out by our minds. The sort of utilitarian explanations I have offered here do have Scriptural support and they do show, logically, how God’s purposes aren’t necessarily arbitrary, but you’re right in pointing out that such explanations should not be overplayed. There is still a mystery of love behind God’s electing purposes which Scripture also affirms. Still, my arguments here show that the Calvinist need not logically be committed to saying that God’s decisions are arbitrary.


But Kenny, really all you have is a utilitarian reason for God setting His electing love on you. You have resorted to mystery. And the utilitarian argument really doesn't work that well because it makes God the servant of an individual's circumstance rather than the Sovereign of said circumstance.

[joelkaki]

...And since we have all rebelled against him, he has the right to make any one of us vessels of honor, while passing over others, based on nothing in us.

Now that is interesting Joel. How is a man born in 1960 morally accountable before God - since he was born with a sin nature that irresistably compells him to sin?

First of all, it goes back to Adam's sin. Adam was, obviously, the first Adam. He was the federal head of all of humanity. What he did affected all of us. And so when, he sinned, he died spiritually, and all men after him are naturally dead spiritually. Psalm 51 tells us that we are conceived in sin. So it is Biblical fact that we are born with a sin nature. And that original sin, whereby we get our sin nature, does certainly mean that we do constantly sin now. Sin has corrupted our entire being. Romans 5:12 tells us that through one man sin entered the world, and by that sin, death spread to all men. But we do also commit actual sins.
Now, your reply seems to indicate that to you it seems unfair that men should be irresistibly compelled to sin by an act done by one man as their federal head. Be careful there. That would be an argument against federal headship, which is taugth in the Bible. And importantly, if federal headship is unfair and should not have been used in that situation, then neither can federal headship be used in the death of Christ for his people. If we cannot inherit a sin nature that causes us to sin from Adam's federal headship, then neither can we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us as our federal head. So federal headship must stand, or we have no salvation.
And because of all that, a man born in 1960 is morally accountable before God. And God could have left us all like that--in a sin nature that constantly causes us to sin. But thanks be to him, he sovereignly chose to save some, and sent His son to die for those men, that not all would undergo his fierce wrath. He didn't have to save any, but he did, is doing, and will do so. Any "talkback" on our part to him is utterly unfounded, and indeed, rebellious.

Joel

[seer]

First Joel, many good theologians do not believe in the federal headship theory - not even all Calvinist scholars do - if I remember correctly. Second - you still have God harming men for doing what they can't help to do by nature. And this is called the justice of God. So you have God eternally harming the helpless:

Let me ask you Joel, would you harm and torment a mentally handicapped person for acting mentally ill? If not - why not?

[joelkaki]

First Joel, many good theologians do not believe in the federal headship theory - not even all Calvinist scholars do - if I remember correctly.

I was not aware that any Calvinists disagreed with federal headship. How would you explain the fact that babies are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) if there was no federal headship. And if there is no federal headship, then basically that would mean, would it not, that men are not born sinful, and have the ability to live a sinless life? I see no indication of that in Scripture. And also if man is not naturally in sin, then then Ephesians 2:3 could not be correct, for it says we are all by nature children of wrath.


Second - you still have God harming men for doing what they can't help to do by nature. And this is called the justice of God. So you have God eternally harming the helpless:

And yet they are still sinning against God, whether it be by nature or anything else. And besides, they sin willingly. It is not like they want to stop sinning. They love their sin. Men willingly sin every day. And God has the right to judge that sin. And you ignore the argument of Romans 9. And another point: We are all God's creatures. He has the right to do whatever he wants with us. We cannot say to the Potter, "Why have you made me like this?"


Let me ask you Joel, would you harm and torment a mentally handicapped person for acting mentally ill? If not - why not?

First of all, it is not my place to take action in that situation. I am not God. Those people's lives are not in my hands--I may not do whatever I wish with them. So that would not be my place. You cannot place God on my level. He can do what he wants. And Secondly, seeing as how I am not sovereign over that person, what they did would not be offending me. But sinners offend God by their sin. They rebel against him, and thus he has the right to judge them. And plus, there is no reason to hurt and torment a mentally ill person for being mentally ill. Sin is though. It offends God in his glorious and magnificient holiness, and wars against his standard of righteousness, thus he has the right to judge for it.

You did not answer my argument for federal headship with regards to Christ's federal headship of us, though, either.

Joel

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 05:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74922#post74922)
seer:

...Now I hear some saying, "You are a fatalist Preacher!" No, and far from it, for there is just this difference between fate and providence, fate is blind but providence has eyes. Fate is and arrow shot by a blind archer going on its course but providence has a purpose.

Actually Pilgrim, I think that Calvinism fits the definition of fatalism perfectly:

Websters:

"a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine."

Wordsmyth:

"a belief or doctrine that the events of life are predetermined and cannot be altered by human free will."

It seems that Calvinism = fatalism,by definition...


If I thought Websters was the best source for a conversation on the nuances of theology and the terms of theology I might agree with you. Unfortunately Websters is only a good starting point. Spurgeons point is a good one. Fate never has a purpose, it is completely arbitrary. God's choices, from the Calvinist's point of view, have purpose. So there is a bit of a nuance to the theological idea that Websters does not capture.

[seer]

....I was not aware that any Calvinists disagreed with federal headship. How would you explain the fact that babies are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) if there was no federal headship.


As far as the Calvinist thing,I'am working off of memory,so I could be wrong. Ps.51 does not say that all men are conceived in sin. That could be a particular situation of David's or hyberbole because of his grief. After all God did not actually crush David's bones.


...And if there is no federal headship, then basically that would mean, would it not, that men are not born sinful, and have the ability to live a sinless life? I see no indication of that in Scripture. And also if man is not naturally in sin, then then Ephesians 2:3 could not be correct, for it says we are all by nature children of wrath.

We are born with the exact same nature as Adam. A human nature. But the human nature unaided by the Holy Spirit - which WILL sin,and which needs spiritual rebirth.

...And yet they are still sinning against God, whether it be by nature or anything else. And besides, they sin willingly. It is not like they want to stop sinning. They love their sin.

That is circular. Of course we love to sin,but that love is compelled by a nature that we had no choice in receiving. We are still back to square one Joel: God eternally harming the helpless.


...You did not answer my argument for federal headship with regards to Christ's federal headship of us, though, either.

I don't see how that naturally follows. Father Adam got us into this mess,and Christ get's us out. Why is federal headship a necessary label?

http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/rom5B.html

[seer]

.....If I thought Websters was the best source for a conversation on the nuances of theology and the terms of theology I might agree with you. Unfortunately Websters is only a good starting point. Spurgeons point is a good one. Fate never has a purpose, it is completely arbitrary. God's choices, from the Calvinist's point of view, have purpose. So there is a bit of a nuance to the theological idea that Websters does not capture.

Well Pilgrim,I check about a dozen definitions and they all agree: Events that can not altered by the human will.

And fate is not purposeless:

"the nonhuman force that is often believed to DECIDE events in human life."

"the principle or determining cause or WILL by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do."

As a matter of fact the word comes from the actions of gods:

[L. Fata, pl. of fatum.] (Myth.) The three goddesses, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, sometimes called the Destinies, or Parcæwho were supposed to determine the course of human life.

So fate by definition need not be purposeless. And I will have to stand by my original point: Calvinism equals fatalism.

[Pilgrim]

If you want to that's ok. You'll never understand Calvinism then though.

[nomad]

How would you explain the fact that babies are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) if there was no federal headship. And if there is no federal headship, then basically that would mean, would it not, that men are not born sinful, and have the ability to live a sinless life?



one, have you ever heard of traducianist theory? i do not know too much about it, but it does partially explain this. as well as explain how, through Christ (whose spirit was born directly of the Holy Spirit), He did not have any part in sin.

two, i don't know if this directly relates, or if it is even right :) but there are verses in the OT law about how priests with physical deformities were not allowed into the inner courts. now, if we take this as a symbol, a window into the mind of God, and add to this that to live in heaven, we must both be born again of Spirit (when the Holy Spirit regenerates us) and of body (at the resurrection, we will be given a NEW body; the old one isn't good enough), and add the fact that the world was perfect until sin (adam & eve), and after that was cursed... perhaps our very bodies, corrupted as they are by 'Sin' (THE sin, a long time ago), are born 'in iniquity'?

if true, would it be a sufficient explanation?

this is just something off the cuff, i should probably think about it more before posting something like this, but oh well :)

[geebob]

Joel,

And you ignore the argument of Romans 9. And another point: We are all God's creatures. He has the right to do whatever he wants with us. We cannot say to the Potter, "Why have you made me like this?"

Romans ever the calvinist standard can lend itself to radically different readings due to historical/culteral considerations. The pottery metaphore for example does not clearly lend itself to an exclusively determinist picture. God is the potter and has the right to do with the clay pots as he wish's SO YOU BETTER OBEY HIM. And that is the sense that we get from it's use in Jeremiah 18. It isn't necessarily to be taken in the sense that God's plans and devices are the ultimate reason for why we rebel from him. And the vessels prepared for wrath can repent and become vessels for mercy (Ephesians 2:3).



Kenny,
your usage of romans does not help the issue in terms of why God chooses some individuals for salvation and not others. So what if God hardened the Jews for the salvation of the Gentiles. That isn't individualistic but corporate. Many individual Jews accepted Christ through faith and there were some rich people who accepted Christ. Against that, many Gentiles did not accept Christ and many poor people rejected him. Now you can still insist that it is their causal relation to the world that determines what they will individually do, but you cannot argue that on the basis of the passage in romans.

Now as for the determination of the causal relations that works towards a specific set of individuals for salvation and one for damnation, somewhere, the arbitrary will creep in there because certainly God could have set up the causal relations such that one more person could have been saved or even one less person, or a slightly different set of who would be saved would result. The arbitrary is unavoidable.

Also, you may say that God is constrained with his decisions in regard the causal laws that he set up, I would agree that he is so logically, but The logic constraints do not prevent him from performing miracles and causal constraints are no barrier to miracles. What ever decisions God made with respecting the causal laws, where he decides to interfere with those laws to save a soul and where he decides to let them play through may be a place where the arbitrary is to be found.

We have to remember that God’s plan of redemption relates to the entire causal structure of the world, and does not focus exclusively on individuals but also on how those individuals are related to the larger scheme of redemptive history.

God shouldn't have any trouble with one's causal relationship with the world as he can give them the grace to obey him and God should have the resourcefulness to make the most of that obedience.



Seer, welcome to Tweb. I like some of your observations.

If I may suggest something, do take advantage of the vb code to make clear distinctions between your statement's and those of whom you quote.

here's a simple guide. if you want to quote someone, you can put there words between the following markers

here is a quote

with this exception. If you take out "shmote" in the above and replace it with "quote", it will look like this-
here is a quote

you could also place a "b" in place of shmote and you will make the quote bold

or your could put an "i" and make italics.

[sacre]

I almost don't want to say anything, because there have been so many good replies... I'm wondering, though, because it seems that people are concerned about arbitrarity. We, of course, see things as arbitrary because we cannot see the reasons. In the same way, we flip a coin not because we think it is truly random, but because we know that we cannot accurrately predict on which side the coin will land. Of course, in a closed environment, in a vacuum, with a consistent flip, it would land on the same side every time. In the same way, we are ignorant of God's glory, and so we see arbitrarity. God looks, and sees His glory, and so chooses justly. In his good pleasure, He has set aside some and not others. What is strange about that?

Fatalism or not, unconditional election is Biblical. What does it matter if a few humans think it is unjust?

Godspeed,
R

[joelkaki]

....I was not aware that any Calvinists disagreed with federal headship. How would you explain the fact that babies are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) if there was no federal headship.

As far as the Calvinist thing,I'am working off of memory,so I could be wrong. Ps.51 does not say that all men are conceived in sin. That could be a particular situation of David's or hyberbole because of his grief. After all God did not actually crush David's bones.

I'm not sure how there could be a particular situation of David's that would mean he would have been conceived in sin, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. And I see no reason to take it as hyperbole. If it were just that, then you must agree that it is potentially possible for a person to never sin, and I see no such indication in Scripture.


...And if there is no federal headship, then basically that would mean, would it not, that men are not born sinful, and have the ability to live a sinless life? I see no indication of that in Scripture. And also if man is not naturally in sin, then then Ephesians 2:3 could not be correct, for it says we are all by nature children of wrath.

We are born with the exact same nature as Adam. A human nature. But the human nature unaided by the Holy Spirit - which WILL sin,and which needs spiritual rebirth.

I would ask for proof for your first statement there. And why would the human nature necessarily sin unaided by the Holy Spirit? Adam was created with a sinless nature, surely you do not mean we have that same nature? It would seem that you are espousing the Pelagian doctrine.


...And yet they are still sinning against God, whether it be by nature or anything else. And besides, they sin willingly. It is not like they want to stop sinning. They love their sin.

That is circular. Of course we love to sin,but that love is compelled by a nature that we had no choice in receiving. We are still back to square one Joel: God eternally harming the helpless.

I knew it was circular. But he is eternally harming someone who has sinned against him. Whether that was because of an inherent sin nature or not, they still sin against him, and he has the right to punish them.


...You did not answer my argument for federal headship with regards to Christ's federal headship of us, though, either.

I don't see how that naturally follows. Father Adam got us into this mess,and Christ get's us out. Why is federal headship a necessary label?


And how did Adam's sin necessarily get us all into this mess if we do not inherit a fallen nature?
If you say it is unfair for us to receive a fallen nature for a sin we ourselves did not commit, then neither would it be OK for us to receive a place before God for a righteousness we did not possess.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Joel,

And you ignore the argument of Romans 9. And another point: We are all God's creatures. He has the right to do whatever he wants with us. We cannot say to the Potter, "Why have you made me like this?"

Romans ever the calvinist standard can lend itself to radically different readings due to historical/culteral considerations. The pottery metaphore for example does not clearly lend itself to an exclusively determinist picture. God is the potter and has the right to do with the clay pots as he wish's SO YOU BETTER OBEY HIM.

Such a reading would not seem to fit in with the rest of Romans nine. It is not talking about obedience to God as far as I can see.


And that is the sense that we get from it's use in Jeremiah 18. It isn't necessarily to be taken in the sense that God's plans and devices are the ultimate reason for why we rebel from him. And the vessels prepared for wrath can repent and become vessels for mercy (Ephesians 2:3).


Ephesians 2:3 does not say that the vessels prepared for wrath can repent and become vessels of mercy. It says that we were are formerly children of wrath, but that by God's quickening, we are alive to him, and no longer children of wrath. Being by nature children of wrath is something different than being vessels of wrath prepared for destruction entirely. By nature, we are all sinners and as such are natural objects of the wrath of God because he burns against sin in righteous anger. But those who he has prepared beforehand for glory are made alive by Him so that thye are no longer in that state, and those prepared for destruction--those passed over--will finally receive destruction.

Joel

[seer]

Today @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75586#post75586)
sacre:

" We, of course, see things as arbitrary because we cannot see the reasons. In the same way, we flip a coin not because we think it is truly random, but because we know that we cannot accurrately predict on which side the coin will land. Of course, in a closed environment, in a vacuum, with a consistent flip, it would land on the same side every time. In the same way, we are ignorant of God's glory, and so we see arbitrarity. God looks, and sees His glory, and so chooses justly. In his good pleasure, He has set aside some and not others. What is strange about that?"

"Fatalism or not, unconditional election is Biblical. What does it matter if a few humans think it is unjust?"

Godspeed,
R

I maintain sacre, since I have not seen any logical retort, that God's choice of electing the individual is arbitrary, and that Calvinism equals fatalism by definition. And that perhaps God would be unjust for eternally harming the helpless. But I may have a twisted sense of justice....

[seer]

Good points geebob,and thanks for the hints. I'll try to figure it out.

[seer]

Today @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75812#post75812)
joelkaki:



Ephesians 2:3 does not say that the vessels prepared for wrath can repent and become vessels of mercy. It says that we were are formerly children of wrath, but that by God's quickening, we are alive to him, and no longer children of wrath. Being by nature children of wrath is something different than being vessels of wrath prepared for destruction entirely. By nature, we are all sinners and as such are natural objects of the wrath of God because he burns against sin in righteous anger. But those who he has prepared beforehand for glory are made alive by Him so that thye are no longer in that state, and those prepared for destruction--those passed over--will finally receive destruction.

Joel

One question Joel, were you born a vessel of mercy?

[joelkaki]

One question Joel, were you born a vessel of mercy?


I was born as one whom God had decided to show mercy to. So yes, in a sense. God determined to set his mercy on me, so in that sense I was, but as yet, that mercy had not come to expression in my life. At birth, we are still by nature children of wrath. Yet we are vessels of mercy prepared for glory. When God regenerates us and enables us to believe, according to his decision to set his mercy on me, I am no longer a child of wrath.

Joel

[seer]

I'm not sure how there could be a particular situation of David's that would mean he would have been conceived in sin, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. And I see no reason to take it as hyperbole. If it were just that, then you must agree that it is potentially possible for a person to never sin, and I see no such indication in Scripture.

Do you think that God literally broke David's bones vs.8? Or is David using hyberbole to express his grief over his sin?





I would ask for proof for your first statement there. And why would the human nature necessarily sin unaided by the Holy Spirit? Adam was created with a sinless nature, surely you do not mean we have that same nature? It would seem that you are espousing the Pelagian doctrine.

Adam was created with a human nature. And I do not believe that God created the human nature to be good apart from the His direct influence. In other words we were created to run on God.


I knew it was circular. But he is eternally harming someone who has sinned against him. Whether that was because of an inherent sin nature or not, they still sin against him, and he has the right to punish them.

So you believe that God has the right to eternally harm the helpless? Babies? Dogs? The mentally ill? I guess He does have that right but one wonders why on earth He would want to exercise it.



And how did Adam's sin necessarily get us all into this mess if we do not inherit a fallen nature?
If you say it is unfair for us to receive a fallen nature for a sin we ourselves did not commit, then neither would it be OK for us to receive a place before God for a righteousness we did not possess.

I still say it would be out of character for God to eternally harm the helpless. But I'am funny that way.

[geebob]

Such a reading would not seem to fit in with the rest of Romans nine. It is not talking about obedience to God as far as I can see.

Romans 9-11 doesn't really speak to the issue directly. It's aimed at the question of whether God is faithful to his covenant by choosing new standards by which to choose his people and the entry requirements into the people of God. It does not depend on the man who wills (to keep the law-rom 7) or runs (effort to keep the law) but on God and God has choosen to allow people into his covenant and for the continuing sign of that membership to be faith. The end of Romans 9 makes this clear. Individual election to salvation is not an issue. That we cite the individuals in God's choosing in the examples of pharoah and Moses and Esau and Jacob is to take those examples farther than necessary. God selects a people unto salvation from the beginning. not individuals.

Ephesians 2:3 does not say that the vessels prepared for wrath can repent and become vessels of mercy. It says that we were are formerly children of wrath

And that is enough for me to dissolve the notion that the subjects of wrath are frozen in that category. Clearly that is evident in Romans as the original vessels of wrath, the Gentiles are now recieving salvation to make the original vessels prepared for glory, the Jews, jelous so that they too may recieve salvation.

[sacre]

Seer, if you need to use the word "arbitrary", then that's ok with me. However, if we look at definitions, as it seems you enjoy doing, we will find that the two most prominant definitions of "arbitrary" (taken from http://www.dictionary.com) are: 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Since we, as Christians (and scientists) cannot believe in a causal force called "chance", nor anything outside of God's mind to cause a "whim" or "impulse." Thus, we can easily throw out the first definition. The second definition, if that is the one you wish to use, seems to contradict the point you are trying to make.

I could be wrong.

As to the fatalism part... like I said, call it fatalism if you wish. I don't mind at all. Without a doubt, I could not quite bring myself to call the gospel (good news) "fatal" in any way...

Godspeed,
R.

[seer]

See sacre, unless one can show a logical standard by which God chooses one lump over the other, His choice, in the Calvinist model, does remain a "whim" i.e. not by necessity. And Calvinism does fit the definition of fate/fatalism perfectly.

[Solly]

Today @ 11:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76340#post76340)
seer:

See sacre, unless one can show a logical standard by which God chooses one lump over the other, His choice, in the Calvinist model, does remain a "whim" i.e. not by necessity. And Calvinism does fit the definition of fate/fatalism perfectly.


Seer, we are not required to show anything. It is a mystery. The fact is revealed, the modus operandi is not; the reality of it is revealed, the "necessity" which lies in God's own mind, is not. It is probable that we will never know "why me" if we are looking for something of creature merit - that would lead to pride.

Also, God does not have to justify himself to anyone. For those who believe in particular election, the idea of it is based on God's inherent goodness and righteousness in dealing with fallen rebellious sinners. This stops it being a "whim" or "arbitrary" which imply moral caprice ala Greek and Roman deities, or impersonal "forces".

Calvinism may fit your definition of "fatalism" perfectly, but that does not mean it fits others. If it was unrelenting fatalism and determinism, then we would say so - others have propounded such a view and said so; it is not, but it is not unusual for others to think it is. The idea of particular election has always engendered such responses, as has the idea of God's providential ordering of the world and humanity.

One comment on your first post. The lumps you referred to are both objectionable to God - being one lump, since they are both comprised of sinners. God doesn't have to use either. it is of his grace that he has chosen out of the mass, one.

[geebob]

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

It takes a leap of faith to think that God should save only perhaps 3 billion souls istead of 3 billion and 1 because of some necessity.

And if Necessity truly compells God that minutely, I can't think that God is free as he is micromanaged by some unknown exact logic and that he couldn't have done things differently.

Also, God does not have to justify himself to anyone.

God loves us and wants us to know and have confidence that he is righteous, just and loving. He doesn't have to justify himself to anyone and yet he did just that to many of the saints such as Abraham, Moses, and Amos all of whom did not favor something about God's plans.

[joelkaki]

I'm not sure how there could be a particular situation of David's that would mean he would have been conceived in sin, but I may be misunderstanding what you are saying. And I see no reason to take it as hyperbole. If it were just that, then you must agree that it is potentially possible for a person to never sin, and I see no such indication in Scripture.

Do you think that God literally broke David's bones vs.8? Or is David using hyberbole to express his grief over his sin?

I don't know; I suppose that would be very likely. But that still would not indicate to me that he was using hyperbole when saying he was conceived in sin.

I would ask for proof for your first statement there. And why would the human nature necessarily sin unaided by the Holy Spirit? Adam was created with a sinless nature, surely you do not mean we have that same nature? It would seem that you are espousing the Pelagian doctrine.

Adam was created with a human nature. And I do not believe that God created the human nature to be good apart from the His direct influence. In other words we were created to run on God.

The fact is, though, that God created the human nature perfect. It was sinless. It was completely in his image in that respect. But because of Adam's sin, it was marred. Not just for Adam, either, but for all of us. Now, if you are going to say that we are born with perfect, sinless natures, then you are saying that we have the potential to lead a sinless life, and I see no indication of that in Scripture. If we are born with the same nature as Adam, then basically, we could have a person somewhere who has not sinned. And that is anti-Biblical.

I knew it was circular. But he is eternally harming someone who has sinned against him. Whether that was because of an inherent sin nature or not, they still sin against him, and he has the right to punish them.

So you believe that God has the right to eternally harm the helpless? Babies? Dogs? The mentally ill? I guess He does have that right but one wonders why on earth He would want to exercise it.

Yes, he has the right. All have sinned against Him. "Dogs?", though? I was thinking more in terms of humans, but I suppose he has the right to harm dogs if he wants to as well. Why would he harm the helpless? Not because of some fiendish delight, but because it is demanded by his justice. (Referring to those with a sin nature). They have sinned against him, and I say again, IT does not matter whether they sin by nature or not, the fact is, they still sin against God and offend his holiness! And because he is just, he must punish that sin. Now, for those whom He has chosen, he places that punishment on Christ instead of the men themselves. And you would probably get differences of opinion about the mentally ill and babies on this point, for some would say all of them would be in the elect, but that is not something I would care to discuss. The point is, God must punish men because they have sinned against him. And appeals to emotion really prove nothing.

And how did Adam's sin necessarily get us all into this mess if we do not inherit a fallen nature?
If you say it is unfair for us to receive a fallen nature for a sin we ourselves did not commit, then neither would it be OK for us to receive a place before God for a righteousness we did not possess.

I still say it would be out of character for God to eternally harm the helpless. But I'am funny that way.

Not to sound rude, but I am more concerned about what the Bible teaches than what you say.
I believe the Bible teaches it would be out of character for God to let sin go unpunished. So reprobate sinners receive his justice, and elect sinners receive his mercy, while his justice is maintained by Christ's sacrifice.
You still didn't really answer my objection anyway, though.

Joel

[sacre]

See sacre, unless one can show a logical standard by which God chooses one lump over the other, His choice, in the Calvinist model, does remain a "whim" i.e. not by necessity.

Let's define "whim", in that case. http://www.dictionary.com says: A sudden turn or start of the mind; a temporary eccentricity; a freak; a fancy; a capricious notion; a humor; a caprice. Obviously, this cannot apply to God... the connections with time are irreconcilable with God's absoluteness. God has nothing "temporary", "sudden", or "start"ling. You could call the choices of God "unsearchable", if you like (cf. the Pauline doxology), or maybe "unspeakable." Certainly, we cannot see the mind of God, nor fathom how He, in His infinite wisdom, chose some to be saved for His glory and some to be condemned for His glory, and yet we can certainly know that, no matter what choice He makes, it is always for His glory. In that sense, yes, God's choices are necessary precisely because His will is free.

Regards,
R. McIntyre

[seer]

Actually sacre, it would be a "fancy."

Cambridge:.

"inclination; whim."

[seer]

Joel, let me ask you. Do you think that though God created Adam with a perfect human nature, that He created that nature to function morally, apart from Him. Apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit? You see Adam as gaining somethine new after the fall - a sin nature. I see Adam losing something after the fall,the controling influence and intamacy of God.


BTW - which question didn't I answer?

[sacre]

Seer, what word is used matters little to me, although what you are trying to say matters quite a bit. If it is an "inclination", there must be some reason why He is so inclined. If it is a fancy, there must be some reason why He fancies the particular choice. I would understand if you are tired already of me repeating myself over and over, but I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation from your side (presumably denying that God's will depends upon what would be fit to show His glory in the highest possible way) for why God does what He does. I don't think you are disagreeing with the Biblical doctrine of election, are you? If you are, then we need to back up about 25 paces before we start shooting. If you agree with God's sovereign election, then what exactly do we have left to discuss? Whether or not God does what He does for a humanly discernable reason? What does it matter?

Regards,
R

[seer]

If it is a fancy, there must be some reason why He fancies the particular choice. I would understand if you are tired already of me repeating myself over and over, but I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation from your side (presumably denying that God's will depends upon what would be fit to show His glory in the highest possible way) for why God does what He does. I don't think you are disagreeing with the Biblical doctrine of election, are you?

Of course I'am disagreeing with the CALVINIST notion of election. Because:

1. It is not the only way to read the texts in question.

2. Many other texts speak directly against Calvinist proof texts. 1 Tim.4:10 is just one of many.

3. The Calvinist model of election does make God's choices arbitrary. No one here has yet put forth a logical standard by which God chooses one and by passes another.

4. Calvinism is not historical in early Christian doctrine. Even Hodge admits that free will was the codified Christian belief until Augustine. Almost 400 years after Christ.

5. I believe God has a clear standard for how He chooses. God elects those who respond to Him. And does not elect those who resist Him.

[sacre]

I see. This whole conversation was some sort of flanking attack. Well, I don't mind discussing Calvinism, but Calvinism doesn't start with election... it starts with the complete inability of man to respond to the gospel apart from the Holy Spirit. It you want to debunk Calvinism, you'll have to go there first, instead of starting in the middle, where none of us are using the same terms.

Many other texts speak directly against Calvinist proof texts. 1 Tim.4:10 is just one of many.

We could go over the texts, if you like? Just say the word, and we can do up to and including a running debate on the books of John, Romans, and Ephesians.

The Calvinist model of election does make God's choices arbitrary. No one here has yet put forth a logical standard by which God chooses one and by passes another.

Now, that's simply dishonest. Joel and I have given reasonable and logical explanations for why God chooses whom He chooses. If you wish to go deeper, I can suggest a sermon by John Piper (downloadable from his website). Anyway, once again, this is not the place to start.

Calvinism is not historical in early Christian doctrine.

If you'd like to discuss this point, we can do that as well. I suggest, however, that you should not make such bold assertions before we have looked into the matter thoroughly (especially since I have evidence to the contrary).

Godspeed,
R.

[seer]

...it starts with the complete inability of man to respond to the gospel apart from the Holy Spirit.

The Classic Arminian position would agree with that fully.

We could go over the texts, if you like? Just say the word, and we can do up to and including a running debate on the books of John, Romans, and Ephesians.

Sure,let's start with 1 Timothy 4:10 Please don't use cut and pastes - use your own words.

Now, that's simply dishonest. Joel and I have given reasonable and logical explanations for why God chooses whom He chooses. If you wish to go deeper, I can suggest a sermon by John Piper (downloadable from his website). Anyway, once again, this is not the place to start.

When did this happen? Every argument you made has been refuted. If you don't think so repeat them here. And I have read much of Piper's work,and I'am not impressed.


...If you'd like to discuss this point, we can do that as well. I suggest, however, that you should not make such bold assertions before we have looked into the matter thoroughly (especially since I have evidence to the contrary).


I have studied the church fathers for years,please make your case: here are some quotes just to get us started:

http://www.bible.ca/H-Freewill.htm

And the early church father believed in the loss of salvation:

http://www.bible.ca/H-fallaway.htm

I can dig up more if needed....

[seer]

sacre , here is that quote from the Calvinist Scholar AA Hodge:

"As a general fact it may be stated, that, as a result of the great influence of Origen, the Fathers of the Greek Church pretty unanimously settled down upon a loose Semipelagianism, denying the guilt of original sin, and maintaining the ability of the sinner to predispose himself for, and to cooperate with divine grace."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/AHODGE1.HTM

[joelkaki]

Joel, let me ask you. Do you think that though God created Adam with a perfect human nature, that He created that nature to function morally, apart from Him. Apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit? You see Adam as gaining somethine new after the fall - a sin nature. I see Adam losing something after the fall,the controling influence and intamacy of God.

You have an interesting view there. You see, I believe that no person could even live and physically function properly apart from God. "In him we live and move and have our being." So, is there any way that you can prove your idea?


BTW - which question didn't I answer?

Not a question, but rather my argument that said that it is not unfair for Adam to be the federal head, for if it was, then neither could Christ be our head, and we be accounted as righteous because of him.

Sure,let's start with 1 Timothy 4:10 Please don't use cut and pastes - use your own words.


May I ask you in what sense you believe Christ to be the Savior of every single man?


Joel

[sacre]

...it starts with the complete inability of man to respond to the gospel apart from the Holy Spirit.

The Classic Arminian position would agree with that fully.

I'm sorry I was not more clear. I mean, naturally, that man is unable to respond apart from the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. I find the doctrine of Prevenient grace to be unbilical... it begs the question, if we all receive the same prevenient grace, then what goodness do certain men possess that they should follow and others should not. In short, it allows for boasting, etc.

As to 1 Tim. 4:10 (and to repeat myself), there is not a reasonable way to start with that part, since we do not yet agree to the terms. We must start with the complete inability first, and then proceed. If you wish to cite texts that prove that we are able to respond to the gospel without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit, please do so now, and then I will cite some as well.

Origen, by the way, was a Neo-Platonist heretic, as were any "church fathers" who taught that God was not sovereign in the absolute sense. Why do we leave ourselves in the hands of even second-century theologians when we have several millenia of theology to work with? The old testament clearly defines the way of salvation, and that history is unavoidable. Church fathers or no church fathers, Calvinistic doctrine is historical. Anyway, I'd say that you can't get any more church-fatherish than Jesus and the apostles themselves, whom I feel clearly teach the reformed soteriology.

I'm sorry I don't have time for more right now, but I'll get back to this later.

Godspeed,
R

[Kenny]

Well I would't think that God would be subject to mere natural circumstance.

Not by any sort of inherent limitations in God, no. But God has created the universe as distinct from Himself and God has granted the creation a certain amount of internal causal integrity which God does not typically violate except when there are higher order purposes at stake. This implies that God has voluntarily limited the sphere of His activity to some extent thereby subjecting Himself to certain self imposed limitations. In fact, this sounds very Arminian of me -- I would expect you to agree on this point. But, regardless, I think any coherent theological account of divine action has to take into account considerations of this sort whether it be Calvinist or Arminian.

But Kenny, really all you have is a utilitarian reason for God setting His electing love on you. You have resorted to mystery.

Trust me, I’m not a fan of arbitrary appeals to mystery – it’s horrible theological method and it is done far too often. I have a mindset that likes to solve puzzles rather than revel in them (and it is a temptation for me to take that too far -- to rush in, at times, quite literally, where angels fear to tread). But, sometimes appeals to mystery are warranted by Scripture. God’s love is ultimately mysterious because it is entirely free. This ultimate mystery of love extends all the way from the doctrine of creation to the drama of redemption to God’s workings in individual lives. Why did God choose to create the universe in the first place? Why this universe and not another? Ultimately, as Christians, it is our confession that these questions are answered -- not in terms of some internal necessity in God -- but in terms of a free act of love on God’s part.

So, we have behind creation itself and the drama of redemption a mystery of love. Ultimately all of God’s purpose is a loving purpose. So, though Scripture affirms that there are “utilitarian” elements in God’s plan, utilitarian considerations presuppose a purpose and ultimately that purpose is for God’s love to be fully displayed to the rightful end of God’s glory.

Now as far as this plays out in the drama of the election of individuals, even if it were the case that God’s decisions were based solely in utilitarian considerations, these utilitarian considerations are ultimately grounded in a mysterious loving purpose and that purpose is worked out so that God’s love was to be fully manifested, in part, by extending itself to me. That in itself, is sufficient to warm the heart -- at least it does mine.

We could leave it here, I think, and have a satisfactory answer to the logical puzzle we have, but Scripture itself makes me hesitant to do so. Part of the purpose of individual election seems to be to demonstrate the freedom inherent in God’s love to the end of God’s love being manifested in the fullness of its aspects, and so the mystery of love that circumscribes creation as a whole and the drama of redemption extends to God’s election of individuals. So I see the mystery here as extending to the ultimate mystery of God’s love, and that mystery is one that all orthodox Christians must share. But, I think it would be blasphemous to call God’s free love in creation and redemption “arbitrary.”

That being said, I wonder if we are not also drawing too tight distinctions here. God’s mind is not limited by our linear ways of thinking. Rather than diagramming God’s plan as a sequence of linear steps, perhaps it is better to conceive of it more like (John Frame’s analogy) a cake in which its parts are interrelated and where logical priorities are often blurred or even nonexistent at times. It may be that God’s electing love to me is born out of shear compassion for me while at the same time factoring in larger utilitarian considerations. But, this all starts to get very speculative. Here I think it is quite reasonable to appeal to the vastness of the divine mind in comparison with the limitations of our own and leave it at that.

And the utilitarian argument really doesn't work that well because it makes God the servant of an individual's circumstance rather than the Sovereign of said circumstance.

Well, of course, if God freely created the world knowing how all would be, then God is ultimately sovereign over every circumstance. But this does not negate the fact that God had to create an internally consistent world.

In Christ,
Kenny

-- Edited to fix garbled text

[Gavin]

No God's choices are not arbitrary. He works all things out for a purpose, for his redemptive plan, for his glory. Just stating my view as a Calvinist.

Gavin

[Kenny]

04-22-2003 @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75526#post75526)
geebob:

[quote]Kenny,
your usage of romans does not help the issue in terms of why God chooses some individuals for salvation and not others. So what if God hardened the Jews for the salvation of the Gentiles. That isn't individualistic but corporate.

But, even on an Arminian perspective, the corporate hardening must extend to individuals to some extent. Even if the means through which God hardened Israel corporately was through creating sociological conditions that made the Jewish people as a whole less receptive to the Gospel , we still have, as a result, the fact that God placed certain individuals in less favorable circumstances for receiving the Gospel than others.

Many individual Jews accepted Christ through faith and there were some rich people who accepted Christ.

True. But Romans 11:1-6 informs us that these Jews are part of a remnant chosen by grace in order that God might prove faithful to His covenant promises. I think this makes a strictly corporate interpretation very difficult sustain in these texts since there is also an election occurring within the corporate body of Israel. And God’s salvation is not based on having a certain economic status – so God’s election is calculated to demonstrate this.

Against that, many Gentiles did not accept Christ and many poor people rejected him.

Also true. But, the passages I mentioned point us to underlying purposes in God’s overall pattern of election. Romans 11:1-6 also points us to the fact that there are complications within those general patterns so that other purposes may be carried out. If God varies His grace and opportunity for reception of the Gospel between corporate bodies for extrinsic reasons, it is reasonable to suppose that God does so between individuals as well.

Now you can still insist that it is their causal relation to the world that determines what they will individually do, but you cannot argue that on the basis of the passage in romans.

I’m saying that passages such as these point to the possibility that God factors such considerations into His purposes of election and so the Calvinist need not be logically committed to saying that God’s decisions in individual election are arbitrary. I’m not trying to draw tight inferences from these passages to the way things actually are, but merely using them to point to logical possibilities.

Now as for the determination of the causal relations that works towards a specific set of individuals for salvation and one for damnation, somewhere, the arbitrary will creep in there because certainly God could have set up the causal relations such that one more person could have been saved or even one less person, or a slightly different set of who would be saved would result. The arbitrary is unavoidable.

Well, I think that God could have saved everyone, but at the expense of His other purposes. But, to say that the world could have been arranged slightly differently, so as to serve God’s purposes better, I think, begs the entire question. As a Calvinist, I believe that God selected to actualize the possible world that best served His purposes because God is all knowing, wise, and capable of bringing to be any logically possible world He wishes.

Also, you may say that God is constrained with his decisions in regard the causal laws that he set up, I would agree that he is so logically, but The logic constraints do not prevent him from performing miracles and causal constraints are no barrier to miracles.

True, but even here there is nothing arbitrary. Given the degree of order and regularity in our world, God seems to value the integrity of the natural order very highly and so God does not ordinarily interfere with that order except where higher order spiritual values are at stake. Miracles occur when it is more in keeping with God’s moral character and God’s ultimate purposes for the world to cause deviations from the natural order than it is for Him to sustain that order. We don’t know exactly what constitutes such instances, but God does.

God shouldn't have any trouble with one's causal relationship with the world as he can give them the grace to obey him and God should have the resourcefulness to make the most of that obedience.

I think God can give His grace or withhold it from any individual as He is pleased to do so. The larger question, however, is how God’s giving and withholding of grace serves His larger purposes for the world – and this question will certainly factor in how the causal structure of the world is set up and the various possible ways there are for history to play out. God will select from these considerations the best route to accomplishing His purposes. God is indeed resourceful and infinitely wise, so God is always able to follow the optimal plan for accomplishing His purposes. This optimal plan will include God’s choices in election.

Of course, as I said to Seer above, that plan is ultimately circumscribed by the mystery of God’s love, and so aspects of that mystery may extend to God’s election of individuals. As part of that ultimate mystery of God’s free love, it may be that God set his heart on you for no specific extrinsic or intrinsic reason that your mind could ever possibly discern except that in doing so God’s purpose in demonstrating the freedom of His love was served. Because this whole issue has the larger mystery of God’s love as its backdrop, we should be hesitant to draw out our logical conclusions too tightly – as if God were not ultimately free in His decisions but constrained by our ways of thinking. Even though I generally do not like mysterious, the mystery of God’s love for me is one I gladly accept and rejoice in.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

I'm sorry I was not more clear. I mean, naturally, that man is unable to respond apart from the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. I find the doctrine of Prevenient grace to be unbilical... it begs the question, if we all receive the same prevenient grace, then what goodness do certain men possess that they should follow and others should not. In short, it allows for boasting, etc.

Prevenient grace is perfectly biblical. If you believe that God's grace was calling,drawing,and enlightening you before you actually got saved then you believe in Prevenient grace.

ALL ability to believe,repent,and do good comes fron God. The only thing man can do is not resist. Now is non-resistance reason to boast? Not according to scripture.




As to 1 Tim. 4:10 (and to repeat myself), there is not a reasonable way to start with that part, since we do not yet agree to the terms. We must start with the complete inability first, and then proceed. If you wish to cite texts that prove that we are able to respond to the gospel without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit, please do so now, and then I will cite some as well.

Who said any such thing? See above.

Origen, by the way, was a Neo-Platonist heretic, as were any "church fathers" who taught that God was not sovereign in the absolute sense. Why do we leave ourselves in the hands of even second-century theologians when we have several millenia of theology to work with? The old testament clearly defines the way of salvation, and that history is unavoidable. Church fathers or no church fathers, Calvinistic doctrine is historical. Anyway, I'd say that you can't get any more church-fatherish than Jesus and the apostles themselves, whom I feel clearly teach the reformed soteriology.

My only point was that YOUR doctrines were unheard of for the first 400 years of the Church. Until Augustine who himself was heavily influenced by "Neo-Platonism" as well as Manichaeism.