How Does God Choose

[seer]

Do Calvinist believe this:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

[lodity]

Yes, I believe they do, however they would probably object to how it was stated :)

I don't believe that people are destined for hell before they are even born. It's a ridiculous notion to me, as well as unbiblical I believe. Free will determines the fate of each indinvidual.

That's just my opinion though, and I am free to change them at any time due to further knowledge on my part :) lol

God bless.

[seer]

Yes, I believe they do, however they would probably object to how it was stated

I believe it comes from one of their confessions...

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79992#post79992)
seer:

Do Calvinist believe this:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

As a Calvinist, I have a few problems with this statement. Others would agree whole heartedly. First, while I do think it is true that God has ordained all that shall come to pass, I do not think it’s best to use the word “predestination” with respect to the reprobation of the non-elect. Scripture always speaks of predestination in the context of predestination to glory and to being conformed into the image of Christ, so I prefer to stick to the original usage. I also believe there is a substantial difference in how predestination and reprobation work. The former is the active work of God whereas in the latter God is passive – allowing sinners to go their own way and to make themselves for destruction. With respect to the phrase, ‘without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience,’ there seems to be supralapsarian connotations here (i.e. the view that God’s reprobation of the non-elect and predestination of the elect occurs prior to God’s knowledge of their sinful states) whereas I hold to an infralapsarian position (i.e the view that God’s predestination of the elect and his reprobation of the non-elect comes only after God’s knowledge of the fact that all are alike sinners). Of course, this statement could just be taken to mean that God’s choosing of the elect is not based on their own merits – in which case I would agree.

In Christ,
Kenny

[seer]

With respect to the phrase, ‘without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience,’ there seems to be supralapsarian connotations here (i.e. the view that God’s reprobation of the non-elect and predestination of the elect occurs prior to God’s knowledge of their sinful states) whereas I hold to an infralapsarian position (i.e the view that God’s predestination of the elect and his reprobation of the non-elect comes only after God’s knowledge of the fact that all are alike sinners).

Well wouldn't the supralapsarian position fit pefectly the Romans 9:11 passage? That is the Calvinist proof text on such matters - or do you not believe that text extends to salvation?

[lodity]

seer:I believe it comes from one of their confessions...

Oh, my bad. :)

Do you know where I can find that confession somewhere on the net from a calv. site?

[seer]

Do you know where I can find that confession somewhere on the net from a calv. site?

I picked it up second hand that is why I'am asking if the Calvinist here agree with it. I'am not sure if it does come from one of their cofessions.

But the Calvinst Scholar John Gill agrees:

"Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition."

[Gavin]

seer,

Do Calvinist believe this:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

It sounds a lot like the Westminster Confession of Faith, Book III, section 5. I and most other Calvinists, I suspect, would agree with it.

Sincerely,
Gavin

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79992#post79992)
seer:

Do Calvinist believe this:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

It depends on what kind of Calvinist you are talking to. You have your "Black Coffee Calvinist" (which is where I lean) and then you have your "Calminians" who are willing to give up some of God's power.

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake
:cheers:

[seer]

It depends on what kind of Calvinist you are talking to. You have your "Black Coffee Calvinist" (which is where I lean) and then you have your "Calminians" who are willing to give up some of God's power.

Really Blake? You believe God sends men to eternal hell,not for sin,but simply because it gives Him pleasure? That seeing men in eternal torment gives God pleasure? Why?

[joelkaki]

Really Blake? You believe God sends men to eternal hell,not for sin,but simply because it gives Him pleasure? That seeing men in eternal torment gives God pleasure? Why?

Calvinists do not believe that God sends men to eternal hell not for sin. He does indeed send them to hell for sin. The point is, that every man left as he is, would go to Hell. But God graciously chose to save some men. The others he passed over. The ones passed over (such as Esau) remain in their sin, and go to Hell for that sin.

Joel

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80102#post80102)
seer:



Really Blake? You believe God sends men to eternal hell,not for sin,but simply because it gives Him pleasure? That seeing men in eternal torment gives God pleasure? Why?


I see a few problems with your painting with such a broad brush. 1) I believe there is some mystery to God. I am a firm believer in Paradoxes, since I do not try and put God in a box and say what He must be. 2) We would all be going to HEll anyway since we are infected by sin. So in all reality God saves us from it.

Blake

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79992#post79992)
seer:

Do Calvinist believe this:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

That is the Gospe right? We are saved with out any merit of our own? Are you a Pelagian? It sounds like since you are so hostile to the Idea of Grace.

Blake

[lodity]

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80106#post80106)
joelkaki:



Calvinists do not believe that God sends men to eternal hell not for sin. He does indeed send them to hell for sin. The point is, that every man left as he is, would go to Hell. But God graciously chose to save some men. The others he passed over. The ones passed over (such as Esau) remain in their sin, and go to Hell for that sin.

Joel

But we are all unwillfully affected by sin because of what Adam and Eve did. So when God sends those people to hell who were inherited with a sinful nature, how can it be just?

The person had no choice in being affected with sin, and you're telling me that God doesn't provide a way out for every person? That is unfair by all logic.

One more time, is it fair that some people never have a chance to obtain salvation, since they had no choice but to be sinful by nature?

1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved, "(God) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." How can God desire ALL men to be saved but yet only allow a certain few the possibility.?

God bless,
Robert B.

[seer]

Blake,remember what you agreed with:


"God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

So God eternally damns men,not for sin,but simply because He enjoys it (His good pleasure). Is that just? How so?

You know Blake, we all believe in paradoxes,to a degree, but some theoloigies are so beyond the pale, that they are unworthy to be spoken of in the presence of a Good and Just God.

You asked if I was a Pelagian - you know better than that. But you were right to call this "blackcalvinism" Blake. That it is,and more...

[Blake Reas]

Seer,

How would you define Grace then? Are we saved by Foreseen merit? Why doesn't God save all men if He has the chance?

Blake

[seer]

How would you define Grace then? Are we saved by Foreseen merit?

Is non-resistance a merit? That is the Classic Arminian position.


Why doesn't God save all men if He has the chance?

As I said in my e-mail to you Blake. I have little problem with Christian Universalism. Not that I embrace that doctrine.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80149#post80149)
seer:



Is non-resistance a merit? That is the Classic Arminian position.




As I said in my e-mail to you Blake. I have little problem with Christian Universalism. Not that I embrace that doctrine.

I know that you do not hold to Universalism but how do they deal with the passages that speak of all the people burning in hell? Sounds like you must pick and choose what the Scriptures say. Does it not?

Blake

[seer]

I know that you do not hold to Universalism but how do they deal with the passages that speak of all the people burning in hell? Sounds like you must pick and choose what the Scriptures say. Does it not?

The question they would aske is how would you deal with their proof texts. They would say it is you who picks and chooses.

I'll give you an example:

Eph.1:11

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."

The Calvinist and Arminian would fully agree that God does in fact work ALL THINGS (meaning everything) after the counsel of his own will. Amen - Right Blake?

But watch how quickely you will try to reduce "all things" into "some things."

Just the verse before:

Eph.1:10

"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him."

See what I mean?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 08:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80163#post80163)
seer:



The question they would aske is how would you deal with their proof texts. They would say it is you who picks and chooses.

I'll give you an example:

Eph.1:11

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."

The Calvinist and Arminian would fully agree that God does in fact work ALL THINGS (meaning everything) after the counsel of his own will. Amen - Right Blake?

But watch how quickely you will try to reduce "all things" into "some things."

Just the verse before:

Eph.1:10

"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one ALL THINGS in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him."

See what I mean?


No not really considering the context is talking about the elect. It sounds as if they use Barth's interpretation of Eph.1:1 that has been rejected by many commentators. Maybe you need to give some better eisegesis.

Blake

[seer]

No not really considering the context is talking about the elect. It sounds as if they use Barth's interpretation of Eph.1:1 that has been rejected by many commentators. Maybe you need to give some better eisegesis.

See what you did? You reduced all things to some things,as if Paul couldn't have said some things. Nothing in the context forces that assumption - believe me I have studied it enough.

But you will do the same for Romans 5:18,19

"Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for ALL MEN, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for ALL MEN.For as by one man's disobedience MANY were made sinners, so by one man's obedience MANY will be made righteous."

You will agree that the first "all men" and the first "many" really does include all men - but you will hedge on the second all men and the second many - won't you? :eww:

Was Paul really that sloppy?

[Kenny]

Yesterday @ 03:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80025#post80025)
seer: Well wouldn't the supralapsarian position fit pefectly the Romans 9:11 passage? That is the Calvinist proof text on such matters - or do you not believe that text extends to salvation?

This text is amendable to either an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian position. On an infralapsarian position, prior to God’s choice in election, God viewed both Jacob and Esau as sinners neither of whom were entitled to any favor from God’s hand. Thus, God was completely free to show mercy to one and deny mercy to the other since neither merited God’s mercy. In order to demonstrate that He was free in his mercy and that his electing activity is completely independent of human merit (since all humans are sinners), God pronounced before Jacob and Esau were born and had the opportunity to do anything good or bad that the elder would serve the younger.

Note, as far as the statement which you quoted itself is concerned, under certain interpretations I would agree with it, though I would not have chosen to word it that way.

In Christ,
Kenny