Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who makes the choice?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who makes the choice?

    There are many doctrinal divisions among Christians. For example, some believe that human beings repent and believe because God causes them to do so by choosing them to be saved while some believe that people believe and are saved because they choose to do so. What does the Bible say about this?
    I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.
    Deuteronomy 30:19 ESV

    Whether we are saved or lost depends on our choice.
    He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
    Ephesians 1:4 ESV

    Whether we are saved or lost depends on whether we are among those God chose before the foundation of the world.

    How can we reconcile these apparently contradictory statements?

    Here is one way.
    Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
    Romans 8:29,30 ESV

    God knows who will choose to receive the salvation he offers and on this basis he predestines them to salvation.

    Here is another way.
    No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
    John 6:44 ESV

    God draws those whom he has chosen to himself and gives them the power to choose him.

    Both sides can find support for their views in the Bible. Does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself and can’t be trusted as a guide to the truth?

    We can find a possible answer to this by looking at a subject that at first may seem completely unrelated: the nature of light. Here is what Wikipedia says about this subject.
    Wave-particle duality is perhaps one of the most confusing concepts in physics, because it is so unlike anything we see in the ordinary world.

    Physicists who studied light in the 1700s and 1800s were having a big argument about whether light was made of particles shooting around like tiny bullets, or waves washing around like water waves. At times, light seems to do both. At times, light seems to go only in a straight line, as if it were made of particles. But other experiments show that light has a frequency and wavelength, just like a sound wave or water wave. Until the 20th century, most physicists thought that light was either one or the other, and that the scientists on the other side of the argument were simply wrong.

    In 1909, a scientist named Geoffrey Taylor decided that he was going to settle this argument once and for all. He borrowed an experiment invented earlier by Thomas Young, where light was shone through two small holes right next to each other. When bright light was shone through these two small holes, it created an interference pattern that seemed to show that light was actually a wave.

    Taylor’s idea was to photograph the movie coming out of the holes with a special movie that was unusually sensitive to light. When bright light was shined through the holes, the movie showed an interference pattern, just like Young showed earlier. Taylor then turned down the light to a very dim level. When the light was dim enough, Taylor’s photographs showed tiny pinpoints of light scattering out of the holes. This seemed to show that light was actually a particle. If Taylor allowed the dim light to shine through the holes for long enough, the dots eventually filled up the movie to make an interference pattern again. This demonstrated that light was somehow both a wave and a particle.

    To make matters even more confusing, Louis de Broglie suggested that matter might act the same way. Scientists then performed these same experiments with electrons, and found that electrons too are somehow both particles and waves.

    Today, these experiments have been done in so many different ways by so many different people that scientists simply accept that both matter and light are somehow both waves and particles. Scientists generally admit that even they do not fully understand how this can be, but they are quite certain that it must be true. Although it seems impossible to understand how anything can be both a wave and a particle, scientists do have a number of equations for describing these things that have variables for both wavelength (a wave property) and momentum (a particle property). This seeming impossibility is referred to as the wave-particle duality.

    This shows that in the physical realm two ideas that seem to contradict each other can both be true. Isn’t it possible that this is true in the spiritual realm as well?

    The Wikipedia article shows that if we accept the results of scientific research we must believe that light is both a particle and a wave even if we don’t see how both of these things can be true. If we believe the Bible we must believe that God is completely sovereign in the matter of salvation and chooses whom he will save and we must also believe that each person is responsible to choose whether or not he will be saved even if we don’t understand how they can both be true.

    We live in a universe which had a beginning and will have an end. One component of this universe is time, which flows in one direction so that some things are in our past and some things are in our future. The decisions we make may be influenced by our past but they can only affect our future. Temporally a cause must precede its effect so that one event can be the cause or effect of another but not both.

    This limitation doesn’t apply to God and his actions because he isn’t part of the creation and so he is not subject to its laws. Because we are part of the creation there are many things about God that we can’t understand and it is because we lack understanding that many of the truths he reveals seem to contradict each other.

    It is possible that the two natures of light that we see are manifestations of some natural law that scientists haven’t yet discovered and that if we understood that law we would see that there is no contradiction in the way light behaves. In the same way, the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and our responsibility to choose are probably manifestations of some higher truth that hasn’t been revealed and if we could understand that truth we wouldn’t see any contradiction between the two.

    While there are many things about salvation we don’t understand the Bible makes it perfectly clear what we must do to be saved. God is holy and and his holiness demands that he punish all sin. We have all sinned. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty that we deserve and rose again from the dead. Anyone who repents of his sins and puts his faith in Christ will find salvation and be forgiven. It isn’t necessary to know whether you are believing of your own free will or because God has given you the ability to believe. It is possible to eat food and receive nourishment from it without understanding how your body digests it; in the same way it is possible to receive salvation without understanding all that is involved in it.

    On this subject, as on many others, we need to keep in mind what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
    For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
    The brutal, soul-shaking truth is that we are so earthly minded we are of no heavenly use.
    Leonard Ravenhill

    https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/

  • #2
    Without a doubt God wants man to make right choices. And only by the hearing of God's word can this happen. ". . . So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. . . ." -- Romans 10:17.

    But the condition of mankind is such that man on his own accord does not - ". . . There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." -- Romans 3:11.

    God's foreknowledge ". . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: . . ." -- 1 Peter 1:2.

    ". . . You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, . . ." -- John 15:16.

    ". . . We love him, because he first loved us. . . ." -- 1 John 4:19.

    Our choice we make toward God is indeed a real choice we make of our own. But it is made with God's help and without any merit on our part.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by theophilus View Post
      There are many doctrinal divisions among Christians. For example, some believe that human beings repent and believe because God causes them to do so by choosing them to be saved while some believe that people believe and are saved because they choose to do so. What does the Bible say about this?
      I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.
      Deuteronomy 30:19 ESV

      Whether we are saved or lost depends on our choice.
      He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
      Ephesians 1:4 ESV

      Whether we are saved or lost depends on whether we are among those God chose before the foundation of the world.

      How can we reconcile these apparently contradictory statements?

      Here is one way.
      Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
      Romans 8:29,30 ESV

      God knows who will choose to receive the salvation he offers and on this basis he predestines them to salvation.

      Here is another way.
      No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
      John 6:44 ESV

      God draws those whom he has chosen to himself and gives them the power to choose him.

      Both sides can find support for their views in the Bible. Does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself and can’t be trusted as a guide to the truth?

      We can find a possible answer to this by looking at a subject that at first may seem completely unrelated: the nature of light. Here is what Wikipedia says about this subject.
      Wave-particle duality is perhaps one of the most confusing concepts in physics, because it is so unlike anything we see in the ordinary world.

      Physicists who studied light in the 1700s and 1800s were having a big argument about whether light was made of particles shooting around like tiny bullets, or waves washing around like water waves. At times, light seems to do both. At times, light seems to go only in a straight line, as if it were made of particles. But other experiments show that light has a frequency and wavelength, just like a sound wave or water wave. Until the 20th century, most physicists thought that light was either one or the other, and that the scientists on the other side of the argument were simply wrong.

      In 1909, a scientist named Geoffrey Taylor decided that he was going to settle this argument once and for all. He borrowed an experiment invented earlier by Thomas Young, where light was shone through two small holes right next to each other. When bright light was shone through these two small holes, it created an interference pattern that seemed to show that light was actually a wave.

      Taylor’s idea was to photograph the movie coming out of the holes with a special movie that was unusually sensitive to light. When bright light was shined through the holes, the movie showed an interference pattern, just like Young showed earlier. Taylor then turned down the light to a very dim level. When the light was dim enough, Taylor’s photographs showed tiny pinpoints of light scattering out of the holes. This seemed to show that light was actually a particle. If Taylor allowed the dim light to shine through the holes for long enough, the dots eventually filled up the movie to make an interference pattern again. This demonstrated that light was somehow both a wave and a particle.

      To make matters even more confusing, Louis de Broglie suggested that matter might act the same way. Scientists then performed these same experiments with electrons, and found that electrons too are somehow both particles and waves.

      Today, these experiments have been done in so many different ways by so many different people that scientists simply accept that both matter and light are somehow both waves and particles. Scientists generally admit that even they do not fully understand how this can be, but they are quite certain that it must be true. Although it seems impossible to understand how anything can be both a wave and a particle, scientists do have a number of equations for describing these things that have variables for both wavelength (a wave property) and momentum (a particle property). This seeming impossibility is referred to as the wave-particle duality.

      This shows that in the physical realm two ideas that seem to contradict each other can both be true. Isn’t it possible that this is true in the spiritual realm as well?

      The Wikipedia article shows that if we accept the results of scientific research we must believe that light is both a particle and a wave even if we don’t see how both of these things can be true. If we believe the Bible we must believe that God is completely sovereign in the matter of salvation and chooses whom he will save and we must also believe that each person is responsible to choose whether or not he will be saved even if we don’t understand how they can both be true.

      We live in a universe which had a beginning and will have an end. One component of this universe is time, which flows in one direction so that some things are in our past and some things are in our future. The decisions we make may be influenced by our past but they can only affect our future. Temporally a cause must precede its effect so that one event can be the cause or effect of another but not both.

      This limitation doesn’t apply to God and his actions because he isn’t part of the creation and so he is not subject to its laws. Because we are part of the creation there are many things about God that we can’t understand and it is because we lack understanding that many of the truths he reveals seem to contradict each other.

      It is possible that the two natures of light that we see are manifestations of some natural law that scientists haven’t yet discovered and that if we understood that law we would see that there is no contradiction in the way light behaves. In the same way, the doctrines of God’s sovereignty and our responsibility to choose are probably manifestations of some higher truth that hasn’t been revealed and if we could understand that truth we wouldn’t see any contradiction between the two.

      While there are many things about salvation we don’t understand the Bible makes it perfectly clear what we must do to be saved. God is holy and and his holiness demands that he punish all sin. We have all sinned. Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty that we deserve and rose again from the dead. Anyone who repents of his sins and puts his faith in Christ will find salvation and be forgiven. It isn’t necessary to know whether you are believing of your own free will or because God has given you the ability to believe. It is possible to eat food and receive nourishment from it without understanding how your body digests it; in the same way it is possible to receive salvation without understanding all that is involved in it.

      On this subject, as on many others, we need to keep in mind what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
      For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
      I do not see the parallel between the physics question of the nature of light and the question of whether humans have the choice of salvation or whether God chooses or knows in advance who will be save and who is not. If you have to use Bible scripture only you have to work out the conflicts yourself there.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I do not see the parallel between the physics question of the nature of light and the question of whether humans have the choice of salvation or whether God chooses or knows in advance who will be save and who is not. If you have to use Bible scripture only you have to work out the conflicts yourself there.
        Of course you don't. Have you perchance read "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies, an agnostic BTW?

        Anyway God is infinite in His omniscience. So there is no conflict between God knowing every outcome and in our finite world our choices being real.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Without a doubt God wants man to make right choices. And only by the hearing of God's word can this happen. ". . . So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. . . ." -- Romans 10:17.

          But the condition of mankind is such that man on his own accord does not - ". . . There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God." -- Romans 3:11.

          God's foreknowledge ". . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: . . ." -- 1 Peter 1:2.

          ". . . You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, . . ." -- John 15:16.

          ". . . We love him, because he first loved us. . . ." -- 1 John 4:19.

          Our choice we make toward God is indeed a real choice we make of our own. But it is made with God's help and without any merit on our part.
          We are on my favorite subject. This is my hobby horse. The underlying question is "who maketh thee to differ?" We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post
            We are on my favorite subject. This is my hobby horse. The underlying question is "who maketh thee to differ?" We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?
            The general sinfulness of humankind is set forth in Romans 1:18–3:20 and summarised in 3:23: ‘For all have sinned and fall short of [or lack] the glory of God’ (cf. the HCSB margin note). Are some persons more degenerate or depraved than others? Qualitatively speaking, have some persons committed worse or more heinous sins than others? I would hope that no one would think to propose a negative answer to either of these questions.

            The text you cited above is 1 Corinthians 4:7a (KJV): ‘For who maketh thee to differ from another?’ Throughout the epistle Paul was having to deal with the pride, immaturity, and factitious spirit of believers in Corinth. The creation of divisions within the body of Christ and disregarding apostolic authority was a major issue. It is a gross misuse of 1 Corinthians 4:7 to employ it as a proof-text as to why some receive the good news and others reject it (i.e. why some persons believe in Christ and others do not).

            When you write, ‘We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?’, what is it you are driving at? Repentance from sin and faith in Christ do not constitute meritorious works whereby sinful human beings earn salvation. Perhaps your assumption is that grace cannot be considered grace when salvation is understood as conditional in nature.
            Last edited by The Remonstrant; 12-17-2015, 03:06 AM.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
              The general sinfulness of humankind is set forth in Romans 1:18–3:20 and summarised in 3:23: ‘For all have sinned and fall short of [or lack] the glory of God’ (cf. the HCSB margin note). Are some persons more degenerate or depraved than others? Qualitatively speaking, have some persons committed worse or more heinous sins than others? I would hope that no one would think to propose a negative answer to either of these questions.

              The text you cited above is 1 Corinthians 4:7a (KJV): ‘For who maketh thee to differ from another?’ Throughout the epistle Paul was having to deal with the pride, immaturity, and factitious spirit of believers in Corinth. The creation of divisions within the body of Christ and disregarding apostolic authority was a major issue. It is a gross misuse of 1 Corinthians 4:7 to employ it as a proof-text as to why some receive the good news and others reject it (i.e. why some persons believe in Christ and others do not).

              When you write, ‘We are all sinners. Are some better than others and thus find salvation?’, what is it you are driving at? Repentance from sin and faith in Christ do not constitute meritorious works whereby sinful human beings earn salvation. Perhaps your assumption is that grace cannot be considered grace when salvation is understood as conditional in nature.
              Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

              I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.

              This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

              The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post
                Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

                I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.

                This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

                The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.
                And let me add to this that what I'm suggesting is not the same argument I have had certain Christians give me, where they say the Holy Spirit told them they were right. Or that I was wrong.

                I could be wrong along with all my Reformed brethren on the topic of election. I do find it very curious tho, that it is even mentioned in Scripture (and quite often in the NT), that we are "elect". Why bother with that piece of info if it's all about God making an offer and people can decide for themselves what they will have?

                I'm going to guess that Paul and Peter, the two who seem to remind their readers the most about election, were very aware that if God had not decided (elected) their futures, they would have proceeded on their merry way to hell.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post
                  Hey old friend. Good to see ya. I wasn't wanting my "who maketh thee to differ" to refer to any verse, but I can see how it would appear so.

                  I realize that I can argue for my position till the cows come home and yet by the very nature of the system of theology I hold to, if my position is correct, God must lead and open a person'e eyes to it. You yourself are not new to this debate. We hashed it out quite a while back.
                  Many years ago, yes. I believe that you may have been the first Calvinist on TheologyWeb I engaged in a series of posts.

                  Some level of coherence is required in our God-talk and systematic theology can be helpful towards this end. That said, certain theological or philosophical commitments may prevent us from clearly seeing some truths contained in Scripture. My working assumption is that we are all likely wrong at some point. Some (not all) of our doctrinal views should be open to revision and our theological heroes should not be elevated to the status of near-infallible interpreters of Scripture, regardless of how brilliant they appear to be.


                  Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post
                  This will probably get me in trouble, and I'm sure it has some debate "no, no" attached to it, but it was Dee Dee Warren who never "saw" the one string guitar I played in here for a long time. Once she became Reformed, she condensed all her arguments down to the same one I used. You either see it or you don't.

                  The good thing is, I don't think it's a deal breaker in terms of salvation. I do believe more people will be in heaven who thot [sic] they chose themselves unto salvation, than those who believe they never would have done so but for electing grace.
                  God is the initiator of redemption. God also is the one who has decreed which persons he will save: those who are believing in his Son. Humans make no impositions on God in the realm of salvation. God himself has decreed to grant eternal life to those who receive Jesus Christ in faith, and it is his pleasure to do so. The issue, again, comes down to conditionality. If we follow the Calvinistic route and say that God has exhaustively foreordained all things, neither salvation or damnation are conditional in nature.

                  Note
                  1. I.e. unconditional election to salvation and unconditional reprobation. Both saved and lost are believed to be unconditionally predestined by God to their respective fates.
                  Last edited by The Remonstrant; 12-19-2015, 11:14 AM.
                  For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                    Many years ago, yes. I believe that you may have been the first Calvinist on TheologyWeb I engaged in a series of posts.

                    Some level of coherence is required in our God-talk and systematic theology can be helpful towards this end. That said, certain theological or philosophical commitments may prevent us from clearly seeing some truths contained in Scripture. My working assumption is that we are all likely wrong at some point. Some (not all) of our doctrinal views should be open to revision and our theological heroes should not be elevated to the status of near-infallible interpreters of Scripture, regardless of how brilliant they appear to be.




                    God is the initiator of redemption. God also is the one who has decreed which persons he will save: those who are believing in his Son. Humans make no impositions on God in the realm of salvation. God himself has decreed to grant eternal life to those who receive Jesus Christ in faith, and it is his pleasure to do so. The issue, again, comes down to conditionality. If we follow the Calvinistic route and say that God has exhaustively foreordained all things, neither salvation or damnation are conditional in nature.

                    Note
                    1. I.e. unconditional election to salvation and unconditional reprobation. Both saved and lost are believed to be unconditionally predestined by God to their respective fates.
                    I would begin by reminding us that we all deserve damnation from our mother's womb. At least we are all "lost" at birth, tho children of believing households are sanctified by the believing parent(s).

                    It would appear on the surface of things that our entry into this fallen world, being represented by the first Adam and thus being unregenerate, is NOT fair. And yet the bible makes no apology for the way God has chosen to operate.

                    God could have left the world unto it's lost condition, but instead He appeared to an idol worshiping Abram and unconditionally elected him unto salvation and to be the father of God's chosen people. God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

                    Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness. God is going about saving a people for Himself. None get to decide where they will be born. None get to decide if they will ever hear a stitch of truth about God. None have the power to come to Jesus except the Father draw them.

                    And if the Father gives them to Christ, Christ won't lose a single one. (John 6). Sure, they will freely believe, because God has made it so for them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post

                      God could have left the world unto it's lost condition, but instead He appeared to an idol worshiping Abram and unconditionally elected him unto salvation and to be the father of God's chosen people. God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

                      Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness. God is going about saving a people for Himself. None get to decide where they will be born. None get to decide if they will ever hear a stitch of truth about God. None have the power to come to Jesus except the Father draw them.

                      And if the Father gives them to Christ, Christ won't lose a single one. (John 6). Sure, they will freely believe, because God has made it so for them.
                      Why does this always seem to be an issue of Calvinism? -- where 'unconditional election to salvation' is read into EVERYTHING, even where the Bible doesn't even talk about it (e.g. the story of Abraham)

                      It's simple really:

                      1. pre-define terms such as 'predestination', 'election', 'choose', outside of their Biblical usage
                      2. Build a theology around these terms.
                      3. Show people proof-texts which include these terms (disregard context).
                      4. Once the terms are defined pre-reading, then the paradigm has already been formed outside of the Bible to hinder any real exegesis.
                      5. Voila! People will actually believe that Calvinism is Biblical. (although its beliefs were essentially considered heretical during the Early Church) After all, the word predestination and election are in the Bible!!!!!! (sorry for the sarcasm)

                      but the truth is that even the beginning of Romans says these things:

                      Romans 1:19-20
                      For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


                      as opposed to:

                      God does this while millions of heathen with their heathen children perish without hope in their pagan religions. No rush on God's part to unfold His story of redemption.

                      Sure, some would come from other nations to join God's chosen people (Rahab and Ruth come to mind), but for the most part the larger portion of mankind is left in darkness
                      and it also says this:

                      Romans 2:6-11
                      He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.



                      The point is that even Romans (the favorite book of my Calvinist friends [well maybe just a chapter of it]) says the exact opposite - it shows how God's mercy and patience (and justice [they being without excuse..God not being partial...etc.]) have always been a part of the equation. In fact, the argument that Paul lays out in the beginning part of Romans just doesn't make sense when considered under the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
                      Last edited by phat8594; 12-19-2015, 02:58 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey Phat, thnx for giving me things to think thru.
                        And this is always the issue of Calvinism -- 'unconditional election to salvation' is read into EVERYTHING, even where the Bible doesn't even talk about it.

                        It's simple really:

                        1. pre-define terms such as 'predestination', 'election', 'choose', outside of their Biblical usage
                        2. Build a theology around these terms.
                        3. Show people proof-texts which include these terms (disregard context).
                        4. Once the terms are defined pre-reading, then the paradigm has already been formed outside of the Bible to hinder any real exegesis.
                        5. Voila! People will actually believe that Calvinism is Biblical. (although its beliefs were essentially considered heretical during the Early Church) After all, the word predestination and election are in the Bible!!!!!!

                        (sorry for the sarcasm)
                        No worries, hard not to get sarcastic in here. But can't the objection you raised about Calvinists be said of the Remonstrants as well? You know, the garden variety type, which I think you must be referring to, instead of the more serious Remonstrants who would never level the kind of charges against serious Calvinists the way you have just done.

                        but the truth is that even the beginning of Romans says these things:

                        Romans 1:19-20
                        For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


                        as opposed to this:
                        I agree that God has left the heathen without excuse. Abram would have been in the same boat had God not appeared to him.


                        and it also says this:

                        Romans 2:6-11
                        He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.
                        The key words here are "who obey not the truth." Otherwise this verse teaches moral-ism. Which neither you nor I hold to, right?

                        Where did you read that the early church considered the kind of teachings that Augustine and then later Calvin taught, to be heretical?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phat8594 View Post


                          The point is that even Romans (the favorite book of my Calvinist friends [well maybe just a chapter of it]) says the exact opposite - it shows how God's mercy and patience (and justice [they being without excuse..God not being partial...etc.]) have always been a part of the equation. In fact, the argument that Paul lays out in the beginning part of Romans just doesn't make sense when considered under the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
                          Nor does it make sense without the gospel included. Because there are none good, none who seek after God.

                          To raise this text and say "hey look, it's up to people to live a good life and thus gain favor with God or choose to do evil and pay the price", is obviously wrong. This verse isn't meant to demonstrate freedom of choice. Those who are moral versus the immoral. It simply must be a statement of gospel fact.

                          For those who do not obey the truth, that being an understanding that they are sinners who need God's solution for sin and believe God for it, for those kind of people, the wrath of God abides on them still.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GoBahnsen View Post

                            For those who do not obey the truth, that being an understanding that they are sinners who need God's solution for sin and believe God for it, for those kind of people, the wrath of God abides on them still.
                            Just realized my sentence structure wasn't very good. Sorry about that. Should say "for those kind of people who do not obey the truth, the wrath of God abides on them still. I never was very good at grammar.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Does Romans 3:10-12 mean even those that go to heaven never change?

                              A cruel wicked soldier in the heat of the battle that surrenders to his enemy, is not changing sides, is not loving his enemy and may realize he fully deserves torture and execution for his war crimes. The soldier that surrenders still hates his enemy at that moment of surrendering. The point is the nonbeliever that does wimp out(surrender/gives up): allows God to shower him/her with gifts, but he/she is still same bad person at the time.



                              The big issue goes back to the fact: if the Father saves only some of His children from starving to death in the pigsty (where every child has deservedly gotten themselves into) and yet does not save all of His children, when he could just as easily saved all, there has to be a good reason or the Father is unfair/ unjust. The good reason is: All can return to the Father, but some, of their own free will, are not willing to wimp out (humble themselves to the point of being willing to accept the Father’s charity).

                              Everyone is drawn to the party with a wonderful invitation from the Master, but not all accept the invitation. The master does party with those that accept and he presents them to His son.

                              I did not independently and arbitrarily come up with the definition of just and fairness.

                              The way the Bible defines just and unjust is what I am using and fairness come from Christ being fair with everyone and the fairness shown by people in scripture that are being commented.

                              To come up with a contradictory action of God to what the Bible would describe as just and/or fair would mean God is misleading.

                              The biblical definition of just is totally consistent and supportive of my theological understanding of God’s actions.

                              Is there another reason for redefining just and fair for God other that your explanation to salvation?

                              Are the differences between those that as saved and those that go to hell significant?

                              What are those differences other than being or not being part of some arbitrary elect?

                              Is the part we have to play in this process hugely important?

                              “Do” we of our own free will choose to wimp out/ give up /surrender in order to allow God to shower us with gifts or do we “do” nothing different than those that are lost and we are saved?

                              Can you correctly accept pure charity (Godly Love) without being humble?

                              I would use Matt. 18: 21-35 (the Parable of the ungrateful servant) to show the master (God) extending forgiveness to the servant and the servant not humbly accepting that forgiveness as charity and thus the Love transaction was not completed.

                              Also the prodigal son, with a wonderful Loving Father, was not humbly accepting the Father’s Love until he humbly returned to his father.

                              Adam and Eve would have accepted God’s Love as a wonderful parent’s love for obedient children. They knew God as their father was to love them as a father and they could accept that love without humility, but that does not mean they accepted God’s Love as totally undeserving, unconditional unselfish Love. God as their creator would have the responsibility of caring for His creation the same as even a parent today is responsible for the children the parent brings into the world. Doing things because you are motivated by responsibility does not mean you motivated by Godly type Love, so Adam and Eve would not have to assume God was compelled to help them out of an unselfish Love. Since we know: “If you Love me you will obey me…” and Adam and Eve did not obey; they did not have that “Love” needed to obey. If they had a Godly type Love for God they would not have rebelled John 14: 15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Adam and Eve would have always had an instinctive love for God even when they were rebellious, but that kind of love is not strong enough to compel obedience. If man (Adam and Eve) does not have the objective of obtaining this Godly type Love there is no logical reason for man to spend time on earth. All mature adults including Adam and Eve had/have the objective of obtaining Godly type Love so they can really Love.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X