To Calvinists, how can your view be true?

[Homie]

If I understand your view correctly:
You believe that God saves, we do not choose him under free will but God chooses to save some of us for some reason.

If this was true, some of my basic ideas would crumble, i.e. my understanding of "the meaning of life" and why there is evil in the world when God is good.

1. I believe God chose to create us with free will, so that we would choose him and worship him. Because what can can you give a guy that has everything (God is omnipotent, therefore he can get anything he wants all the time, thus no material goods will satisfy him), the answear is total submittance and worship by free will is the only thing that will satisfy him, therefore he created us.

2. Why is there evil in the world when God is good? Because God gave us free will to submit to our evil nature or submit to him.

If you take free will out of the equation, I have to ask: What is the meaning of life? and Why is there evil in the world?

Not an attack on Calvinists, just a curious question.

[Solly]

Homie

We have free moral volition; the usually unhindered ability to choose and make decisions on the basis of our rational ability and desires. In a normal everyday situation you are free to make a choice; noone is holding a gun to your head.

However, the Biblical witness is that our "free moral volition" is enslavedby, and limited because of, sin; we can't choose anything with respect to God except to rebel against him; everything follows from that: if we have turned from the only source of good, then evil, moral, psychological, spiritual, and eventually natural, will follow. That is what Paul means when he says we were "slaves of sin". Slaves are obedient to their masters.

The mistake most "free willers" make is first, trying to bring a modern ethico-political philosophy to the Bible and seeking to find it there; secondly, assuming it's all or nothing; thirdly, tying it in with ideas of human autonomy - that we exist in a perfect moral and spiritual equilibrium, where each choice is ex nihilo, and we are the masters of our fate, the captains of our souls.

Most free will philosophies I have encountered usually play down the noetic and systemic effects of sin, exalting human autonomy in the process, and making God the slave of our decisions.

God's grace releases us from that slavery to sin, removing not only the blindness of our hearts, but the resistance of our desires which hinders our volitional choices with regard to him. We are not in a position to worship and serve God until we have been regenerated, not even to chose to be regenerated.

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 06:40 PM post located here
Homie:

If I understand your view correctly:
You believe that God saves, we do not choose him under free will but God chooses to save some of us for some reason.

If this was true, some of my basic ideas would crumble, i.e. my understanding of "the meaning of life" and why there is evil in the world when God is good.

1. I believe God chose to create us with free will, so that we would choose him and worship him. Because what can can you give a guy that has everything (God is omnipotent, therefore he can get anything he wants all the time, thus no material goods will satisfy him), the answear is total submittance and worship by free will is the only thing that will satisfy him, therefore he created us.

2. Why is there evil in the world when God is good? Because God gave us free will to submit to our evil nature or submit to him.

If you take free will out of the equation, I have to ask: What is the meaning of life? and Why is there evil in the world?

Not an attack on Calvinists, just a curious question.

As a Calvinist, I recognize "free will". Now I ask you to show me your "free will" by willing yourself to fly (without mechanical assistance)...

Here's my point (which Solly also made):

Calvinists believe that man, without God's help, has become unable to choose God, in the same way that we're unable to choose to fly. Whatever we "will", it is beyond our ability to truly seek after God (though we think we can).

To this point, I think that the issue has to do primarily with salvation (i.e. our ability to choose God on His terms), and not with every aspect of our lives. While I don't consider God to be less sovereign anywhere else, it is only in regards to salvation that we humans require a particular working of grace to enable us a real choice.

Following up on this, as a Calvinist, I agree with you that we must freely choose him (which we will do once He provides the grace to enable us to make the choice). I also agree that evil is in the world because of mankind's free choices.

Jacob

[Defenestrator]

I'll reiterate what has already been said.

There is evil in the world because man freely continues to do exactly what he desires. Calvinists just say that man has absolutely no desire to do what pleases God without God's lead.

As far as the meaning of life - of creation - I think Christians of all shape and size believe that the meaning and purpose of Creation is to bring glory to the Creator.

[Homie]

Jacob
I agree with you that we must freely choose him (which we will do once He provides the grace to enable us to make the choice

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

Is it in thread with Calvinist views that without Gods intervention we will not be saved, but still with his intervention we could choose him away. Note, this does not take power away from God (He could make us into robots who worshipped him regardless, if he willed), but brings meaning to our creation.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

[Defenestrator]

Homie:

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

Calvinists say that humans don't have free will with regards to salvation. What Calvinists say are that humans freely choose to sin. Humans are not coerced.

Is it in thread with Calvinist views that without Gods intervention we will not be saved, but still with his intervention we could choose him away. Note, this does not take power away from God (He could make us into robots who worshipped him regardless, if he willed), but brings meaning to our creation.

Calvinists would say that your first sentence above is false. Calvinists say that fallen men desire to do evil and have no power in themselves to refrain from doing evil. And Calvinists say that we freely do what we desire.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

The "elect" is a biblical term. Calvinists and non-Calvinists just differ in what, exactly, the term means. What Calvinists mean by it is this. Before the Creation of the universe God decreed that sin would exist in His creation. Also before the Creation of the universe, God decreed that some humans would be saved from their sinful nature. These are the elect. Not only that, but God decreed the means by which we would be saved: Jesus Christ's work on the cross. And God did this all for a reason. God's creation points to one purpose: displaying His glory. God's creation - including the fall and redemption - promote the glory of God.

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here
Defenestrator:

And God did this all for a reason. God's creation points to one purpose: displaying His glory. God's creation - including the fall and redemption - promote the glory of God.

Well stated.


Jacob

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry, but I must disagree. God can not be just if he is choosy. If we are never given an opportunity to choose Christ, there is no need for salvation. It's favortism. If Grace is not available to all, how does one escape hell if grace is not made available to them? We doom ourselves to sin because we succumb to our flesh. We must come to the point of realizing that we are dead in sin and need life. THEN God gives it to us. His grace is a free gift for the world, and it's up to us to realize we need it. God is not a puppett master. He is a gentleman. His desire is to be loved by those who WANT to love Him.

[Defenestrator]

Hey, this used to be in the liberal arts section.

Edit: Nevermind. I see the sections are being renamed or something. But still, this forum is Q&A.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:10 PM post located here
Homie:

So you are saying that we do have free will to choose God, but not without God's intervention. Ok, that is fair enough. It is obvious that God plays a part in salvation, I agree with you. But only if you mean that we could be able to not choose him as well, even if he intervened. Because if we couldn't, we would not have free will regarding salvation, which is the very reason we are here, and our creation would be meaningless.

--I would not use the term "Free Will" anyway; Arminians would be happier with your definition IMHO, looking at a more synergistic understanding of the modus operandi of salvation. Calvinists are monergistic; we do not want to be saved, then through God's intervention by regenerating us, we do want to be saved. Cut and dried. God doesn't play dice.

I have heard something about "the elect". Whereas the elect are the people God chose to save? What makes him elect a few, if he desires that all shall be saved and he loves all. If I am not mistaken, "the elect" is a Calvinist view. So how would you explain the theory of the elect logically, regarding the points mentioned above. (The questions are addressed to all Calvinists)

--There is nothing to say he elects a few; for a start we are told there will be a multitude without number in heaven; most Reformed believe that infants that die are also elected.

[Homie]

I have read the verses containing the word "elect" in the NT and understand why Calvinists come to the conclusion that some are predestined by God to be saved and some are not. Especially this verse seem to imply this:
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

When I read what Jesus said about the ending days I understood it to mean elect = the Christians. But 2Ti 2:10 certainly gives the impression that the elect are the elect even before salvation. It seems that they are elected to be saved.

But my conclusion is that this is simply a misunderstanding of language and context. God knows who will be saved (because he is omniscient), therefore those who will be saved are spoken about as the elect. As is evident in this verse:
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God knows who will be saved, yet desires all to be saved. There are no 2 kinds of people, why would God elect some to be saved? No, salvation comes through faith, and the saved are the elected, elected to enter Gods kingdom; heaven.

[richilou]

Dear friend,

I would not take the space it would require to answer your fair question. I will just suggest to you a good book who answers very well many of your probable questions as I can guess.

The title of the book is "The Potter's Freedom" written by James R. White (Calvary Press).

Richard

[Hermeneutic]

Homie,

First lat me say, nothing I say here is to argue or be dissagreeable, i only aim to shed some light on your question and possibly help you find a solution.
I can see why you would have the questions you do about Calvinism. Though i feel that the problems you encounter with it may be due to your hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. Any principles or methods that are used in interpreting something (in this case, the Bible) are all hermeneutics. Everybody has a hermeneutical system of some kind, even if they do not know it. When we read a newspaper we employ certain hermeneutics we have learned, and by using them, we understand the newspaper. How we read something, and the hermeneutics we use will play the most decisive role in how we interpret any given text. So when it comes to the Bible it is essential that we examine the hermeneutics we use to interpret it, and research what others have written on the subject, so when we come to the Bible we have a solid understand of Biblical Hermeneutics.

A common hermeneutical error that we all commit from time to time is the error of assumption. We all have assumptions (or presuppositions) when it comes to God and the Bible. What i mean by assumption is, something that we already believe to be true. Some we are aware of and some we may not be. We may have assumptions because it is what we were taught, its what makes sense to us, or it might be more agreeable with us emotionally. Not all assumptions are bad, but we can begin to see the danger of having assumptions especially when they contradict Scripture. Often times we may find outselves disagreeing with the Bible, or missing the clear teaching of Scripture because it contradicts what we already believe to be true. This happens when our assumptions about God and the BIble are not conclusions come to by studying the Scriptures, but are things we believe to be true apart from the Scriptures. So we find ourselves saying things like "well this verse can't mean that..." when in actuality it might but our failure to let go of our assumption in light of Scripture causes us to miss the true teachings of the Bible. So we can see how important it is to study the Scriptures faithfully so that our worldview and our assumptions will more clearly line up with Scripture. By staying open to God's Word, our assumptions may change into conclusions-beliefs clearly drawn from the faithful study of the Scriptures.

Now i said all that because I noticed a couple things in your post that I do not see very clearly stated in Scripture (I may very well be wrong and if I am please feel free to bring that to my attention, I by no means consider myself infallible). You stated that you believe that God created us so that we would choose in our free will to worship Him, because the only thing that would satisfy God is a free will choice to worship. Is this a conclusion drawn from Scripture?

Just something to think about.

--Hermeneutic (Frank)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Hermie's Homiletic:

"You stated that you believe that ... the only thing that would satisfy God is a free will choice to worship. Is this a conclusion drawn from Scripture?"

I am looking foreward to Homie's Hermaneutic.


geo

[Thomas2003]

Dear Homie,

One of the hardest things to understand is calvinism coming into the middle of the discussion without the presuppositions.

Calvinism or what some might call the "doctrine of grace" is presuppositional upon the doctrine of the Trinity. It is impossible to understand or really discuss without starting there.

I do not mean this statement in any condemning way, but the reason you come to the table and ask a question based upon your conclusion of "free will" is because you've formulated your soteriology without a complete reference of biblical knowledge.

Coming to grips with what Scripture is teaching, as a totality, took hundreds of years. God hasn't just delivered us all our own bibles and left it up to each of us to hammer out a doctrine for ourselves. Many heresies entered and caused countless misery and death as the Gospel worked out salvation in a temporal sense over time.

The best way to understand it is to go back and read the creeds of the early church, such as the Athanasian Creed, the Chalcedon Creed, the Nicene Creed &c. If you go to http://www.reformed.org/ they have some good copies you might want to peruse.

Hope it helps.

Cordially,

Thomas