A Question for the Calvinist

[prism]

And it's fine even if you were laughing at my beliefs or my wording

Laughing never crossed my mind. I take most of what people post seriously unless it's obviously a 'funny'.

 

[prism]

I don't think you were being mocked. I think he was just playing with words. It was funny to me, but not intended against you, as far as I can tell.

Nobody thinks quite the same as anyone else. I see that some people appreciate the distinction of passive vs active obedience as necessary, and some see it as confusing. I see it as unnecessary, and even somewhat misleading. But its ok with me if someone else needs it. It is not cardinal. But when @prism 's answer was demonstrative of how it can be confusing, I thought it was funny.

Thanks, I couldn't have explained it better.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thanks, I couldn't have explained it better.

I'm glad someone understood it.

Laughing never crossed my mind. I take most of what people post seriously unless it's obviously a 'funny'.

As I said it's fine. It helps that I don't understand what on earth transpired.
.
But no matter as I said it's fine. We can move past it now and let the thread continue.

You can continue on with speaking to those who you respect in these matters. Prayerfully @Ladodgers6 can respond.

God bless you.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Obedient in a passive way - "He opened not His mouth". (Isaiah 53:7; Acts 8;32; Genesis 22:8)

Amen! The Suffering Servant is most prominently depicted in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. This passage, often referred to as the "Suffering Servant Song," details the servant's humiliation, suffering, and eventual exaltation.

 

[His clay]

I get that but is His choice arbitrary?

I've deal with this objection in greater detail in the following thread.
https://christcentered.community.fo...ary-objection-to-unconditional-election.1159/

Post 205 gives a summary of my response.

Posts 1, 58, 123, & 160-61 are the longer, four part response I made to the objection.

Another poster did not like the objection getting refuted so thoroughly, so a great deal of noise and denial was made in the last few pages, but none of that addressed the issues that I presented in the refutation.

I'll add a quote of post 205 to conclude.

The simplistic response to the arbitrary objection leveled against unconditional election is this. The removal of some reasons for God's choice of some to save, does not therefore mean that all reasons for God's choice have been removed. Thusly, the charge of arbitrary cannot stand, for God can still have a reason, even after removing man's choices, merit, and faith as a ground for His choice. Therefore, if God still has reasons, outside of man, that still have a bearing upon His decision, then by definition His choice is not arbitrary; for to be arbitrary is to have no reason at all.

Arbitrary = choice void of reason
Unconditional election = a reasonable (magnification of His grace) choice to save some void of certain man-centered reasons.

Hence, the charge of "arbitrary" is simply misguided and false. Opening posts 1-4 deal with this issue in greater detail.

 

[prism]

I've deal with this objection in greater detail in the following thread.
https://christcentered.community.fo...ary-objection-to-unconditional-election.1159/

Post 205 gives a summary of my response.

A bit erudite and well over my head.
What would you say to the one who says,"It was Jesus who was foreordained before the foundation of the world, a Lamb without blemish or spot, the Elect One. ?

 

[His clay]

A bit erudite and well over my head.
What would you say to the one who says,"It was Jesus who was foreordained before the foundation of the world, a Lamb without blemish or spot, the Elect One. ?

I would ask what their point was in saying that.

Does Jesus' foreordination invalidate other kinds? If that is the idea, then it would be a rather hefty non sequitur. If I make a plan beforehand to go get asparagus from the grocery store, that doesn't make it impossible for me to plan beforehand to get some frozen pizzas too?

Put a different way, if one is asserting through the question that only Jesus was elect, then he/she would need to prove the assumption that all other forms of election are invalidated by Jesus being elect. Otherwise, it's just cherry picking a verse, ignoring others, and arriving at a bad conclusion.

As for being erudite and over your head, did you read the shortened version? If you did, then what was difficult to understand?

(1) A reasonable choice was made vs a reasonless (arbitrary) choice was made
-Is the above point hard to understand?

(2) A choice absent a few reasons, means only that the choice was absent those reasons.
-Is the above point hard to understand?

(3) A choice absent some reasons can have different reasons for the choice.
-Is the above point hard to understand?

If all three points are understood, then everything in the summary (post 205 quoted at the end) was not over your head. I'm certain that you are capable enough to understand the three points.

 

[Eleanor]

I've deal with this objection in greater detail in the following thread.
https://christcentered.community.fo...ary-objection-to-unconditional-election.1159/
Post 205 gives a summary of my response.
Posts 1, 58, 123, & 160-61 are the longer, four part response I made to the objection.
Another poster did not like the objection getting refuted so thoroughly, so a great deal of noise and denial was made in the last few pages, but none of that addressed the issues that I presented in the refutation.
I'll add a quote of post 205 to conclude:
"The simplistic response to the arbitrary objection leveled against unconditional election is this. The removal of some reasons for God's choice of some to save, does not therefore mean that all reasons for God's choice have been removed. Thusly, the charge of arbitrary cannot stand, for God can still have a reason, even after removing man's choices, merit, and faith as a ground for His choice.

Therefore, if God still has reasons, outside of man, that still have a bearing upon His decision, then by definition His choice is not arbitrary; for to be arbitrary is to have no reason at all.
Arbitrary = choice void of reason
Unconditional election = a reasonable (magnification of His grace) choice to save some void of certain man-centered reasons.
Hence, the charge of "arbitrary" is simply misguided and false. Opening posts 1-4 deal with this issue in greater detail."

Jesus presents the choice to new birth by the sovereign Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5) to be as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

 

[His clay]

Jesus presents the choice to new birth by the sovereign Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5) to be as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

Do you think that the new birth by the Holy Spirit in time (Jn3) is the same thing as God the Father's choice in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4)?

It might be wise to consider that I'm probably addressing a different category than your post is addressing.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you think that the new birth by the Holy Spirit in time (Jn3) is the same thing as God the Father's choice in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4)?

It might be wise to consider that I'm probably addressing a different category than your post is addressing.

I'm addressing the statement regarding unconditional election (post #205, #305).

 

[His clay]

I'm addressing the statement regarding unconditional election (post #205, #305).

Then why did you bring up the new birth (Jn3) when addressing unconditional election? (post #308)

Do you think that the new birth by the Holy Spirit in time (Jn3) is the same thing as God the Father's choice in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4)?

 

[Eleanor]

Then why did you bring up the new birth (Jn3) when addressing unconditional election? (post #308)

The new birth (Jn 3:3-5) is unconditional election (Jn 3:6-8).

you think that the new birth by the Holy Spirit in time (Jn3) is the same thing as God the Father's choice in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4)?

The elect in Christ were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) to be given new birth

 

[makesends]

Then why did you bring up the new birth (Jn3) when addressing unconditional election? (post #308)

Do you think that the new birth by the Holy Spirit in time (Jn3) is the same thing as God the Father's choice in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4)?

The elect in Christ were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

They are not the same thing, but they are parts/aspects/means of the same thing. I think of timeless God speaking the Bride into existence, and choosing us before the foundation of the world, and redeeming and regenerating us in time to accomplish it. This is what I call decree.

 

[Carbon]

Why can't a person facing Judgment say,

Okay, I give up. Why can't they?

"The reason I am being judged to eternal destruction is because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?

Even though, I just can't imagine a person who is at enmity with God, who hates God, caring about it. There is an old saying, hell is locked from the inside.

 

[His clay]

The new birth (Jn 3:3-5) is unconditional election (Jn 3:6-8).

The elect in Christ were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) to be given new birth

According to the first sentence, the new birth is unconditional election, according to Jn 3:3-8. One must prove that statement by going to Jn 3:3-8 and demonstrating that election before the foundation of the world is even mentioned in the passage. It is one thing to make an assertion as the poster has done, and it is quite another to prove that assertion. Remember, asserting doesn't magically make something true; Scripture is the ultimate guide. Simply put, one can demonstrate the new birth in Jn3:3-8, but one cannot demonstrate unconditional election in the same verses, for it simply is not there. Thusly, I see the statement/assertion; but it is simply not founded upon the passage in question. Nor is it evidenced by the facts of Scripture.

According to the second sentence, they were chosen "to be given new birth." Actually, Ephesians 1:4 does not say that in any explicit way. Now, in your defense, it does say "to be holy and without blame." And one can then argue that part of being made holy and without blame involves the future aspect of salvation of which the new birth is a part. But that would be a systematic argument, and not an exegetical one (inferential vs explicit).

There is this thing that theologians call the "order of salvation," and often the latin is used. But the point of the phrase is to try and spell out the order in which salvation takes place. Typically, election is at or near the beginning, but then other elements take place as God enacts His initial decision within human history. Obviously, "before the foundation of the world" is before human history.

So, let us jump to the point. Election, as described by Ephesians 1:4, is

1. "before the foundation of the world"
2. God the father chose ("He chose")
3. "in Him"
   1. The Son is involved in the choice as an intra-trinitarian dialogue takes place,
   2. or the Son is the instrumental sphere in which redemption will take place

No mention is made of the Holy Spirit; no mention is made of the new birth; no mention is made of wind; and especially no mention is made of the wind's activity describing God the Father's choice before the foundation of the world (since of course there is no wind before the foundation of the world). Rather, we see in Ephesians 1:6 a glimpse into the reasoning for the choice made in 1:4, namely, "to the praise of his glorious grace." This is why I said what I did in the summary post: "a reasonable (magnification of His grace) choice to save some." I took "to the praise of his glorious grace" and put it into my own words as "magnification of His grace."

When we get to Jn3:3-8 the only actor in the new birth is the Holy Spirit. We are told "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The wind relates to the Spirit's working in the same way that we only see the effects of the wind and not the wind itself. And Jesus says that the wind blows where it wishes (which is a reason and thus not arbitrary), and relates this to the Spirits working.

We can note a difference in actors, timing, and action.

1. The Spirit is the One who accomplishes the new birth. No mention is made of the Son or the Father accomplishing the new birth.
2. The timing is different since "before the foundation of the world" is considerably different than those moments in human history where the Holy Spirit moves to accomplish the new birth.
3. The action itself is different, since "elect" is more or less a transliteration of the Greek ἐξελέξατο. This simply means that the action is the choosing itself. In Jn3 the action is "So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." We can simply call the action "birthing".

Everyone can see that a Father and Son choice made before the foundation of the world with respect to certain individuals to be made holy and without blame is a rather different matter than the enactment of the choice by a different member of the Trinity at a different time by birthing.

Now, just as apples and oranges are both fruit does not stop them from being a rather basic example of the category error fallacy.
So also God's choice pre-creation and the new birth are part of the larger category of the "order of salvation," but this does not stop them from being a rather basic example of the category error fallacy. Thusly, because Scripture says so, we must conclude that the earlier statement "The new birth (Jn 3:3-5) is unconditional election (Jn 3:6-8)." is simply false. Scripture refutes such a claim. Too many Scriptural dissimilarities exist for that statement to be true.

 

[His clay]

They are not the same thing, but they are parts/aspects/means of the same thing. I think of timeless God speaking the Bride into existence, and choosing us before the foundation of the world, and redeeming and regenerating us in time to accomplish it. This is what I call decree.

As I stated in my last post, they are both parts or aspects of the "order of salvation." So we can classify them under the larger category. But as I mentioned in the last post, just because apples and oranges are both fruit, doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

The informal way of describing a category error fallacy is "an apples and oranges comparison."

To be honest, I'm kind of shocked that I'm having to defend a position that is so blatantly obvious (not from you, but with respect to the other poster). I mean, all it takes is reading the passage and noting the differences.

 

[Carbon]

According to the first sentence, the new birth is unconditional election, according to Jn 3:3-8. One must prove that statement by going to Jn 3:3-8 and demonstrating that election before the foundation of the world is even mentioned in the passage. It is one thing to make an assertion as the poster has done, and it is quite another to prove that assertion.

Greetings brother. I agree John 3:3-8 does not prove or show an unconditional election, the closest thing, and perhaps more importantly, it does show God's sovereignty, considering verse 8, The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Remember, asserting doesn't magically make something true; Scripture is the ultimate guide.

Amen!

Simply put, one can demonstrate the new birth in Jn3:3-8, but one cannot demonstrate unconditional election in the same verses, for it simply is not there.

Agreed

 

[Eleanor]

(and I know there are plenty here)

Why can't a person facing Judgment say, "The reason I am being judged to eternal destruction is because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?

No, the reason you are judged to eternal destruction is because you are a sinner.

God does not owe forgiveness to you, or anyone else.

That he chooses to give it to some does not give you a right to what he does not owe you.

 

[Carbon]

No, the reason you are judged to eternal destruction is because you are a sinner.

God does not owe forgiveness to you, or anyone else.

That he chooses to give it to some does not give you a right to what he does now owe you.

 

[makesends]

As I stated in my last post, they are both parts or aspects of the "order of salvation." So we can classify them under the larger category. But as I mentioned in the last post, just because apples and oranges are both fruit, doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

The informal way of describing a category error fallacy is "an apples and oranges comparison."

To be honest, I'm kind of shocked that I'm having to defend a position that is so blatantly obvious (not from you, but with respect to the other poster). I mean, all it takes is reading the passage and noting the differences.

I'm not sure to whom you are referring by "the other poster". @Eleanor as I understood her, was not disputing what you were saying.

My intention by what I added was to show what seems to me a better way to look at the matter—to point out that this is all in God's doing. It's kind of like the difference between a Reformed grasp of the word "Sovereignty" compared to the Pelagian acquiescence which acknowledges God's power but not his purity of purpose.