A Question for the Calvinist

[prism]

I would ask what their point was in saying that.

I read it in a book, that's the problem with books. You can't ask the author questions.

As for being erudite and over your head, did you read the shortened version?

Shortened version of what?

 

[prism]

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.

Yes, but all are sinners, so why only some?

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Actually, it is a statement of the Holy Spirit's sovereign choice in the gift of the new birth, which is not based on anything the person does, but is based on nothing but his will to choose them.

 

[prism]

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.

So, the only way out is if God elects us?

 

[Carbon]

So, the only way out is if God elects us?

You seem to use the word "out" as if it were the desire of the word.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, but all are sinners, so why only some?

For the glory of his mercy, available only through faith in Christ. . .the others, for the sake of his justice, which they are owed.

 

[makesends]

Yes, but all are sinners, so why only some?

The question is asked from a humanocentric POV. Look further back. Why did God create at all? To start something rolling in order to see what might fall out? Was it an experiment?

Not at all. He had a specific end in mind —not at all general or undecided— and the elect are ALL that he intended to that end. The Bride will be missing no members. She will be complete. And those members are being built as we speak, in part by his reprobation of the rest of humanity.

 

[prism]

The question is asked from a humanocentric POV. Look further back. Why did God create at all? To start something rolling in order to see what might fall out? Was it an experiment?

a non-answer

The Bride will be missing no members. She will be complete. And those members are being built as we speak, in part by his reprobation of the rest of humanity.

missing no members and complete, correct

by his reprobation of the rest of humanity.

there's the hitch, since God is love (1Jn 4:8. 1Jn 4:16), why would He reprobate. Unless to 'reprobate' is to love

 

[prism]

For the glory of his mercy, available only through faith in Christ. . .the others, for the sake of his justice, which they are owed.

All is well, unless you're on the receiving end of His wrath.

 

[prism]

You seem to use the word "out" as if it were the desire of the word.

I don't follow.

 

[makesends]

a non-answer

Right back at ya, lol. (Fwiw, I hadn't intended that as an answer to the question, because I consider the question bogus, humanocentric.

missing no members and complete, correct

Yes, missing none, and complete. Specific members, not random, not by man's design but by God's. THAT is what God created

there's the hitch, since God is love (1Jn 4:8. 1Jn 4:16), why would He reprobate. Unless to 'reprobate' is to love

Another humanocentric question.

The reprobate are not, (nor are we, any of us), a thing unto themselves. They are God's creatures and he can do with them as he pleases.

BUT, in an attempt to deal with the question as conceived, Why should we assume our notion of love is the same as God's? Suppose, for example, that his idea of love has more to do with intimate (immanent) contact, he being the very cause and upholder of the existence
of anything that exists ("In him we live and move and have our being".) If, (to continue the example), it is of his very self-existence (his BEING) that the most basic particle/essence of matter/force is consisted, why would that not accurately be considered love? What do WE know?

Or, consider the possibility that God does not see the reprobate as more than mere tools for his purposes. Why should we think he loves them as he loves the Redeemed? "Made in his image" would be enough love—why should he love them more than that?

 

[Eleanor]

a non-answer

missing no members and complete, correct

there's the hitch, since God is love (1Jn 4:8. 1Jn 4:16), why would He reprobate. Unless to 'reprobate' is to love

Is God not just?
And his love provided a remedy for whoseoever will.

That's as good as it gets on fallen planet earth

 

[Eleanor]

All is well, unless you're on the receiving end of His wrath.

Actually, all is well in God's order both ways, in his love and in his justice, both of which are his attributes to be giorified.

 

[atpollard]

(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?

Most people come to Christianity from a self-image that THEY (personally) are not "that bad". Everyone can point to someone worse ... (Yes, I was a serial killer, but I never ate my victims like he did!" ).

In contrast, I came to Christianity from the place of being a practicing NIHILIST (I actually believed it and acted on those beliefs) and fully embraced the "problem of evil" philosophical dilemma ["How can a good god allow evil to exist?"]. So allow me a deeply personal answer to your question:

They CAN.
Nothing would prevent a person from blaming God for how he made them. Adam certainly wasted no time in shifting the blame for HIS choice to "the woman" ... which, by the way ... YOU, GOD, gave HER to me, so this is YOUR fault and HER fault that I chose badly.
[Adam was not completely wrong. God certainly set the stage, didn't He? Where was that angel with a flaming sword BEFORE they ate the fruit?]

However, the true "reprobate" of Romans 1 fame ... will not raise that defense. (In My Opinion) For me, the concept of this "invisible unicorn" of a god actually existing was "unimaginable". Confronted with the real possibility (even likely inevitability) of a violent death in my near future, I considered "Pascals Wager". Ultimately, my personal conclusion was that any "supreme being" of such malevolent indifference as "LIFE" indicates is not merely capable of, but delighting in ... was worthy of "fear, loathing and hatred" (not worship). Thus to "blame god" in a bid to win favor and spend eternity WITH such a being, is the last inclination of reprobate thoughts.

Thus the reprobate simply WILL NOT seek to be with God. Like roaches fleeing from the light, they scuttle into the dark corners to hide from that which they fear and loathe. It is the removal of the "heart of stone" and grafting of a "heart of flesh" that is essential to the desire to approach the LIGHT.

YMMV.

 

[His clay]

I read it in a book, that's the problem with books. You can't ask the author questions.

Shortened version of what?

In post 305, at the end of the post, I quoted a previous summary statement I made concerning the arbitrary accusation. This was a drastically shortened version of a four part response I linked to in post 305. I will quote my shortened version/summary again.

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.

The point of the simplistic response above is to counter the blatantly false "arbitrary" accusation against unconditional election. I hope that you know that I wrote what I did to help people and to obviously counter a blatant falsehood. This was the entire reason I responded to you with post 305, because you raised the objection (whether as devil's advocate or a sincere question). This motive to help has led me to invest a great deal of time into writing. Please take the time to read the material. It is not complex or difficult, and in post 307 I helped you out by clarifying three simple points. Please feel free to ask specific questions as to my meaning if anything still seems too complicated. I wish you well.

 

[prism]

Why should we assume our notion of love is the same as God's?

Fair question. If Scripture reveals God to us, how are we to know that God apart from Scripture? If Scripture says 'God is love', are we to excuse it as non-anthropomorphic language/revelation?

 

[prism]

Is God not just?

yes

And his love provided a remedy for whoseoever will.

yes

That's as good as it gets on fallen planet earth

yes

 

[prism]

Actually, all is well in God's order both ways, in his love and in his justice, both of which are his attributes to be giorified.

yes.

 

[prism]

Most people come to Christianity from a self-image that THEY (personally) are not "that bad". Everyone can point to someone worse ... (Yes, I was a serial killer, but I never ate my victims like he did!" ).

In contrast, I came to Christianity from the place of being a practicing NIHILIST (I actually believed it and acted on those beliefs) and fully embraced the "problem of evil" philosophical dilemma ["How can a good god allow evil to exist?"]. So allow me a deeply personal answer to your question:

I didn't come to Christ; He came to me in my sin.
I just ask 'why me, the druggie and occultist?' Why not my dad, the atheist

 

[prism]

@His clay wrote

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.

What would be the reason (if not arbitrary) for God's choice? Certainly, nothing in us would warrant a reason.

Romans 9:18,21 KJV
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. [21] Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?