A Question for the Calvinist

[Eternally-Grateful]

Does not what @John Bauer said answer that? "None. Every single one of the elect was a sinner."

lol. confirmed. I made a huge mistake. I went back and read 4.. Saw what someone else thought I saw and read that into his post.

forgive me @John Bauer

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

An example of this principle:
11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy."

How do you see God's love in that passage?

Maybe God's love is something that we learn slowly and can't explain well, something beyond our own comprehension, full of purpose and purity, of intimacy of existence, of infinite mercy —and particular, not general.

ok again, this is coming from a reformed view of Romans 9.

I see romans 9 - 11 as paul answering the Israel question..

Has God made a mistake. what is the mistake being claimed at the church in rome?

Choosing Israel.

God then spends the next three chapters not only destroying Jewish claims that God chose them, and they are saved by birth (false) That God chose them based on human reasoning and because our fathers were righteous (no he chose the nation in the womb. He chose the second, and rejected the first (the passage you are reading and saying that one baby is saved one is not. salvation is not in context in my view.

 

[fastfredy0]

How can God claim to be a God of love? I ask this seriously.

You would have to define the word love and propose a method to measure it for me to address your thoughts on the topic.

My Thoughts
Definition: God's LOVE is a volition to favor.
Measurement of God's LOVE: to the degree God favors a person, He loves them.

Practical Application:
God favors everyone in some respects. Their born, have food and water, usually parents. So, if one feels these relatively paltry favorings by God reach the level that it can be said that God LOVES them then that would be IMO reason to say God LOVES everyone without except.
But, the level of God's favoring/LOVE that must be attaining is much greater IMO. Specifically, if God LOVES a person they will be favored by their being His adopted children who are "in Christ". I don't think anyone destined for hell for 99.99999% of the lives constitutes God's favoring (loving) them; whereas, if a person will spend 99.99999% in heaven then that is a sufficient quantity of God's favoring to establish that God loves them.

Aside: There are more verses about God's HATE (wrath,anger) of people than there is about His loving them. HATE is defined as God's disfavor of a person. Obviously, God cannot love and hate a person (favor and disfavor) the same person. Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor. Jacob I [God] loved and Esau I hated.

Aside2: God is holy and His love is holy. Thus, God's holy love cannot favor those that are evil, those who do not have a "bond of unity" with God. (Col. 3:14)

 

[fastfredy0]

I see romans 9 - 11 as paul answering the Israel question..

Corporate election, a new interpretation started in the 1960s, is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are 16 reasons why:

1. The whole section (9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from God’s love (Romans 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: “How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they don’t look too secure.” Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.
4. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.
5. Romans 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. “So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God” (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated “the one” rather than “those.” (BTW: I don’t like ESV’s translation of this (man’s) as it is misleading and, ironically(!) supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of God’s mercy transcends the ability of man.

Dabney, Robert L.. Systematic Theology . Kindle Edition.

He goes on with another 12 reasons Romans 9 is not about nations; rather, individuals

 

[David Lamb]

What you asked is, which of the elect were NOT at one time sinners. Your whole point here is a strawman. @John Bauer agrees with you that all the elect were once sinners.

Oops! I did read the post through several times, but it seems I made it mean the opposite of what the poster intended. I humbly apologise.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You would have to define the word love and propose a method to measure it for me to address your thoughts on the topic.

Love, agape. unconditioanl love. Putting the needs of others above your own needs.

God told us to be like him, meaning we are to love him (agape) and love our neighbor.

who is our neighbor? He even states we are to love our enemy, so it would be anyone we com in contact with.

so riddle me this

why does God tell us to do what he refuses to do himself?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Corporate election, a new interpretation started in the 1960s, is the belief that God elects nations to take part in his plan, not individuals to salvation. So, when Romans 9 speaks of God’s election of Jacob over Esau, Paul is speaking of God’s choosing the nation of Israel to have a special place in salvation history. They will go on to interpret all of Romans 9-11 in light of this assumption.

Romans 9-11 is talking NOT about corporate election, but individual election. Here are 16 reasons why:

1. The whole section (9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from God’s love (Romans 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: “How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they don’t look too secure.” Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Romans 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact. Paul often speaks in terms that make sense only if he is referring to individuals, such as Jacob’s and Esau’s conception, birth, and good or bad works (Romans 9:10–11).
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.
4. Romans 9:15 emphasizes God’s sovereignty about choosing individuals. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.
5. Romans 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. “So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God” (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated “the one” rather than “those.” (BTW: I don’t like ESV’s translation of this (man’s) as it is misleading and, ironically(!) supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of God’s mercy transcends the ability of man.

Dabney, Robert L.. Systematic Theology . Kindle Edition.

He goes on with another 12 reasons Romans 9 is not about nations; rather, individuals

actually it is just taking all three chapters in context.

I know I know. this is an odd concept. to just interpret the word as is.

I changed my thinking many years ago as I stopped forcing my belief system on the word. Stopped attacking those who do not agree with me. Opened my mind, and actually started to study for myself

Study to show yourself approved.

 

[ReverendRV]

(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?

Because the Christian Fundamental is, they are without an Excuse...

This is the Lowest Common Denominator; there are no Loopholes. To say a person has an excuse, will always draw the Yellow Flag. Jesus said that if they Belived, he would have to Save them; the Hard heart only has themselves to blame...

 

[fastfredy0]

Love, agape. unconditioanl love. Putting the needs of others above your own needs.

If love is "putting the needs of others above your own needs" then God cannot love another because He has no needs that can be satisfied by men. Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand?
8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign].
Your definition does not give a quantitative method as to how to measure LOVE. I pointed out that God satisfies some of everyone's needs and if that is all it takes for God to say He loves everyone, then I agree with you. I demonstrated my measuring tool that, if true, shows God loves some much more than others.

You also did not address the verse the says "love is a bond of unity" given God does not much of a "bond of unity" with Satan's children.
You also did not address how God and LOVE and HATE the same person given you propose God loves everyone and the bible has many verses saying God HATES certain people.

God told us to be like him, meaning we are to love him (agape) and love our neighbor.

who is our neighbor? He even states we are to love our enemy, so it would be anyone we com in contact with.

This is not relevant to my question which was: Define love and how do you measure it.

so riddle me this

why does God tell us to do what he refuses to do himself?

God is sovereign. He is not subject to any rules for to do so would require a superior to God and that superior would then
be God.

 

[prism]

Do you sin willingly or is somebody forcing you to sin? I have a question for you. If Jesus died for everybody's sins, which includes unbelief. Why are people still going to hell?

Could you answer the question posed in the OP?

 

[prism]

Because the Christian Fundamental is, they are without an Excuse...

This is the Lowest Common Denominator; there are no Loopholes. To say a person has an excuse, will always draw the Yellow Flag. Jesus said that if they Belived, he would have to Save them; the Hard heart only has themselves to blame...

I guess I'm having a hard time grasping that. Why can't the unbeliever use the excuse of " because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?"

 

[prism]

A person facing judgement will try to weasel his way out if he can, even to include blaming GOD, but in the end, there is no excuse and he will know it. He deserves absolutely what he gets, as would all of us, but for the Grace of God.

I guess one doesn't need to 'weasel out' if has been predestined/ordained to eternal life. But what if has been predestined/ordained to 'weasel out?

 

[John Bauer]

I guess I'm having a hard time grasping that. Why can't the unbeliever use the excuse of " because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?"

Not being elected or predestined is not something for which he will ever be held accountable. So, there will be no context for that excuse to ever arise.

 

[prism]

Not being elected or predestined is not something for which he will ever be held accountable. So, there will be no context for that excuse to ever arise.

Yet only the nonelect/predestined will find themselves spending eternity in hell?

 

[Ladodgers6]

(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?

Before I answer this question. Do you believe by saying this, that God coerces people to sin? Sons of disobedience Prism belongs to the prince of the air, and do his will, which is to lust, sin and so forth. God elects His people as He has always has throughout History, not by anything they have done, but by His Sheer Mercy and pleasure.

Nobody can make any charge against or His elect Paul's says, right? They will be judge according to their sins against God.

Paul makes it crystal clear that God chooses whom He wills. Can anyone charge God as being unfair? By the way you probably deny election correct? Doesn't Paul shut this down quickly in Romans?

So, now answer my question, that you will obviously dodge like the plague.

If Christ died for everybody's sin's including unbelief, why are people still going to hell? Furthermore if God foreknows who will not believe, why doesn't God chose to do something about it?​

 

[ReverendRV]

I guess I'm having a hard time grasping that. Why can't the unbeliever use the excuse of " because you did not ordain/predestine me to eternal life?"

Because the Bible sets the Rule; you are without an Excuse..

Is that only Written to the Elect?

 

[John Bauer]

Yet only the non-elect/predestined will find themselves spending eternity in hell?

Only the reprobate will find themselves sentenced to hell, yes—and for their sins, which doesn't include being reprobate (as that was God's doing, not theirs).

But the reprobate could say to God, "My sins are the result of being reprobate. I never had a chance."

No, he could not. Sin causes condemnation, but reprobation does not cause sin.

God not choosing Alex for salvation isn't the efficient cause of his moral choices. In contrast, God choosing Casey for salvation is the efficient cause of his righteous choices (e.g., Php 2:13). The reprobate are condemned because God didn't intervene, while the elect are saved because he did. And since grace by definition is unmerited, the reprobate can never claim unfairness, as if he deserved the intervention of grace.

(Only the elect are predestined. All explicit predestination vocabulary is applied to the elect unto salvation, never to the non-elect unto damnation.)

 

[prism]

Do you believe by saying this, that God coerces people to sin?

Of course not, apparently we 'inherited' our sin nature from Adam

Sons of disobedience Prism belongs to the prince of the air, and do his will, which is to lust, sin and so forth.

Yes, as it is in their nature to do so.

God elects His people as He has always has throughout History, not by anything they have done, but by His Sheer Mercy and pleasure.

True again, but can't the non-elect object to God by saying, "I don't have the imputed righteousness of Christ and therefore I stand guilty before you"?

Nobody can make any charge against or His elect Paul's says, right?

Correct.

They will be judge according to their sins against God.

Who? All? Please clarify.

Paul makes it crystal clear that God chooses whom He wills.

Yes, Romans 9:18 (If we equate predestining with mercy)

Can anyone charge God as being unfair?

Scripturally no, but how would you answer the charge as post by the Arminian as asked in the OP?

By the way you probably deny election correct?

No, not at all. I was just posing a hypothetical taken from the Arminian viewpoint.

If Christ died for everybody's sin's including unbelief, why are people still going to hell? Furthermore if God foreknows who will not believe, why doesn't God chose to do something about it?

Maybe you have confused me with @Eternally-Grateful

 

[prism]

Only the elect are predestined

Are they elect because they have been predestined or are they predestined to be elect?

 

[Arial]

Are they elect because they have been predestined or are they predestined to be elect?

They are predestined because they are the elect.