A Question for the Calvinist

[fastfredy0]

If not everyone is predestined and no everyone has that ability for faith or belief , Why?

Any guesses as to why God would not want every one to have the faith in Jesus that we do?

Short answer: God's glorify is the ultimate purpose of God

Longer answers:

It would mean God's knowledge is not ETERNAL
If God's knowledge of his creatures were derived from the creatures by the impression of anything upon him, as there is upon us, he could not know from eternity, because from eternity there was no actual existence of anything but himself; and therefore there could not be any images shot out from anything, because there was not anything in being but God. Stephen Charnock - The existence and Attributes of God
It would contradict- Isaiah 40:13 Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, Or has taught Him as His counselor? 14 With whom did He consult and who enlightened Him? Who taught Him the path of justice and taught Him knowledge And informed Him of the way of understanding?
God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. God’s liberty of action (freedom) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “libertarian free will”.

The Glory of God would be deminished
Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision. This contradicts Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another
Goodness - Luke 18:19 Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone. -goodness" in other things can only be derived from another; thus faith which is a goodness must come from God; because a creature being made of nothing, cannot be good, or essentially good, but by participation from another.
God's Independence
Romans 11:35 Who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?". His meaning obviously is, that men are altogether indebted to the preventing goodness of God, there being nothing in them, either past or future, to conciliate his favor. The force of this is, it is impossible to bring the Almighty under obligations to the creature; God gains nothing from us which harmonizes with His immutability.
The knowledge of God cannot arise from the things themselves, for then the knowledge of God would have a cause without him; and knowledge, which is an eminent perfection, would be conferred upon him by his creatures. “for known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18). Stephen Charnock The Existence and Attributes of God
If you want to talk about irrationality then try to talk about something coming into being from nothing by itself. For example, "free will" which is a self-determined choice, would have to be self-created and for something to create itself it would have to be before it was which is a violation of the most rudimentary root of knowledge, the law of none contradiction.
Acts 20:35b It is more blessed [and brings greater joy] to give than to receive. If man can give something to God, then man would be more blessed than God in that act.
Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine. This would contradict “free will” which contends that we are to be rewarded for self-caused believing.
Love
The happiness of the creature cannot be the final end of God's action. There would be no wisdom in this case, because the superior would be subordinated to the inferior. This would be folly, not wisdom. It would be a maladaptation of means to ends. The end would be made the means, and the means the end. The infinite would exist for the finite. Moreover, happiness from its very nature cannot be an ultimate end, because to seek it is to fail of getting it. William Shedd


YADA, YADA, YADA ... NOT TO MENTION THE 100s of

 

[Tambora]

He isn't asking them to make a decision.

Calvinists like to believe that, but scripture tells us over and over that God wants people to make decisions to follow Him, repent and be saved, choose life, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Tambora]

But, to be fair, maybe you meant

???
I don't think most people have any problem knowing what I meant because most people don't have a problem knowing there is no quibble between words like "given a chance" and "given an opportunity" in conversation.

 

[Tambora]

He doesn't make them possible or not possible.

He most certainly does make choices a possibility, otherwise He wouldn't bother asking mankind to make choices.

 

[Arial]

He most certainly does make choices a possibility, otherwise He wouldn't bother asking mankind to make choices.

We are not talking about making choices in general. We are talking about whether or not salvation is dependent of a choice independently of God. About whether we choose to believe unto salvation or not.

 

[Tambora]

God’s freedom is that attribute of God whereby he does whatever he pleases. This definition implies that nothing in all creation can hinder God from doing his will. God’s liberty of action (freedom) would be limited by the assumed powers and prerogatives of man’s “libertarian free will”.

Nah.
God is not limited when it was His own decision to not do what He wanted to do due to mankind's choices made.
Example:

Matthew 23​

(37) Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Your people have killed the prophets and have stoned the messengers who were sent to you. I have often wanted to gather your people, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you wouldn't let me.​

 

[Arial]

Calvinists like to believe that, but scripture tells us over and over that God wants people to make decisions to follow Him, repent and be saved, choose life, etc. etc. etc.

It tells us over and over that God demands that we follow him. He does not tell people it is up to them to make a decision to do so or not. They already don't and haven't since Adam. Don't compare the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ. The Old Covenant did not provide for eternal life. It provided for the people of Israel to remain his covenant people and be their covenant God.

 

[Tambora]

We are not talking about making choices in general. We are talking about whether or not salvation is dependent of a choice independently of God. About whether we choose to believe unto salvation or not.

Since it was God who decided that it was up to mankind to make a choice about choosing life, then let God be God.

 

[Tambora]

Don't compare the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ.

Not what I'm doing.
But I most certainly use OT scripture as proof, as Jesus and the NT writers did.

 

[fastfredy0]

Since it was God who decided that it was up to mankind to make a choice about choosing life

This contradicts:
Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Matthew 11:27 All things have been entrusted and delivered to Me by My Father; and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Son except the Father, and no one fully knows and accurately understands the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son deliberately wills to make Him known.
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made God made your desires which determines your choices
John 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of GOD.
John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe
Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion [nations cannot “will” or “exert”], but on God, who has mercy.
1 Corinthians 12:3b And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.

I could go on and on ....
... verses for you contention are: John 3:16, John 6:51, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6 and they depend on the ambiguous words: ALL, WORLD, EVERYONE

 

[Arial]

Not what I'm doing.
But I most certainly use OT scripture as proof, as Jesus and the NT writers did.

OK Tambora.

 

[Arial]

Since it was God who decided that it was up to mankind to make a choice about choosing life, then let God be God.

Are you referring to Deut 30:15-20? That is what I meant by treating the Old covenant the same as the Ne Covenant.

The people Moses was speaking to were already in the Mosaic covenant. And it concerned that covenant. It had laws and stipulations that must be obeyed and they were given to them. They knew the laws of the covenant. And what does it say in verse 19-20 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and our descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying his voice, and by holding close to him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

Not for eternal life but to keep the land and be provided for and protected by God as their God (compared to all the gods of the other nations who could do nothing).

There is nothing remotely comparative in the New Covenant. It never says choose this or that. It simply says believe and you will have eternal life.

 

[makesends]

It tells us over and over that God demands that we follow him. He does not tell people it is up to them to make a decision to do so or not. They already don't and haven't since Adam. Don't compare the Old Covenant to the New Covenant in Christ. The Old Covenant did not provide for eternal life. It provided for the people of Israel to remain his covenant people and be their covenant God.

@Tambora they can decide all day long, but it is meaningless as far as effect. "Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole. Their very breath and every motion of their heart and mind is sinful, because they are at enmity with God, without the Spirit of God indwelling them. They are UNABLE, according to Romans 8. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, according to Eph 2. It is GOD who made them alive. The dead cannot do an alive thing.

The command does not imply the ability to obey. The standard is unattainable to the enemies of God. Do you think someone can become less than an enemy of God by merely deciding to do so? Eph 2 gives no mention of any act or decision by man to accomplish this change from death to life, specifically mentioned as accomplish by grace.

Every mention following the first 10 verses of Eph 2, concerning what we should do, is a 'therefore', a response to the principle laid out, that life is only by grace. A difference is drawn as to what one is able to do, and should do, BECAUSE one is now alive, vs the former death.

 

[Tambora]

This contradicts:

Or ... your perception of scripture contradicts.

... verses for you contention are: John 3:16, John 6:51, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,6 and they depend on the ambiguous words: ALL, WORLD, EVERYONE

It would be naive to attach a concrete definition to any of those words.

 

[Tambora]

Are you referring to Deut 30:15-20? That is what I meant by treating the Old covenant the same as the Ne Covenant.

The people Moses was speaking to were already in the Mosaic covenant. And it concerned that covenant. It had laws and stipulations that must be obeyed and they were given to them. They knew the laws of the covenant. And what does it say in verse 19-20 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and our descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying his voice, and by holding close to him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

Not for eternal life but to keep the land and be provided for and protected by God as their God (compared to all the gods of the other nations who could do nothing).

There is nothing remotely comparative in the New Covenant. It never says choose this or that. It simply says believe and you will have eternal life.

It was OT prophets that wrote of the New Covenant.
And it was Jesus and NT writers that said to look to what the OT prophets wrote as confirmation of truth.
To say there is nothing remotely comparative is a falsehood.

 

[Tambora]

@Tambora they can decide all day long, but it is meaningless as far as effect. "Apart from me you can do nothing" is not hyperbole. Their very breath and every motion of their heart and mind is sinful, because they are at enmity with God, without the Spirit of God indwelling them. They are UNABLE, according to Romans 8. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, according to Eph 2. It is GOD who made them alive. The dead cannot do an alive thing.

The command does not imply the ability to obey. The standard is unattainable to the enemies of God. Do you think someone can become less than an enemy of God by merely deciding to do so? Eph 2 gives no mention of any act or decision by man to accomplish this change from death to life, specifically mentioned as accomplish by grace.

Every mention following the first 10 verses of Eph 2, concerning what we should do, is a 'therefore', a response to the principle laid out, that life is only by grace. A difference is drawn as to what one is able to do, and should do, BECAUSE one is now alive, vs the former death.

Sorry but I do not let Calvinism be my guide for scripture.
I do not believe for one second that scripture teaches that God wanted to be the puppet master of mankind instead of wanting a genuine responsive and trusting relationship of love from mankind.

 

[David Lamb]

Sorry but I do not let Calvinism be my guide for scripture.
I do not believe for one second that scripture teaches that God wanted to be the puppet master of mankind instead of wanting a genuine responsive and trusting relationship of love from mankind.

But Calvinism does not view God as the puppet master of mankind. However, the bible does teach that unsaved man is "dead in trespasses and sins," (Ephesians 2:1-10), and unable to understand spiritual truths:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Co 2:14 NKJV)

That being the case, it is necessary for God to act first to enable such a sinner to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Arial]

It was OT prophets that wrote of the New Covenant.
And it was Jesus and NT writers that said to look to what the OT prophets wrote as confirmation of truth.
To say there is nothing remotely comparative is a falsehood.

I didn't say there was nothing remotely comparative between the OT and the NT. It is the NT that interprets those things that could not be fully seen in the OT times, because Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant had not yet come. Those in the OT saw the shadows and types of Christ and redemption.

What I said was the Mosaic covenant, from which you made the assertion that we have a choice in the matter of salvation unto eternal life, had laws. The covenant could be broken if the laws were violated. The consequences would be loss of the land----among other things.

In short, it can be compared to a legal system. There are a set of laws on the books. A person can choose to obey the law or to be a law breaker. That is what we see in Deut with the blessings and the curses.

The New Covenant is not like that. There are no covenant stipulation laws. There is no choice being offered. It is never said in the NT anything such as "Choose faith and you will live." or "Choose to believe and you will live, choose not to believe and you will die."

That is what I was saying.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Sorry but I do not let Calvinism be my guide for scripture.
I do not believe for one second that scripture teaches that God wanted to be the puppet master of mankind instead of wanting a genuine responsive and trusting relationship of love from mankind.

Nothing like reducing Calvinism to a caricature.

Why does God need to have nothing to do with our salvation in order for the relationship to be considered genuine? That mindset makes no sense.

My relationship with my earthly father wasn’t any less real or loving because I didn’t choose it. I didn’t agree to it, didn’t sign up for it—I was born into it because he desired a child. I grew up under his authority, followed rules I didn’t always understand (“Because I said so,” remember that?), and yet I adored him. I was his little girl.

Was that not a real, genuine, deeply loving relationship?

God says, “I will be a Father to you” and “I will take you as My bride.” These are relationships God Himself initiates—not ones that depend on us giving prior consent. Whether in Scripture or in history, fathers and bridegrooms have not typically waited for a child or a bride to negotiate terms before acting in love. These relationships are not based on mutual autonomy, but on covenantal roles.

In both roles—child and bride—we are chosen, loved, and called into something bigger than ourselves. And our response is to learn how to walk faithfully in the role He’s given: a daughter who honors her Father, and a bride who delights in pleasing her Bridegroom.

We don’t call these earthly roles invalid just because we didn’t initiate them. In fact, they are often the deepest bonds of love precisely because they were chosen for us by someone who loved us first.

So how is it that these real-life examples—being born to a father, being chosen as a bride—are dismissed when it comes to our relationship with God?

What makes a relationship genuine? Love, commitment, sacrifice—and yes, even authority rightly expressed. The God who chooses us, who adopts us, who redeems us through no merit of our own, is not violating our personhood—He is loving us more deeply than we could ever deserve.

 

[Arial]

Sorry but I do not let Calvinism be my guide for scripture.
I do not believe for one second that scripture teaches that God wanted to be the puppet master of mankind instead of wanting a genuine responsive and trusting relationship of love from mankind.

Dismissing something as "Calvinism" is a scapegoat for not dealing with the content of a post.

And the conclusion above presumes that a love is not genuine just because the person did not choose the relationship but rather was chosen for it, by the highest of highs, the Almighty God. Scripture tells us we love him because he poured his love into us. Not that we loved him first.

Romans 5:3-5 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces characters, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.