"For in it I am told that if I am of the elect, it is impossible but that I will be saved;" Praise the Lord for His amazing, invincible grace bestowed upon the unworthy! I am so thankful that libertarian freedom is false because if salvation ultimately depended upon me, then I would probably be in hell, or I would be so prone to have faith in my own will so as to pervert salvation itself. However, since God is God over those He has chosen to redeem (Eph 1:4), we can look in faith to His power and His strength. I am so thankful that God is perfectly able to accomplish what He has set out to do! Praise the Lord!
You have an apparent trust in God's goodness....that He will save you by His sovereign choice....however, your theology does not extend that goodness to others. The non-elect are apparently given no choice in the matter of whether or nor they will be saved for they have been predestined to everlasting burnings in the lake of fire.
I will say that this is a misrepresentation of who God truly is.
The Bible teaches that He is love (1 John 4:8,16) and that because He is love, He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Referring to all whom He calls upon to repent.
So, does God not call the non-elect sinner to repent?
I would say that the gospel is set forth to the world and that whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life.
"And that if I am not of the elect, it is not possible that I will be saved." And the non-elect will make a many choices in keeping with their corrupt natures, and they will be held accountable for them. The fact that they never wanted to believe is again another item under which they will be held accountable. By definition, depraved people deserve the wrath of God, and they do not deserve God's undeserved favor.
Even saved people don't deserve God's undeserved favour.
Therefore, are they not chosen to salvation because of a choice on the part of God that is arbitrary to say the least?
"Therefore, since the choice is entirely up to God, what choice do I have in the matter?" As stated, the sentence quoted in blue is an example of a straw man fallacy. The fallacy is when you reduce, distort, and/or fail to accurately portray another position. When the position is thus distorted, it makes it much easier to argue against it. What exactly is distorted? The problematic portrayal concerns the word "entirely." There is a world of difference between "ultimately" and "entirely." I fully admit that God makes the ultimate choice, but then that leaves a plethora of other non-ultimate choices from human beings. When the word "entirely" is used, it conveys the idea that only one choice is made. The idea that only one choice is made (God's) is not representative of Calvinism. Because of God's choice (note again God's own word that says "God chose us" Eph 1:4) people then make many choices. It is a both/and in Calvinism, where you have both God's choice and man's choice. However, God's choice is ultimate, and man's choice is secondary/dependent upon God's choice. The portrayal of an either/or scenario presupposes that libertarian freedom is true, but libertarian freedom is false. Thus the typical dichotomy is false as well.
So, God chooses that a man will be a murderer and rapist, and that man cannot choose otherwise, to not be a murderer and rapist.
And a man cannot choose to be a murderer and rapist apart from God's sovereign choice to make him so,
"I ought to simply rest on my laurels and hope that God might find it in His heart to forgive me of my sins (and even in this, He may not do so)." Blatantly obvious straw man of Calvinism, for Calvinism holds that God both ordains the end as well as the means. Thus, if God has chosen to save a person (the end), then God powerfully works (the means) in that person to make choices that will produce the desired result/end. Therefore, if you have chosen to sit on your laurels, then you are actually demonstrating your choice to be non-elect, and you are demonstrating a self-love (selfishness) motivating inactivity, when a person whom God is working in has seen their sin and the amazing grace of God, and thusly the person is motivated to act on the basis of God's prior love. God's love is so amazing in Calvinism. I'm glad that it isn't as limited and truncated, as the Arminian view, to the pathetic choices of His creatures.
You don't realize it but you are preaching that man's choice has a part in whether or not he is saved.
Resting on your laurels is the very thing that a person might do if he understands Calvinism to its proper conclusions.
Therefore, you are saying that Calvinism itself, and its teachings, is conducive to demonstrating that you are of the non-elect.
Unfortunately, the opening poster has failed to understand the most rudimentary basics of what Calvinism is, thus invalidating his competence and credibility. I say this because I've already demonstrated the above blue quote to be false in a different thread. The poster ought to know better. But rather, the poster has chosen to keep a false distortion of Calvinism in spite of knowing otherwise. This is called lying.
I would say that it is you who do not understand the implications of what is taught by Calvinism; having been blinded by what is taught deeper into the system of doctrine.
"It seems to me that in this theology there is also no guarantee of salvation for those who will do what it takes in order to be saved." Again, a rather basic straw man. Those who God graciously works in and brings to salvation are those who believe and trust in God's great work of salvation. Again, the opening post fails to understand the basic reality of Calvinism. God ordains the means as well as the end. And it spite of knowing better, the post has deliberately chosen to distort Calvism. A delibertate action of committing the straw man fallacy is a lie. Lying is sin. I hope the opening poster repents of his sin.
In that I may do what it takes in order to be saved, and yet be rejected over being of the non-elect (for that God did not choose me), it produces a very real man, which is not a construct made in order to destroy for that it is easy to destroy, that is nevertheless very easily destroyable.
Unfortunetely, when one states, "do what it takes in order to be saved," we are left with the impression that salvation is really about what a person does. This profoundly leaves the impression of self-salvation. Rather, a Christian realises that he is utterly at a loss with respect to saving himself. He/she knows deeply that he is a sinner. He brings nothing before God, but rather looks in faith to Christ and His work on the cross. Faith is the self-forgetful dependent gaze of the sinner to the only One who can save him. Faith does not look to self for salvation, but rather faith looks completely to God for His undeserved mercy and favor. The quote is in extreme danger of distorting the very nature of salvation itself. Certainly, our actions are necessary (conversion), but they are couched in the context of dependence upon God and hopelessness in self.
At this point, this post is getting long. And the opening post has demonstrated to be profoundly incompetent and deliberately deceitful. I hope that the opening poster repents of his sin to God and the sin against brothers and sisters in Christ who he has deliberately lied about.
My position concerning these things is that you are misrepresenting Calvinism in order to make it look better than it actually does look; and then attempting to say that a true representation of Calvinism is the straw man.
There is in fact something that we must do in order to be saved (Hosea 14:2, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-13, Acts 2:38-38) and if anyone does not do it, it can be constituted as the catalyst and reason why they are not saved. It does in fact have to do with looking to Jesus and His finished work on the Cross. It is our faith that saves us.
