The god of Calvinism's arbitrary decision.

[Josheb]

justbyfaith said:
Therefore I suggest that you leave the arguing up to those Calvinists who do believe what I am trying to refute; as they have a vested interest in defending certain Calvinistic doctrines that I have been threatening here.

Wait a minute! I want to know which of my doctrines (since I am told I am a Calvinist) is being threatened. I was not aware of it, since @justbyfaith has said nothing more, and quite a bit less, against Calvinism, than many other posters.

I think you can trust @Josheb to accurately represent Calvinism. It is you who do not.

Thanks for the kind words. Don't miss the bait. An attempt to separate Calvinists presenting rational and exegetical cases from the supposed extremist under the auspices of their feeling threatened is nothing more than fallacy. Arguments from extremes is a fallacy. False cause is a fallacy. Read Post #2. The fallacies in the op are listed and none have been acknowledged and there is no repentance. Piles of fallacies have been added amidst an open confession of contempt.

There is plenty in the posts already provided to improve everyone's understanding of Calvinism. See who stewards it well. Adjust participation accordingly.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The Elect are chosen because of God's love and purposes for them.

Translation: "Salvation is merit based".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

In the human (temporal) vernacular, God 'decided' to create the Bride of Christ, and Dwelling Place of God, (and a few other names) for the finally saved. So he created the beings who would become that. They are called the Elect; they are saved according to God's time and purposes in this temporal realm, and will inherit the kingdom of God. What is arbitrary about that?

Everybody else was created for whatever purpose God "had in mind" concerning them. By obedience and disobedience both, they fulfill everything God had in 'mind' concerning them, just as is true concerning the Elect.

Translation: "Election" is not and never was "Unconditional".

 

[makesends]

Translation: "Election" is not and never was "Unconditional".

Moving the goalposts. The discussion was about God's election of individuals being described by some as "arbitrary".

 

[makesends]

Translation: "Salvation is merit based".

Was it you who not long ago said that Calvinism holds that God "arbitrarily" chooses individuals. Now you seem to be changing your tune.

 

[Arial]

But He knows them because of what they will do (Romans 10:9-13)

Does it say that or does it just say "foreknew?" Romans 9:6-16

In Calvinism, we are saved and then God gives us faith.

No it does not. You think it does. But it does not.

It is given to those who have received it; it is offered to those who have not.

That would not be a gift given would it. It would be an offer made that was either effective or ineffective according the choice of the person. And that would make Christ's work on the cross either of no effect or effectual depending entirely upon the creature. It would be effectual her, but not here. Does that sound right to you? Does it sound like anything else we read about God in the scriptures?

In Romans 5:18, is it the free gift or the offer of the free gift? If it is not an offer, that verse teaches Universalism (heresy).

If that verse is understood standing there all by itself, as you understand it, it would be teaching universalism either way. Put it in the context of the whole chapter for starters and see if you still think it is saying that the gift is only offered and not given.

 

[Arial]

The requirement for salvation is not perfect righteousness, it is faith. That is doable for the person who is being drawn to Christ. One can be drawn to Christ and yet not be given to Christ.

The faith is in someone. And that Someone did the perfect righteousness for us.

"My sheep know my voice and they follow me."
"I know my sheep and my sheep know me. They hear my voice and follow me."
"All who the Father give me will come to me, and I will not cast them out but raise them up at the last day."

You are using a kind of mamby pamby, washed out and watered down definition of draw. The Greek word used could be translated dragged, which is more likely considering all that the Bible tells us about who God is and who we are. We, fallen as we are, in love with what we like to think of as our own autonomy and self rule, must be dragged to the Shepherd. Pulled in by His staff, from our wayward and wandering paths.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Was it you who not long ago said that Calvinism holds that God "arbitrarily" chooses individuals. Now you seem to be changing your tune.

Calvinists have a STRONG OBJECTION to the word "Arbitrary", and consequently "Really meant" that "Unconditional Election" wasn't really "Unconditional" at all, since it was based on GOD CHOOSING individuals based on HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE of what they would do after they were Born Again.

If "unconditional" is factual, then "Arbitrary" would be the real meaning of the term.

Since I'm not a "Calvinist", their "word games" aren't important to me one way or another.

 

[Arial]

I believe that the Holy Spirit draws every man to Christ at some point in every man's life (John 12:32). When they are drawn, they are enabled to receive Christ. If or when they receive Christ, they are given to Christ. One can be drawn and not be given. Being drawn means that they are offered motivation to receive Christ.

Well that is what you believe. And that is fine. But one scripture alienated from all context, including the entirety of the counsel of God should never be used to establish one's doctrine, or to determine what the scriptures are teaching. If you take that one verse and use it the way you are using it as a proof text, you have made it contradict many other scriptures.

How is that a straw man?

By stating something about Calvinism that not true in Calvinism and using that as the argument.

God sending some people to hell because He purposes to do so is even worse than Him arbitrarily sending people to hell. The only scenario in which it might be fair is if every man is given a choice in the matter of whether he will receive Christ and go to heaven or reject Christ and go to hell.

I have already told you that God does not send anyone arbitrarily to hell, and neither does He send some people to hell because He purposes to. What He purposed is that all evil will be purged from His creation forever in the judgement. What He purposed was that if we sin we shall die, thus purging evil from His creation. You may not like this, but don't be shaking your fist at God. It will get you nowhere.

God has no obligation to operate according to what His creatures consider fair. LOL. His creatures know next to nothing whereas He knows all things, sees, all things etc. Just be grateful that as one of the elect (I will assume, as I am not God and therefore am in no position to ever know that) you will not receive fair according to God's position of fair from His vantage point of knowing all things and governing all things. Otherwise you would get fair all right. Fair is that none receive mercy. Another way of putting it is on one side is justice and on the other side is mercy. Be grateful you stand on the side of mercy.

Also, Romans 10:9-13 contradicts your statement that God makes His choice not based on something that we might do.

Does it? It tells us what is in faith. and what it does.

In unconditionally saving some, he must unconditionally condemn others. If not arbitrarily, then by His own purpose? Even worse!

I have already told you that there is nothing, ever, arbitrary about God. This is something you should not even have to be told. So why do you keep repeating it? And why are you telling God what He must do and not do? You have also already been told that He condemns no one unconditionally. They have condemned themselves. It is not a two sided coin as you make it to to be.

 

[justbyfaith]

Romans 10:9-13 says nothing about taking a step of faith. It only says, 'if you believe'. But, I agree that Romans 10:9-13 gives a reliable if-then statement. If you do these things, then you will be saved. What you have not shown is how we are able to do them, being spiritually dead.

I have shown it.

Before we come to Christ we are dead in sleep.

When the Holy Spirit draws every man to Christ (John 12:32), it is like an alarm going off.

The person will wake up long enough to either decide to wake up completely or else hit the snooze button and go back into the sleep of death.

When the Holy Spirit draws a man to Christ, he enables him to receive Christ. He comes in just enough to overcome the total depravity of his nature until he makes a decision either way.

Being drawn does not necessarily mean being given.

One is not given to Christ until or unless he makes a decision to believe in and receive and follow Christ.

Being drawn, one is enabled to make that decision; but being drawn does not = salvation, it only means you have an opportunity to be saved.

I would encourage everyone here to heed Romans 10:9-13 and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, believing in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead. I assure you that you will not be saved, regenerated, or become a recipient of grace until after you do.

Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:13.

Calvinism's preaching: Whosoever is saved shall call upon the name of the Lord; or (worse), one can be saved without calling on the name of the Lord, having been elected to salvation independently of calling on the name of the Lord.

Now, Romans 10:9-13 does in fact speak of taking a step of faith in order to be saved. You must confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus or else you are not saved.

 

[makesends]

Calvinists have a STRONG OBJECTION to the word "Arbitrary", and consequently "Really meant" that "Unconditional Election" wasn't really "Unconditional" at all, since it was based on GOD CHOOSING individuals based on HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE of what they would do after they were Born Again.

If "unconditional" is factual, then "Arbitrary" would be the real meaning of the term.

Since I'm not a "Calvinist", their "word games" aren't important to me one way or another.

Do you think Calvinists see God looking into a crystal ball to see what they will do after they are born again? Your distorting of a simple principle smacks of desperation.

But if it is not important to you, as you claim, then why do you mock them? Is it so they won't talk to you about the fact that you can't merit being chosen, and that salvation is all of grace?

Is your problem with the use of the word, "unconditional"? Perhaps you can show me upon what condition of the elect, that they are chosen. Or do you maybe think that God does not choose the Elect.

Let me try this again. Or wait! I know, let's do links! https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-is-unconditional-election

"God did not choose those He would save through Christ on account of anything in them by which they could have merited that salvation. God did not foresee something in those He saves that moved Him to choose them. God did not even choose them on account of Christ. Rather, He chose them even though they had nothing with which to merit His grace."

 

[justbyfaith]

Well that is what you believe. And that is fine. But one scripture alienated from all context, including the entirety of the counsel of God should never be used to establish one's doctrine, or to determine what the scriptures are teaching. If you take that one verse and use it the way you are using it as a proof text, you have made it contradict many other scriptures.

"you have taken that out of context" is the cry of everyone that is being convicted by any particular scripture passage.

By stating something about Calvinism that not true in Calvinism and using that as the argument.

Yet, that is not what I'm doing. You may not agree that it is true in Calvinism, but that does not mean that it isn't believed by many Calvinists.

I have already told you that God does not send anyone arbitrarily to hell, and neither does He send some people to hell because He purposes to. What He purposed is that all evil will be purged from His creation forever in the judgement. What He purposed was that if we sin we shall die, thus purging evil from His creation. You may not like this, but don't be shaking your fist at God. It will get you nowhere.

I would contend that God does not purpose to send people to hell as the result of His will alone (for He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance); but that He is all about freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17) and therefore He bases His sending of people to hell on the fact that they have been given an opportunity to receive Him (also having the ability to receive Him in that opportunity; and cannot be shut out of the kingdom by some predetermined decision of God to make them of the non-elect) and yet have rejected Him.

If they had no such opportunity, and/or in that opportunity there was no possibility of receiving Him, then they cannot be held morally responsible for rejecting Him.

I have already told you that there is nothing, ever, arbitrary about God. This is something you should not even have to be told. So why do you keep repeating it? And why are you telling God what He must do and not do? You have also already been told that He condemns no one unconditionally. They have condemned themselves. It is not a two sided coin as you make it to to be.

I actually agreed with you that there was nothing arbitrary about God's decision and went with your idea that God purposes to send some people into everlasting burnings. I said that that is even worse.

 

[justbyfaith]

I will say again that my decision to receive Christ had nothing to do with personal merit.

It was based on being faced with hellfire and damnation and my (sinful) instinct of self-preservation caused me to believe in Christ in order to save my own life.

This was faith in Jesus Christ; and it did not merit salvation. There was nothing meritorious about it.

But God tells us in His word that He honours faith in Jesus Christ by giving salvation to those who have it.

So, I have access into grace through faith.

There was a time when I was not a recipient of grace. I gained access to grace by believing (through faith in Jesus Christ).

I stepped from not being in grace to being a recipient of grace.

Even Romans 9, a chapter that supposedly supports Calvinism, testifies to this.

Rom 9:25, As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26, And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

There was a time when they were not His people; but then later, He calls them His people.

What? They were not His people from before the foundations of the world?

This indicates that they became His people through a decision to believe in and receive and follow Christ.

They crossed over from death to life.

They were not save from before the foundations of the world, although they were predestined from before the foundations of the world.

They entered into the kingdom by "confessing with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in the heart that God raised Him from the dead."

Which means that they did something in order to be saved!

 

[justbyfaith]

You have also already been told that He condemns no one unconditionally. They have condemned themselves.

However, there is no way of being saved for those who are counted of the non-elect.

So, how do they have any part in the fact that they are condemned?

They cannot choose to surrender to Christ and be saved; that is entirely based on God's decision based on His purpose (which, since there is apparently no reasoning behind that decision other than the sheer will of the Lord, I will say that it is arbitrary).

In Calvinism, the sinner who is condemned is not condemned of himself...he is utterly and entirely condemned by God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Do you think Calvinists see God looking into a crystal ball to see what they will do after they are born again?

Does God have "Foreknowledge", or not??? Seems that Calvinists believe that HE DOES. All part of "Omnicience".

Is your problem with the use of the word, "unconditional"? Perhaps you can show me upon what condition of the elect, that they are chosen. Or do you maybe think that God does not choose the Elect.

Calvinists are the ones that originally presented God's "Election" as being: "U" = "Unconditional" i.e.: "arbitrary". And Calvinists are the ones who object to "election" being "Arbitrary". Go figure.

Let me try this again. Or wait! I know, let's do links! https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-is-unconditional-election

"God did not choose those He would save through Christ on account of anything in them by which they could have merited that salvation. God did not foresee something in those He saves that moved Him to choose them. God did not even choose them on account of Christ. Rather, He chose them even though they had nothing with which to merit His grace."

SO God's "election" is ARBITRARY. Problem solved???

 

[Arial]

However, there is no way of being saved for those who are counted of the non-elect.

And?

So, how do they have any part in the fact that they are condemned?

If they hadn't sinned, they would not be condemned.

"you have taken that out of context" is the cry of everyone that is being convicted by any particular scripture passage.

It is said to out of context because it is. And when it is put into context a whole other picture appears.

Yet, that is not what I'm doing. You may not agree that it is true in Calvinism, but that does not mean that it isn't believed by many Calvinists.

That is still a strawman. It does not matter what some Calvinist believe, especially when you do not say who they are or give any evidence. It is only your word for it. If you are going to argue against Calvinism you must argue against the actual doctrines that are in it. Not what some people some where have said.

If they had no such opportunity, and/or in that opportunity there was no possibility of receiving Him, then they cannot be held morally responsible for rejecting Him.

Sure they can. God did not make them sin and He did not make them sinners.

However, there is no way of being saved for those who are counted of the non-elect.

Who determines that they must be given a way of being saved? You? Or God? The gospel is not withheld from them. They just don't believe it.

They cannot choose to surrender to Christ and be saved;

Sure they can. They don't want to so the won't. They don't believe it.

In Calvinism, the sinner who is condemned is not condemned of himself...he is utterly and entirely condemned by God.

In Calvinism the sinner is condemned because his is a sinner, and God condemns sin. Do you think He should overlook it? Then He wouldn't be who He is. Holy, holy. holy.

The sinner is condemned by God (who else is in the position of King and Judge) because he is a sinner. Thank heaven there won't be sinners in the new creation too---right?

 

[makesends]

Does God have "Foreknowledge", or not??? Seems that Calvinists believe that HE DOES. All part of "Omnicience".

Possess the power of foreknowledge, or rather, simply omniscient? It is not a power that he acquired and possesses, as though the default for him was 'for the future to happen to him, like it does to us, only he is privy to the details'.

Calvinists are the ones that originally presented God's "Election" as being: "U" = "Unconditional" i.e.: "arbitrary". And Calvinists are the ones who object to "election" being "Arbitrary". Go figure. Unconditional doesn't mean Arbitrary. It is related only to "there is no condition of the elect that merits their election." Hello.

SO God's "election" is ARBITRARY. Problem solved???

No. Do you need to see the definition of 'Arbitrary' again? God chose for a purpose. That is not arbitrary. "U" = "Unconditional" i.e. "unmerited".

 

[justbyfaith]

And?

If they hadn't sinned, they would not be condemned.

They are condemned in Calvinism because they are of the non-elect.

It is said to out of context because it is. And when it is put into context a whole other picture appears.

Consider Matthew 2:15 as it quotes Hosea 11:1 out of context under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, applying Jesus as being the Son of God where as in the passage that it is quoted from, Israel is God's son.

Therefore, it is true that sometimes the Holy Spirit takes certain scriptures out of their immediate context and accurately applies them to the life of a person.

In 1 Corinthians 2:13, it can be seen that immediate context is not the only context. Topical context is also a valid context, whether the verses that are being compared are parallel or whether they contrast with one another.

If a verse can be taken out of its immediate context to be compared to another verse that is in its topical context, then it is also true that every verse stands on its own as a bastion of spiritual truth and that the context will never nullify the plain meaning of a verse...as this is a first rule of hermeneutics....since the scripture does not contradict itself.

That is still a strawman. It does not matter what some Calvinist believe, especially when you do not say who they are or give any evidence. It is only your word for it. If you are going to argue against Calvinism you must argue against the actual doctrines that are in it. Not what some people some where have said.

I am not setting up things not believed by Calvinists as a straw man argument. The Calvinists who believe what I have been refuting can respond to my refutations of what they believe as Calvinists. If you do not believe what I am refuting, as a Calvinist, then what I am saying is not addressed to you. For I am aware that there are many beliefs under the category of what might be defined as Calvinistic. How can I address certain beliefs without someone objecting, "I am a Calvinist and I do not believe that, so you are erecting a straw man"? To the Calvinist who believes what I am refuting, I am addressing their belief. Therefore allow them to answer for themselves their defense of what they believe instead of saying that Calvinists don't believe what I am refuting. Some of them do. I refute certain beliefs in response to what certain Calvinists have said to me are their beliefs. So I am certain that those beliefs are in the realm of what might be defined as Calvinistic thinking.

Sure they can. God did not make them sin and He did not make them sinners.

<sigh>

The reality is that men are accountable for their sin and rejection of Christ because they are at some point given an opportunity to receive Christ in which they are able to actually receive Christ.

In Calvinism, the non-elect cannot come to Christ even if they wanted to. God didn't choose them so they can't choose God.

So, ultimately, God is the one who condemns them for that He chose them not; they did not condemn themselves because even if they want to repent, they cannot repent if they are of the non-elect.

Who determines that they must be given a way of being saved? You? Or God? The gospel is not withheld from them. They just don't believe it.

In Calvinism, they can't believe it because they are of the non-elect (because God didn't choose them). Thus, ultimately, they are not responsible for their own damnation but the onus is on God.

Sure they can. They don't want to so the won't. They don't believe it.

Sounds like merit-based salvation to me. It seems to me that you are saying also that the elect are elect because they want to believe the "gospel".

In Calvinism the sinner is condemned because his is a sinner, and God condemns sin. Do you think He should overlook it? Then He wouldn't be who He is. Holy, holy. holy.

Again, merit-based condemnation.

And also, in Calvinism, the sinner is condemned because he is of the non-elect (because God didn't choose him). Otherwise, he might be able to repent of his sin and not be condemned for being a sinner.

However, in Calvinism, because he is of the non-elect, he is unable to make a decision for Christ.

In reality, God draws every person to Christ (John 12:32), and in drawing them He enables them to receive Christ during that window of opportunity (John 6:44).

The sinner is condemned by God (who else is in the position of King and Judge) because he is a sinner. Thank heaven there won't be sinners in the new creation too---right?

You said before that the sinner is condemned of himself because he is a sinner. This is merit-based condemnation.

Now, I agree that sinners are condemned for their sin; but I would also say that every sinner is given an opportunity to repent in which they are given the full ability to make the choice to receive, believe in, and follow Christ.

Thus man's responsibility is not made null and void as it is in Calvinistic theology.

For in Calvinism, God is responsible for the condemnation of the sinner (since He arbitrarily chose to predestine them to eternal flames).

 

[justbyfaith]

Do you need to see the definition of 'Arbitrary' again?

Yes.

I do believe that in Calvinism, God's purpose in condemning sinners to the lake of fire is based on His whim; for no other reason than that He desires it (because it is His will).

 

[justbyfaith]

It seems to me that there is such a thing as merited favour (1 Peter 3:12).

1Pe 3:12, For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.