If God chooses

Declare Him,
That is a great question that all must ask when confronted with the Biblical doctrine of election (John 6:37). I must say that I disagree on people being saved "anyway". It is true that all the Father gives Jesus will come to Him (John 6:37), but God has not only ordained the ends (salvation) but also the means (called by the gospel). Paul asks "How shall they hear without a preacher" Rom. 10. The answer is they can't! We are predestined not just to enter heaven (glorification), but the entire process from our initial calling to our glorification (Rom. 8:28ff; 2 Thes. 2:13). It is true that God works all things after His will (Eph. 1:11), but if you notice in the Bible, He works through "means" (He that reapes, must sow; He that seeks, finds; He that knocks, it will be opened). So God has commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature because we don't know who the elect are. We just know that the ones who respond (John 6:37; Acts 13:48) are the elect.

May God bless you


"Let us arose ourselves to the sternest fidelity, labouring to win souls as much as if it all depended wholly upon ourselves, while we fall back, in faith, upin the glorious fact that everything rests with the eternal God."

C.H. Spurgeon

 

Divine election is conditioned only on the basis of believing in Jesus Christ as Savior. [John 1:12; John 3:16; Galatians 3:26]

If God picks and chooses who is to be saved and lost, we are teaching that the Lord is a Divine Tyrant and that He is an unjust God. One of the main planks of Christian theology is that Almighty God is the Divine God of justice. There is no favoritism in God's relationships with some of His created beings. [Acts 17:30b through verse 31 & I Timothy 2:5-6 & John 3:16]

Unconditional Election is a hand-me-down from Catholicism's St. Augustine and the barnacles of Roman Catholicism's son of the church, John Calvin, newly converted to justification by faith. If you are a Five Point Calvinist you are a Roman Catholic minus the penance, rosary, and purgatory. Enjoy.

 

You said:
Divine election is conditioned only on the basis of believing in Jesus Christ as Savior. [John 1:12; John 3:16; Galatians 3:26]

Me:We must believe, but we believe because we are the elect. Clearly taught in John 6:37; Acts 13:48.

You said:
If God picks and chooses who is to be saved and lost, we are teaching that the Lord is a Divine Tyrant and that He is an unjust God.

Me:
Giving sinners their wage (Rom. 6:23) is what you call justice.
Giving sinners grace (Rom. 8:28) is not done from a Tyrannical heart, but according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:4).

You Said:
One of the main planks of Christian theology is that. Almighty God is the Divine God of justice. There is no favoritism in God's relationships with some of His created beings. [Acts 17:30b through verse 31 & I Timothy 2:5-6 & John 3:16]

Me: Again, it is not favoritism but according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:4).
It would be a respector of persons if God took into account something in the sinner that set him apart from other sinners, but since we are all fallen in Adam, the only difference that sets one from another is Him who "made us to differ".


You said:

Unconditional Election is a hand-me-down from Catholicism's St. Augustine and the barnacles of Roman Catholicism's son of the church, John Calvin, newly converted to justification by faith. If you are a Five Point Calvinist you are a Roman Catholic minus the penance, rosary, and purgatory. Enjoy.

Me: This assumes it is not the Biblical position.

In Christ

 

God commands us to go out and share the Gospel. That's why we do it, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians who truly love God can argue with God's commands.

If/how/when God uses our obedience (or even disobedience) in this matter with respect to who will be saved is up to God.

Allow me to repeat something I put in another thread...

 

Yes, we do it because God commanded it but why does God command it?

How will they know unless they hear?

God commands it because it is His chosen means to call the world to repentance and faith. Calvinism undermines that means by teaching that God will employ other means to accomplish our task if we choose not to obey and there will not be any eternal consequenses for our disobedience. The elect will be saved regardless of my obedience to God's command thus rendering Paul's statement, "How will they know unless they hear" meaniless, because they will know somehow regardless of whether or not I tell them.

 

Come on, Skan, you have been here long enough to know that neither of these are true. Calvinists believe that man is saved because he believes and that those who do not believe will have eternal consequences for their disobedience. Calvinists do not believe that man will be saved regardless of anyone's obedience to God's command.. You know better than what you have posted here.

The answer to the original question, the reason why we preach, witness, etc, is because God has chosen some to believe. If God has not chosen any to believe but rather leaves it up to man, there is no reason to witness or preach because no one will respond.

The election of God is what gives hope to the preacher of the gospel.

 

Larry,

I've missed your patronizing posts where you drop in take a jab and disappear.

I've been here long enough to know that its not worth debating you because you don't stick around long enough to defend yourself or your statements. I rather not waste my time, but thanks for stopping in occasionally for your drive bye postings.

 

There was nothing patronizing in my post. I was merely pointing out that you said something about our beliefs that is not true, and you have previously been told that it was not true.

I have gotten tired of it, Skan, becuase of hte very thing you did above. I have defended myself far more than you ever have. I have likely answered more questions that you even know to ask about this topic. With almost 9500 posts, I have been in this forum since the beginning and used to post a whole lot. But it has all been said. This is just a repeat. There has never been a question, to my knowledge, that I have not at least attempted an answer for. Some haven't agreed with my answer ... that is fine. But to say I haven't answered them is simply not true.

In the bottom line, you are willing to live with certain tensions in your system because of your theological pre-commitments. We are willing to live with others. You accuse us of reinterpreting or denying certain Scriptures becuase of your commitments. YOu get the same from us. The difference is in what we hold to be "clear." You hold certain things as clear, while we hold others.

I would rather you not waste your time. I would rather you got serious about the study of the Scripture. I would rather you not make up our position. The truth is that you do know better than what you posted. One of the reasons I quit was becuase I was repeating myself time and time again, saying the same stuff, pointing out where you and others were wrongly characterizing our beliefs. I wish you would stop. I wish you would allow people the room to disagree with your opinions without lambasting them and putting beliefs in their mouth. I do still read and know what goes on in here.

When that stops, maybe I will come back. I posted today for two reasons: 1) To address a misconception that you again fostered; and 2) more importantly, to answer the question that a newcomer had.

 

I am very serious about the study of scripture. So serious in fact that I'm willing to go beyond repenting the same stuff over and over. I'm willing to examine areas that I haven't gone before. Now, I know you think you've conquered the depths of the scripture by answering EVERY possible objection one could raise (eventhough you admit to never have actually reading Calvin or Arminus yourself and eventhough you haven't reconized many of the historical issues as being relevant such has Hardening).

But since you've got all these things figured out and since you've got those 9500 posts to prove it I guess I'm beat.

 

Come on, Skan. YOu don't need to get personal. I have often said I don't have it all figured out. Quite honestly, I dont' know what all the answers are. I don't pretend to. It is not necessary to read either Calvin or Arminius to know this topic. Boht of those guys are long outdated, and we have moved past that. I do know what the issues are. I have been around many times about it. I have examined hte stuff I haven't seen before. I have gone down those roads. YOu disagree with my position ... that is fine. YOu don't answer to me for it. But please don't misrepresent it. That's all. If you are serious about learning, then learn what we believe. It makes it much easier to converse about it.

Let's end this conversation and get back to the topic at hand ... okay ...

 

Larry,

You say you're not patronizing me in one sentence and in the very next sentence you write, "I have likely answered more questions that you even know to ask about this topic. With almost 9500 posts, I have been in this forum since the beginning and used to post a whole lot." You don't call that patronizing? Do you need a defination of the word? (BTW, that is patronizing, when you act as if the person you're speaking to is ignorant or childlike and as if you are so much more learned and accomplished.)

Ever since I've been on this board you've taken that tone with people continually refering to your number of posts and the fact that you have answered more questions than anyone person could even think to ask. And saying things like, "You should know better." Doesn't that sound like something a parent might say to their child? That is patronizing and demeaning. You need to know that number of your posts doesn't impress anyone, in fact your pointing that out only makes us more convinced that you really are not dealing with our posts honestly and objectively.

Do you remember the time you wrote that lengthy post to Helen's husband who I believe had a doctorate and was known to you as being a respectable man? That was the first and one of the only times I saw you treat someone with respect who wasn't in agreement with you. I'm just asking you to examine your attitude toward those who disagree with you and treat others with respect as your peers, instead of as poor ignorant children who can't possibly have as much understanding as you, the king moderator with 9500 posts. (You may not intend to come across that way but trust me when I say you do, and I'm not the only person who feels that way, believe me)

I am glad to respond to your posts and deal with the issues you raise and even corrections you want to point out about my views, but I refuse to sit quitely and allow you to patronize me again and again while never sticking around long enough to defend your posts.

If you notice I get along fine with Ian and most everyone on this board who disagrees with me. Why? What is different about them? They treat me with respect and they continue to respond and interact with me even when the questions venture past their typical Calvinistic pat answers. I may disagree with them but I respect them.

That's all I ask for from you Larry. R-E-S-P-E-C-T

 

Now back to the topic...

So you believe that if one disobeys and refuses to witness that some elect won't be saved? Of course not. So what do you mean? That God will make us obey and witness? Or That God will use someone else to bring the message? Both of those are the "other means" to which I was refering, so what is the problem?

 

Skan, I asked you to drop this but you want to continue, unfortunately. Why? You were wrong to accuse us of believing something we don't believe. That was your mistake and it was wrong of you to do that. Then, when I kindly point it out, you get mad at me. Skan, you were previously told what we believe. On many occasions you were told what we believe. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for you to have said what you said. There is even less legitimate reason to get mad at me for what you did. Had you not misrepresented what we believe, this discussion would have never taken place. You made a choice, and now you are living with the consequences.

What I did was not patronizing. What I did was respond to your ridiculous assertion that I don't respond. With 9500 posts, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that I don't respond. That is not patronizing in the least.

I have not taken an arrogant or condescending tone. In a board such as this, it is impossible to convey voice inflection and body language. I find your posts to be quite arrogant and disrespectful. However, I understand that you probably don't intend that and if we were to talk one on one, I would like have a different understanding.

It is also quite difficult to pretend like I don't know anything. A great deal of your rancor is because I know what I believe and I know how to defend it. You are not presenting new information here. But you can't get mad at me for knowing what I am talking about.

As for "You should know better," I say that becuase you should. You have been told what we believe. You continually misrepresent it. You should know better. That is not patronizing. It is a statement that you are either not listening or are wilfully misrepresenting what we believe. It is wrong either way.

My response to Barry Setterfield was, in my recollection, one of the more severe responses that I have put forth on this board. I remember it well. Normally, I try to be brief and direct, but kind. I am not going to incite people's anger by inflammatory statements or by misrepresenting what they believe. For instance, I sincerely believe that you cannot separate man's works from salvation. I believe you inherently have a salvation that is dependent on man. But I don't accuse you of that and I don't say that is what you believe. Why? Because I know you don't believe that. I believe you are inconsistent. But I respect what you say. Why can you not take a similar tack ... and agree not to say we beleive something that you know we don't believe.

I have examined my attitude and when I have been wrong, I have apologized. I don't treat anyone as a poor ignorant child. You have unfortunately shown yourself to not always be ethical in the way that you represent people's belief. and that is what has drawn the comments.

You again return to the accusation that do not respond and defend my beliefs. The only reason I brought up tht 9500 posts was to point out just how absurd that assertion is. I have, at one point or another, defended every questeion you have asked. YOu may not have liked the answer, and in fact in most cases have not. But that is not because I haven't defended them. And I have not been patronizing. I have asked you to respect the beliefs of others by not misrepresenting them. That is a simple task on your part. Please, help me out by abiding by that simple request.

You want respect, but you don't want to show it to other's beliefs. I have never disrespected you, and I think you know that. You got mad because you made a statement about beliefs that you knew were not accurate. I have asked you not to do that, but you have refused. Please have the respect to properly characterize the beliefs of those you disagree with. I have not disrespected you in the least. I have pointed our your mistakes with regard to how you present our theology.

Now, let this be the end of this.

 

The problem is as follows:

Calvinism does not teach this. Calvinism teaches that God's plan is to save his elect. You will have eternal consequences for your disobedience, at to some degree. Calvinism does not undermine the teaching in the least.

The problem here is that Paul's statement is not meaningless since you are not the only person in God's plan. Paul was right ... they do need to hear to be saved. But your failure to speak does not mean Paul was wrong. It means they will hear another way.

 

The problem is as follows:

Calvinism does not teach this. Calvinism teaches that God's plan is to save his elect. You will have eternal consequences for your disobedience, at to some degree. Calvinism does not undermine the teaching in the least.</font>[/QUOTE] I am not misrepresenting Calvinism. You just misunderstood my point and now I see why. Let me explain my intent. When I said "there will not be any eternal consequences," I was meaning that the same number of people will be in heaven regardless. I didn't mean that there wouldn't be any consequences. That is why I used the word "eternal," to signify the degree of the effect. If you want to discuss lessor "degrees" of consquenses we can, but I'm speaking about the eternal, or highest degree, of consquences. Does that make more since?

The problem here is that Paul's statement is not meaningless since you are not the only person in God's plan. Paul was right ... they do need to hear to be saved. But your failure to speak does not mean Paul was wrong. It means they will hear another way. </font>[/QUOTE]Your teaching here is exactly the point I was attempting to make.

"If I don't preach it, hey no big deal, God will get someone else to do it. There isn't going to be any one in Hell because I didn't do my job so I can relax a bit."

I know I'm overstating and no one good Christian Calvinist would say such a thing, but internally and even subconsiously he knows that their blood won't be on his hands because God will save them somehow. And that is why I think you undermine Paul's message in Romans 10 because I believe his intent was to make the believers realize that people will not know if they, personally, don't tell them. Calvinists can't say that, because logically they must admit that they WILL believe whether I personally tell them or not.

So the question, "How will they believe unless someone tells them?" Calvinists might answer in this way, "I don't know for sure but I do know it will happen regardless of my obedience to God calling."

But it seems that Paul wants people to think, "They may not ever know and believe unless I go." Calvinism, IMO, undermines that urgency of the call.

You don't have to agree with me Larry, but now do you at least see the point I was making? I was not misrepresenting your views, I was taking them to their logical and reasonable conclusion...a place you all desprately try to avoid.

 

To me, the answer to this question is quite simple:

1. God commands us to do so. (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8)
2. Those who are God's children will want to obey God. (1 John 5:1-5).

Joseph Botwinick

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph,

Good reasons but what about Paul's reason: "How will they believe unless they hear and how will they hear unless someone tells them?"

This certainly implies that if someone chooses not to tell that some might not hear.

On other note, what about the various passages of scripture to speak about the blood of people being on the hands of the messenger? Just asking.

 

To me, those are the only two reasons that really matter.

Joseph Botwinick

 

They are certainly the most important, I agree, but that is no reason to ignore the whole counsel of God concerning such matters, is it?