Thinking of the Non-Logical Genre

gekko,

bmerr here. I agree with you. He's way off. Especially with the "no choice" idea. Think about it: if God has complete control over who goes to Heaven or Hell, would that not make God a respecter of persons? It would certainly contradict passages that say that God wants all men to be saved.

The sovreignty of God, namely in setting forth the way for men to be saved, in no way eliminates the responsibility of man, which is to do what God said to do in order to be saved. Grace [God's part] through faith [man's part].

It's scary that this guy is in a teaching position.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Whether or not such a worldview resonates with our innate sense of justice, I think it is simply not Biblical. I know some out there will not like this, but this and certain other beliefs that I believe fall under the umbrella of Calvinism are built on an exceedingly fragile Scriptural foundation.

So I think that such beliefs as expressed in the above list are not Scriptural, even without consideration of how sensible they seem to us.

 

you are right - that is baloney

 

It seems that this youth pastor should be figuring out why he believes what he claims to, because people like you are going to ask for an answer for things like this. If he wishes to feed the sheep, he needs to be better prepared for such occaisions. This poor showing is not going to be edifying for those ask about these doctrines.

The thing that annoys me most with predestination is that the Bible says God predestined (determined beforehand) us (believers) to be conformed to the image of His Son, Christ Jesus, and somehow people seem to just argue thier way out of believing it. If the "choose this day whom you will serve" verse negates the verses concearning election and predestination, either it's perfectly fine to ex out Bible verses that don't suit our fancy with other Bible verses we like better, or someone is just not accepting what the Bible says.


Gek, if it were you and I discussing it I'd say:

A) God is completely Soveriegn. He is free to do whatever He pleases.
B) A man is free to do whatever he wants to do, if that's what you mean by free-will. I do believe in a kind of free-will, but not free-will unto salvation.
C) Responsible is not a term I would use, not now. I have termed it that way before but accountable is more along the lines of Scripture.
D) Double predestination? Well I suppose if you believe in predestination unto salvation then predestination unto damnation would logically follow. I believe that everyone who believes is elect and was predestined to do so, so I believe that anyone who hates the Gospel and shows no sign of regeneration (repentence, faith) and dies out of Christ then God purposed it to be so.
E) As the elect of God, we have a charge to proclaim the Gospel to every creature in the world. Some will be granted faith and repentence, some will not, it's not in our hands. We are not to beg and plead for someone to "accept" Christ. We just proclaim the Gospel and the Holy Spirit does the rest.

I wouldn't say that saying God having mercy on some and not others is arrogant, I would think it'd be more arrogant to claim that you had some part in you being saved when the Scriptures state otherwise. I'd liken it to some sort of rebellion.

But all that aside, those doctrines are very deep things, it's meat, not milk. I believe them, because Scripture teaches them, but to a finite mind it almost unfathomable to search out those deep things of God. But we're suppose to know about them, else God wouldn't have put them in the Bible.

For those who don't believe in election or predestination (or just plain don't like the facts), how do you explain those verses? What do you have to do to disregard them? People say it's a hard thing for a high grace Calvinist to explain away some of the seemingly Armininian verses in the Bible (there really aren't any), but I don't have a problem with them. In fact, they just strengthen my convictions of the doctrines of grace more and more.

Maybe you should prayerfully study out the issue instead of just disregarding it as some evil hyper Calvinist misrepresentation of Scripture. If you don't beleive a Biblical doctrine, then you need to get into Scripture prayfully and find out where you're going wrong. Those verses about election and predestination are in there for a good reason, there's no reason to sweep them under the rug because they are an offense to us.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

"Think about it: if God has complete control over who goes to Heaven or Hell, would that not make God a respecter of persons? "

Not if he made the selection by tossing a coin. Problem with TULIP is that Reformed people think they are elect because they invented TULIP. God could have only elected Mormons.

 

That's a good point, Bill. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

No, it wouldn't. If God doesn't have control over who goes to Heaven or Hell, then who is really sovereign...God or man?


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

You just answered your own question. You have to define who "all" is.

The epistle was a general one written to the Christian churches, and were to be read alound when they met.

The NIV says: "9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

The KJV renders it: "9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us-ward, not willing that any ahould perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Peter's audience is the church, the context is concerning the church, people who already professed belief. It doesn't allow for "all" to be interpreted in a universal sense. Universal in the Church sense, yeah, but not every single man, woman, and child in the world.

Also consider John 17. Christ prays not for the world but for those that the Father has given him. Then a few verses later He says and I quote, "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one *doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fufilled.*" Judas Iscariot. Judas's purpose was to betray Christ, so that the Scripture would be fufilled. It was purposed, ordained, predetermined, predestined, however you want to say it, for the purpose of fufilling Scripture.

Then there is Romans 9.

"11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),
12it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."
13As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."
16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."
18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"


It all ties together.

Hope this helps.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

"whom He FOREKNEW He predestined" -- a lot of people think that God "Knows EVERYTHING"!

by contrast some suppose he knows only the "FEW" of Matt 7 that make it through the narrow gate.

By contrast the Bible says that "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to HIMSELF" for "HE is not willing for ANY TO PERISH but for ALL to come to repentance" - for "WHILE we were YET SINNERS Christ died for us"... He became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The argument God makes is never "I partially selected out SOME to love, SOME to die for, SOME to reconcile to Myself, drawing SOME unto Me".

God says "I will draw ALL unto Me" John 12:32
God says He sent His son to be the "Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4
God says He sent His Son into the World to be the LIGHT of the World and to "enlighten EVERY man" John 1.
God says that His Son became the atoning sacrifice for sin "And NOT for our sin only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

Yes we know that God foreknows WHO will accept that offer of salvation that is in fact God reconciling the WORLD to Himself.

Yes we know that God foreknows WHO will hear AND CHOOSE TPEN the door that Christ may come in -

And we also know that HE has fore-ordained that the plan of salvation should welcome all who accept and should bring them safely to His heavenly kingdom.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Rom 9 "key" regarding God's foreknowledge of those who will not accept the Gospel invitation and the "Drawing of ALL" unto Him.

Yes - God shows THEM mercy, grace and longsuffering to make known to the saints just how great his grace and mercy is as they SEE the care of God for those whom He knows will never choose to accept his offer of salvation.

Instead of the Calvinist argument of the "uncaring God who did not die for or love the lost" it is God stating boldly that even while KNOWING that the finally lost will not choose to accept the Gospel yet He STILL sends to them His longsuffering ministries of grace and mercy.

The Holy Spirit convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment.

The Spirit of Christ drawing ALL unto Him.

The knocking at the hearts door of Christ -- on the OUTSIDE so that if ANYONE HEARS AND OPENS the door that then He WILL come in.

In heaven we will see clearly the tender love and care God has for EACH of our preciou sons and daughters that did not make it into the kingdom.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sadly for Calvinism the blatant point is that FAR MORE among the Wicked, the Lost, the unsaved, the unblievers at the time of Paul's statement BECAME CHRISTIANS than EXISTED as Christians at the time Paul said these words!!

The obvious point is ANY attempt to RESTRICT this to "just those who were saved at the instant Paul penned those words" fails the simple test of reason and scripture as we SEE the gospel going out to the whole world!!

In John 17 Christ prays "For all those who WILL believe" not for "all those I will arbitrarily zap in the future while forgetting to notice the rest". This is because the invitiation of salvation is to the WORLD but the blessing that FOLLOW the entrance into Salvation can not come to those who do not CHOOSE salvation -- by definition.

An obvious point - but one that Calvinism needs to "gloss over".

The arbitrary selection process ascribed to God in the doctrines of Calvinism are best depicted in the classic "Future Calvinist Scenario".

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the old version of Baptist Board you could see the “perfect” Calvinist confirmation “in a nutshell” –

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

Calvinist future scenario complete!


Notice the “focus” in that perfect Calvinist utopian future - is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!

All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians (and our 3-Pt Calvinist Bretheren) - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance". Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too. I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

 

This calls for a new thread.

 

Why is that? The OP is about the fallacy in logic that says God arbitrarily creates some for hell -- not caring for them, not sparing them -- and then tries to distance himself from "blame" for such arbitrary selection. Selecting some for hell and some for heaven.

My previous post simply REMOVES the luxury of heartless disconcern for the lost that such a view "requires". It is IN that OP context - but it highlights "concen for the lost" by the focus on a case where "those made for destruction" happen to be members of one's own family. The luxury of heartless disconcern is eliminated in that case. Simply referring to your own child as "one created for hell" is totally opposed to reason AND to scripture. To reason because even the simplest mind can see that such a path is opposed to the path of "love" and to scripture because God clearly states "I am not partial" Rom 2:11 and "God so love the WORLD" and "God is not willing for ANY to Perish" etc.

Why start a new thread when it is getting down to the hard core of the point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The pastor you are quoting is giving a classic 4 and 5 point Calvinist argument. Nothing new there.

The point you are making - that this is not logical -- still applies.

I am simply pointing out the future scenario where such a "God is arbitrary, man has no choice, but we don't want to blame God for anything" argument as you have stated gets "played out".

In Christ,

bob

 

Because the doctrine of election in it's real and biblical sense has very little to do with what your posting about it.

I'd like to look at it and define it so it will not be subject to "future scenerios" or emotional arguments.

I think fairly debating whether it seems logical or not is impossible unless you actually understand what it is. Your post is only serving to confuse the issue. I actually want to help Gekko study and understand it based on what the Bible says, rather than on scenarios, emotional arguments, and ill-informed youth pastors.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin