Why Do Some Christians Almost "hate" Concept of There being Election by GOD?

I have met a few who hated election and predestination.They,on the other hand extolled free-will.

Many non-Cals don't like the idea of God's election. They would prefer any reference to election meaning their choice.

And of course any mention of God's decree(s) is repulsive to them.

So if mention of election,predestination,God's foreordination and Divine appointments were excluded from the Bible -- these folks would be happy.They would still espouse their same old beliefs without the nuisance of those terms.

 

I have been so busy the last couple months I haven’t even read the forum let alone tried to post. Calvinism isn’t my hot topic any way. I find eschatology more interesting. I would start my own thread for these thoughts, but won’t have time to respond to comments so I’m just going to post these thoughts here which seems an appropriate place.

On the topic of does scripture support randomness I don’t understand how anybody can read the bible and not agree whole heartily that it does. When you read these verses it’s obvious that God doesn’t fear randomness so why should we?

Ecclesiastes 9:11
Again I saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong, or bread to the wise, or riches to the discerning, or favor to the skillful; rather, time and chance happen to all of them.

This needs no defense or explanation. Case closed right here. But there is more.

Ecclesiastes 7:17
Don't be excessively wicked, and don't be foolish. Why should you die before your time?

This verse implies two things. That in some general sense of the word which is open to broad interpretation man has an appointed time to die. Perhaps based on his eating and exercising habits for example—but by foolish acts like stepping in front of cars he can alter his life by that choice and die before his otherwise appointed time. Obviously God’s sovereignty provides for man to have some influence over the exact moment of his death and the exact moment is not predetermined by God before you are born. You could obviously say God has foreknowledge of that moment, but not that he determined it for you. He gives you free will and some say so in the matter.

Esther 4:14
If you keep silent at this time, liberation and deliverance will come to the Jewish people from another place, but you and your father's house will be destroyed. Who knows, perhaps you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this."

This verse clearly demonstrates God lays before Esther a choice. No matter which choice she makes God will accomplish his will of saving the Jews whether it is through Esther or someone else. The greatness of God’s sovereignty is demonstrated not in his controlling every outcome and decision, but giving us free will and still being able to accomplish his will and purpose.

People often confuse election and predestination. You could say Esther was elected by God to save the Jews; however, if she chooses not to then God will accomplish that end through someone else.

I see Calvinism as placing limits on God because it requires him to predestine every event in the universe—in affect it becomes a self contradiction of his limitlessness by forcing him to control everything to accomplish his will. I see the non-Cal approach as recognizing the greatness of God because it allows God to transcend the self will of man ignoring God’s will yet still accomplishing his purposes. You could say a given outcome is predestine, but the path to that outcome has an element of randomness based on man’s will.

Maybe I'll respond to comments over the weekend, but no promises.

 

This post of mine is for the benefit of TND.

 

Rejection of Election

I don't find the heart or words of hate from those of us who don't adhere to the concept of Election as Calvinists interpret Election & Predestination.

On another post I could go into greater detail what other interpretations are, but those 2 words (precepts) are certainly in the word. But so are many verses that speak about Man's responsibility & God's call to obedience through faith ie, "....... if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father". Your acceptance or refusal of Grace (HIS PERFECT WORK already done) Calvinists use obfuscation by calling accepting the gift (submitting to God's will/repentance) as a work. No, the work was done by Jesus, no works required to accept his FREE Gift.

If God has elected those for Hell already then what part of "God is willing that none should perish" do Calvinists not understand or want to understand. It pulls out 1 of their legs of their 5 points.

So, let's just agree that it is a great mystery that Man's finite mind cannot reconcile how we have been chosen, elected, predestined on one side of the coin, but also we are called to obey, accept the gift and if we confess to men Jesus as Lord, he will confess us to the Father, but if we deny him to men he will deny us before the Father.

Some of us are not Calvinists or Arminian because we look at both and find both doctrines incomplete/inaccurate because of this mystery. So please don't call us one or the other. Just Christians who know that God is Sovereign but we had a responsibility to obey his word for salvation.

If God rejected Cain's offering then why did tell Cain "that sin was crouching at the door". If he was predestined to hell, why give him another chance. Praise God he is a God of many chances.

 

Although I have not done a study or survey Rippon.....I think you are really going out on a limb here to suggest that any significant part of the participants reject, hate, despise or wish for "election" to not be a part of scripture. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with decrees. The tension comes from differences on interpretation of these.

BTW, could you provide a link to a summary of all decrees (as you see them) recorded in scripture?

 

And I assume you regard yourself as part of the Elect? Funny thing how 100% of all Calvinists regard themselves as part of the Elect.

 

Along these same lines, most Calvinists think the world is filled with false converts.

 

So the argument is against those that say we are elect because we're saved; not saved because we're the elect?

 

Don,

I "think" that is the point of Rippon and others who share his position. Personally I think "election" is most definitely presented in scripture, to ignore is not wise. Furthermore, I really like the perspective of Christopher JH Wright on the concept of election.

It has to be said that much of the debate over the meaning of election, predestination, reprobation and associated concepts has been carried on at a level of systematic abstraction and binary logic that seems oblivious to the way the Old Testament speaks of God’s choice of Israel. Between election in the Hebrew Scriptures of Jesus and election in the foundations of theological systems there sometimes seems to be a great gulf fixed. The Mission of God, pg. 262.

Here are some of his insights from page 263 of The Mission of God:

“The election of Israel is instrumental, not an end in itself. Israel was chosen as the means by which salvation could be extended throughout the earth. Israel as a nation was chosen to be the vehicle in which God’s mission would be extended to the whole world.” Not every person in Israel was saved; like Abraham before them, they had to place their faith in God to be saved.

“The election of Israel is fundamentally missional, not just soteriological.” According to Wright, “If we allow the doctrine of election to become merely a secret calculus that determines who gets saved and who does not, we have lost touch with its original biblical intention.”

 

Another error by the modern "reformed" who don't know anything about Reformed theology.