Non-Calvinists: Best argument?

BaptistBeliever,

You raise a good point. And, yes, there is a tension. I am not a Double Predestinarian. You stated:

This is true. But, your point raises another point. It would seem you believe everyone deserves to be chosen. We don't. We all deserve hell. That God chooses some to escape Hell is not fair, it is grace.

Why God chooses some and not others is mystery and I don't pretend to know God's mind.

It is true that God's choosing one group to be saved requires the other group to be damned. So, God's choosing to save some out of all of us who are condemned does, ipso facto, necessitate the unchosen to be condemned, but they are already condemned. In essence, they loose nothing--the unchosen are not condemned based on God's choosing. Some of the condemned are saved based on God's choosing.

I hope that helps clarify the argument, even if you disagree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Archangel,

You posted:

I would like for you to explain this to me.

I have to say that I am able to see this somewhat. I think most people, including myself, look at limited atonement as unfair instead of a free gift. I have waivered many times on this subject. When its just me and Lord, its not even a question. I thank Him for what He freely done for me.
I settle into the doctrine of foreknowledge. Which, if you truly accept and search it out, it is actually a watered down version of election, but it is easier to handle.

Most people are scared to death of the words "Election" or "Predestination". They ultimately dismiss it because it appears unfair. This is the one point that I struggle with. I just can't accept that Christ died for a select few.

I would like to discuss this with you some more. I'm afraid I am a 4 pointer, but this day and time, if you believe in 2 or 3 of Calvin's points, you are tagged as a Hyper-Calvinist - lol.

 

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument

I am one who, like a lot of others, agree with some of Calvin's beliefs, and disagree with some.

Total Depravity- I completely agree with this. Man on his own, will not turn to God. It takes the "drawing" of that sweet, Holy Spirit to draw man. I like using Acts chapter 9, when Apostle Paul(Saul at that time), was on his way to Damascus to persecute the church, when the Light shinied about him, and Jesus spoke to him. We can do nothing until the "Light" shines on us(Spirit drawing us)

Perseverance of the Saints- Another one of his beliefs I agree with. That which God saves, will remain saved. I don't use it as a license to sin, but those that are truly washed in the Blood of Jesus, will walk and talk differently, and will be known by their actions as a CHRISTian.

Limited Atonement- Don't agree with this one. When Jesus died on the cross, he left no one out. I think a lot of confusion comes about the "elect" from the book of Romans. It gives references to the "elect" several times, but at this time, the church is being preached unto the gentiles(Rome). They, like us, before Jesus died on the cross, had no hope....considered dogs. I truly believe that Paul was calling them "elect" because Israel(Jews) did not believe Jesus was who He said He was. So they were "dis-elected"(if that's a word), and we becames "elect" IMHO. By their rejection of Jesus, we became elected.

Irresistible Grace- This is one that I am "iffy" on. There was a time when God was really dealing with me. I went to church, cried at the preaching, singing, shouting, but in time, I quit and was worse than I was before. Reminds me of when the unclean spirit is out of a man, it walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none. When it goes back, it finds it swept and garnished. It takes back seven spirits more evil than it, and the state of that man is worse than the first( not word for word, but kinda close). In time, when God began dealing with me again, I heeded and in time, by His Grace, He saved me!! I did resist it at one time, the other time, I didn't...this is why I kinda disagree with Iresistible Grace.

I know some will agree with me, some will try to tear it down. But, this is my honest opinion.

Sorry about the "U" in TULIP....I can't remember what it stands for. May God bless!!

Willis

 

The U stands for Unconditional Election.

 

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument?

Thanks TCGreek....I will have to read up on it, see what it truly means according to Calvin, and give my thought! Thanks again

Willis

 

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument?

Unconditional election is the controversial Calvinist teaching that before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons. Unconditional election was first codified in the Belgic Confession (1561), re-affirmed in the Canons of Dort (1619), which arose from the Quinquarticular Controversy, and is represented in the various Reformed confessions. It is one of the five points of Calvinism and is often linked with predestination.

I found this when I went to www.ask.com. This is the one belief of TULIP I do not agree with at all. I do believe that when made us, He knew which way we would go, but He didn't make us do it. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, they did it of their own volition(sp?), not because God decreed it. If any die lost, it was because they rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. I just believe God will give all a chance, but most will not accept it.

Willis

PS I know that most, if not all, know what Unconditional Election is, I just wanted to copy and paste it for the "few" who don't...like I was until abput 5 mins ago. LOL

 

And you're not alone.

 

My best argument. I don't believe in fatalism which seems to be the end result of Calvinism. If I had no choice in my salvation then I really have no choice in anything else that I say or do. I have no choice in anything that happens in my life or this world. I am but a robot following my program along with all the other robots to our designated end (one being heaven or hell).

And, save me the I can't read God's mind, I have no right to question God, etc. I'm not questioning God. Rather, I'm questioning a particular interpretation of the scripture.

 

Good day, Matt

I know you have some scriptures to look at, I have been where you are at....

Just need to add another for your consideration, and to get your understanding.

Jer 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters; and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend, in the siege and in the distress, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their life, shall distress them.

In Him,

Bill

 

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?

Lamentations 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

In none of these things is God the original cause of evil, which is the problem that I have with Calvinism. But in each case God is identified as the source of disaster and calamity. In two of the cases, Isa and Lam, these things are set off against good things, prosperity and good things, clearly indicating what is intended: God is the source of all things. In the case of Amos, v. 7, which helps me understand the purpose behind the statements in v.6, speaks of God's plan, another indication that he is the source of all things.

Each of these passages is not centrally about God doing bad things, instead each of them is an affirmation, in language that the prophets audiences would understand, that God is the source of all things.

 

In Jer 19.1ff. God is telling the Israelites what will happen to them if they break the covenant. The "curses" get especially ghastly at v.9 where cannibalism is in view. However, there is some question about who the "them/they" is. Is it the attackers, the Israelites, or is the first one the attackers and the second one the Israelites? Either way, here God is indicating that it is he who will judge the breaking of the covenant, that is the central point of this passage.

 

Good Day, Matt

I agree with your main points here, But the question does settle down too is God the cause for "them" (whomever they are) to act in a cannibalisic fashion?


Jer 19:9 "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them."'

In Him,

Bill

 

Can God create something and still not be the original cause of it?

This is where my struggle comes in....

 

Outsider,

If you would, please let me answer this on my blog. I'll do a post outlining my position. I'll update the thread when it is done and you can visit by clicking the link on my "Signature"

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

my responses in bold above. Rippon, Archangel and others, thanks for the conversation. Now I have more things to think about.

 

That would be due to his actions peformed out of his will, not becuase he was born.

 

define "evil".

Evil that comes from the devil is devilish/ evil that comes from God serves the purpose of God and is not devilish.

The Judgement of God seems evil to men who cannot see the end product.

 

Good post..n/t

 

Bill and PastorSBC: I think the problem that both of you are feeling would be alleviated by understanding that the OT gives God very human attributes -- anthropomorphisms. This was in accomodation to the people for whom the OT was written...so that they could understand. The point of all of the passages we are talking about is not whether or not God created or caused anything; the point is that God is the behind it all.

If we want to know what the Bible has to say about God's role with evil and sin we should look to passages that are about that: like James 1, which clearly indicates that evil and sin are the fault of humanity. It is one of the rules of interpretation: the clearer passage that is actually about the subject in question is the one on which to lean.

 

Most Calvinists would agree with you here, which is why a belief in Calvinism does not require a belief that God is the direct cause or author of sin. So I think your no. 2 objection in your original post is not really a valid one against Calvinism. It might be valid objection against God's omniscience, though. Truth is, if you believe in the perfect omniscience of God, you can be accused of God "causing" sin, since He knew what was going to come about when He decided to create the world. There was a good discussion between Russell55 and Allan regarding this very issue here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=46878