TULIP: Unconditional Election

You're right handed; I could see it from the way you typed first the second letter in the word on the right hand side of the keyboard, then the first letter in the word on the left hand side of the keyboard.

Do you think that it was 'per accident' you were born right-handed? Or could you or would you prefer to believe God pre-destined / predestinated it that way?

In other words, it is impossible for anyone to behave AGAINST HIS OWN NATURE. God's salvation of us originally goes against our human grain; it's a fact impossible to deny or to ignore.

 

>Sounds like you may have some course work in non-parametric statistics.....Null Hypothesis.

Please start a statistics thread. Teach us all. It is a subject I would be happy to learn more about.

 

There is at issue something you ignore. It happens at the very begining of the bible. That issue is simply "God made man in his image" And later exlaimed "it is good". Now man makes a bad decision and corrupts his nature and the nature of the world. Question does this change the fact that God made man in his image and that God's image is good? No. It does give man the conquisipence towards sin and makes nature degrade. Now look at nature is it all bad? Or is it totally Depraved? No. In fact there are good and bad elements both in nature. And so it is with man. Man observably holds both good and evil characteristics. That he prefers to choose evil over good is a result of his nature. The occassion that he chooses good over evil evidence his initial creation of being made in God's image. Thus total depravity is not observable in nature nor is it observable in human behavior. "Even the wicked give good gifts to their children". Thus is the human condition. Now if God presents himself to me I can have one of two reactions acceptance or rejection. Therefore God doesn't force us to choose him as in your hypercalvinistic view. We are not robots and neither does God expect us to behave in this manner. Thus we cannot judge against God for the non elect because they put themselves in Hell. Otherwise its God who has elected them to that destiny.

 

God made man as a rational, moral, self-conscious, self-determining creature. What man fell from was the "upright" or "good" moral nature that God defines to be without sin and without the desire to sin.

The whole issue comes down to what is "good" by God's standard of definition versus by man's standard of definition. Jesus told a rich young man that "there is none good but one and that is God." Jesus was defining "good" as in good enough before God sight to be justified to enter heaven.

The fall destroyed the moral mechanism (the motive) behind self-determinism to choose and do that which is good as God defines it. As Paul says, "there is none good, no, not one." Good by God's definition is the intent or motive for whatever you say, think and do to be said, thought and done for the glory of God according to the revealed will of God. Man fell from that capability. New birth restores the image of God within man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5) giving him a new heart and spirit (Ezek. 36:26-27) so that when redeemed man is able to think, say and do what glorifies God it is because it is God working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philip. 2:13).



Election logically follows the fall of man because it is a choice by God "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) and without the fall there is no salvation necessary.

 

GE:

What is very good about this post of yours, is that it is a pithy and nearly full statement of belief as concerns ‘free will’ religion.

Therefore,

Re:
“There is at issue something you ignore. It happens at the very beginning of the bible. That issue is simply "God made man in his image" And later exclaimed "it is good". Now man makes a bad decision and corrupts his nature and the nature of the world.”

GE:
Man not only “makes a bad decision and corrupts his nature and the nature of the world.” Man makes a FATAL decision, brings DEATH upon himself and the whole world— eternal damnation of GOD’s Decree!

Re:
“Question does this change the fact that God made man in his image and that God's image is good? No.”

GE:
‘Fact’ is, the ‘corruption’ wherewith man in his then recent created innocent state by FREE ‘decision’ had corrupted himself, was TOTAL as to the sinless perfection required to UNDO his, by own fatal decision, corruption. Man FORFEITED COMPLETELY the ‘good image’ of God in which God had created him. ‘TOTAL depravity’!

Spiritually / character-wise / in and by nature, man CHANGED (himself) from “very good” and sinless, to TOTALLY vitiated / perverted and worse: to “depraved” and robbed and stripped of ALL (remaining) ‘good’ or life. Man’s was a “corruptibility” TO NO ‘CONTACT-POINT’ LEFT, irreversible and eternal. In a word, man’s ‘nature’, was ‘corrupted’ and ‘depraved’ unto DEATH! …unto death of ALL the posterity of Adam, were it not for the ‘particular’ interest in the redemption of his elect which GOD IN HIS OWN and ETERNAL COUNCIL HAD HAD PURPOSED, AND HAD HAD READY in and through Jesus Christ. (No ‘crisis management’ with God!)

Re:
“In fact there are good and bad elements both in nature. And so it is with man. Man observably holds both good and evil characteristics.”

GE:
Yes; "Even the wicked give good gifts to their children". Economics and industry flourished despite the fall. “They made themselves aprons” for comfort and appearance. The sciences and arts boomed. “The woman saw that the fruit was good for food and pleasant to the eye.” His innovative disposition yielded man “observable good”.

But ‘good characteristics’ ‘held’ and all, nothing could lift man from the pit of hell he has already thrown himself into.

Re:
“That he [man] prefers to choose evil over good is a result of his nature.”

GE:
Correct! Absolutely right you are “That [man] prefers to choose evil over good…” “… PREFERS to choose”! Preference and choice are the perimeters and limits of natural man’s freedom; and his ‘freedom’ is the perimeter and limitation of natural man’s preferences and choices. As “a result of his nature”— FALLEN ‘nature’, man shall ALWAYS “prefer to choose evil over good”.

Re:
“The occasion that he chooses good over evil evidence(s) (man’s) initial creation of being made in God's image.

GE:
Calvinism says the opposite. Calvinism holds that unregenerate man ALWAYS and NECESSARILY “prefers to choose evil over good”, and that his ‘preference’ is the “result of his” fallen, corrupted and totally depraved “nature”.

Calvinism further says the opposite, and maintains that “The occasion that (man) chooses good over evil”, “evidences” man’s REGENERATION and his being recreated and made new through the Holy Spirit in God's image in Christ— it does NOT “evidence (man’s) initial creation of being made in God's image” in the beginning, because that ‘initial image’ which man at his creation received of God, he has through his FALL for ever, totally and irretrievably LOST. LOST… unless regained FOR him IN CHRIST his Substitute.

Re:
“Thus total depravity is not observable in nature nor is it observable in human behavior.”

GE:
Which to assert simply is the contradiction and denial of the Scriptural and observable truth that total depravity is obvious in the mortality and sinful behaviour of every and all men. “Thus is the human condition” of mankind without exception.

Re:
“Now if God presents himself to me I can have one of two reactions acceptance or rejection.”

GE:
That is what you think; or thought; until you learned otherwise by everyday experience. Until you learned no man is Hercules at the crossroads; and that the strongest and most clever cannot by his shoelaces lift himself.

Re:
“Therefore God doesn't force us to choose him as in your hypercalvinistic view.”

GE:
“…as in your [my] hypercalvinistic view”?

You do not know nor understand the real Calvinistic “view”!

Re:
“God doesn't force us … We are not robots and neither does God expect us to behave in this manner.”

GE:
Yes! Had we free will though, God would have had no option than to “force us”. “We ARE not robots” that do things ‘automatically’ without preference or inclination or own will or feeling or emotion or love like even unregenerate, ‘natural’, man, has, towards evil. So God would have to force us because of our wicked and rebellious spirit.

Yes, God does not work like that with us, his children. He rather takes from the same lump of rebels and haters of God, clay, and forms it into his liking, and breathes life into it, and loves the works of his hands and takes pleasure in it.

Re:
“Thus we cannot judge against God for the non elect because they put themselves in Hell. Otherwise its God who has elected them to that destiny.”

GE:
Again, yes, “… we cannot judge against God”. Non the less “the non elect” did NOT “put themselves in Hell.” Adam and Eve fell for the devil’s LIE that they would not die. They thought they opted for life; but they were deceived. They thought they put themselves ‘in heaven’, but were surprised they were NAKED. And God was proved the One who spoke the truth, because God COMMANDED: “The day you eat therefore you SHALL / MUST, die!” It is God who puts the unrepentant, unregenerate wicked, according to His Law, in hell …hell which God had had prepared and had had ready for the devil and his wicked ones.

No crisis government with God!

 

This topic is a time waster because there is no test for "election." If you lose something you didn't know you had how do you complain about it? "GOD revoked the election I didn't know I had and lost?"

 

One BELIEVES one's election by faith which is the guaranteed GIFT of God to those only whom He elected. The outcome is the proof of the guarantee. No elect will not believe. Every elect will believe. Only elect believe. Reprobates never believe or sometimes will pretend or imagine they believe. Elect by faith overcome their doubt and weakness in faith, through grace. If someone believes his salvation through Christ it is because he is an elect; he does not become an elect because he pretended or affected faith; God effects faith through his Holy Spirit; God effects faith through his Holy Spirit in a person because he has been an elect.

How does one know he is an elect of God according to His Predestination and Eternal Purpose? "By grace through faith"--- he believes it and so, knows it for certain and sure.

Foolishness is it to the wisdom of the world! Were it wise to the wisdom of the world, it would have been folly to God. Its proof is its improvability, because Election is the work of God and not man.

 

It is just a euphemism for "arbitrary selection".

In Christ,

Bob
====================================
John 8:32 "The Truth shall make you free"

 

......making and calling and insulting and cursing God: God is arbitrary... a la BobRyan and SDAism.

I take exception at your ending your posts, BobRyan. It is the second time I mention my taking exception.

 

GE chooses of his own free will to insert "God IS" arbitrary - to which I would add - to each his own.

By contrast I claim that the calvinist idea of Unconditional Election is just a euphemism for "arbitrary selection" ...

Of course as GE points out - maybe there are those who view Calvin as "God".

I did not actually consider that likely - but GE's comment appears to make a case for the idea that some people think of it that way.

Hmmm - how "instructive" for the objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Of course BobRyan is correct in this assertion. There can be no other alternative than Election is a selection based arbitrarily or Randomness because any other view is based on the merit of the individual. Ultimately, when holding this view the elected person is such based on the "luck" of the draw rather than God's supremacy Making God less than "luck".

This is how it works. Man is incapable of choosing God or even looking for God or even wanting to. God makes it clear in his scriptures that the path is narrow thus indicating that fewer people attain glory than damnation. Thus the first thing we learn from God about this view is that God has selected fewer people for Glory. God has chosen a (finite) number of those he wants to save. He purposely chose fewer people to be save. Why fewer? It then is clear God purposely did not choose the rest of humanity thus logically speaking by the act of not choosing for election chose for damnation.

Now God makes it clear election is not based on Merit of the person who is elected but because God chose him. What then are the mechanics of selection? Certianly nothing reliant upon the person he chose. It cannot be because that person pleases him because that would be merit base. It cannot be because that person is optimum in God's plan because its merit base, nor can it be because of its contribution to the Glory of God because once again its merit based.

Therefore, the selection must be arbitrary or random in order for it to have nothing to do with the elect themselves. If Random then the person elect is reliant on luck rather than a discriminating God. And if so that lessens God's soveriegnty which contradicts the principles of TULIP. Therefore there is a significant theological problem with this view.

 

Math. 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

This verse does not uphold Tulip rather the choice and individual can make for God. Note:

Advice given can only be taken by people with the ability to choose. Also note

indicates there is on the part of the person an actual seeking. Which again goes against the idea that the Elect have no other choice but the one God has given them. Or the non elect with the same choice non other but the one God has given them.

 

Nice change of subject! Your objection was based upon the fact that unconditional election would only save a "few" rather than "many" in comparison to conditional election. This text demonstrates your argument is baseless as God indeed will only save "few" in comparison to "many." This text states the bottom line regardles of which veiw of election you embrace. Hence, any philosophical argument that attacks unconditional election because it would not glorify God based upon comparison of number saved in contrast to the number lost is a worthless argument.

 

Actually, I didn't change the subject. My objection wasn't based on "Only save a 'few'" You need to re read my post. My contention is that the theology itself has a major flaw and I showed the logical progression of which a "few" was step one. Here again is the progression 1.

2.

which leads to step 3

which leads to step 4

To which logical conclusion we come to step 5

And this conclusion has serious implication for the doctrine of Tulip. That was my assertion. You defended it by quoting from Matthew inidcating dealing with the subject of Few which was just one fallacy I see with this line of reasoning. However, by that verse alone we can see how it doesn't really support the rendering of this doctrine.

 

I answered the primary point of your argument or what you considered the great "flaw" and that is it leads to a MINOR versus a MAJOR victory for God in regard to the doctrine of election and thus decreases rather than increases his optimum for "glory."

Actually, your argument misses the truth on two counts. First, God makes it very clear that only a "few" will actually be saved in comparison to the "many" who will not be saved. Regardless of what reason you may attach to that fact - it is still fact and therefore the minor verus major argument is empty. Second, the purpose in unconditional election is the glory of God equally as the non-election of the rest of fallen humanity. God is glorified in both. His grace is glorified in the elect and his justice is glorified in the non-elect.

 

The flaw makes it necissary that God chose the damned. This is a double predestinarian view. I don't hold to it. It has nothing to do with the few save to show this double predestinarian view. The choosing of the few just makes this point obvious. God by choosing the few also chose the many to not be saved. This is key.

If based entirely on his election then it is God who chooses the many to be damned. How you cannot see this in this doctrine is amazing.

Clearly signifies double predestination.

This does nothing to argue against the predestinarian view in fact you are saying God is double predestinarian in operation thus proven to be a tryant for the purpose of "his glory". Because based on your statement quoted above if God chose to save everyone he is just as glorified. If God chose to condemn all people he is just as glorified which makes his "glory" irrelevant and you come back to God arbitrarily chosing the elect or Random. This is ultimately the problem with this view. God is less than chance and the elect are selected randomly or arbitrarily. Do you understand it now?

 

Why don't we just go to Romans Chapter One.

Paul clearly says that "all" man is without excuse, as the "reality" that God exists is clearly expressed in all of Creation.

Ok........So here we have a blanket indictment towards all men........ala Romans 3:23....."For all have sinned...etc."

So within that parameter that includes "all" men........there is a factor here. There are those who "refuse" or "reject" the "reality" of God via His displayed creation before all men.

Now who has made a decision here.........It seems quite apparent that Paul intimates that "man" makes a move towards or responds "towards" His maker based on his/man's reception or rejection of "evidences" presented by God via His creation.

Yet, the TULIP society can't seem to understand that God is the "Saver", the "Remaker", the "Restorer", of the divine relationship that involves man's cooperation, but God's total miraculous work of salvation.

For man to respond is interpretted by the TULIP group as man in some say saving himself or being involved in the salvation process that is solely God's realm.

How skewed, how untrue! Man was created from the beginning not as an automaton that is either flawed of incapable to receive salvation or is wired correctly to receive the grace of God. Man was given a "will"........that could be exercised to the quality of "willingness".

Just as Christ shared of the "seed and sower"........there in deed is soft, hard, harder, and hardest ground.......as anyone who has planted a garden or tended or planted vegetation know.

Christ said that "hard" ground needed to be broken-up to receive those seeds so that they can go deep down into the soil substrate and make deep roots where the water resides.

None are born with fertile/tilled soil for souls. We all need breaking-up to small or greater measure according to our innate makeup. God's salvation process is part and partial with breaking-up the soul/soil so that His Word can seep in and start/initiate the process that will lead towards the "will" surrendering/receiving that life-giving life from God.

The N.T. and especially the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, just over-flow with men/women's wills cooperating with Jesus' call. Peter's Acts speech pierced the souls of Jews from all ends of the known earth that met for Pentacost in Jerusalem.

Prepared Ground: John the Baptist preached repentance.......He prepared the way in the hearts of "willing" Jews to receive the "Christ".

Man's cooperation or involvement with God in the salvation process is not a indictment of God's lack of omnipotence in "saving" man's soul, but is a beautiful display of God's design and preparation of man to receive from Him eternal life. A "willing" soul is a thankful soul a pliable soul........An unwilling soul is an unuseable soul.

I have three sons............They are grown up now and all married. Two looked forward to going to church, one didn't. Did God make two of them willing and one not-will, or are we looking at the infinite variations of a created beings soul................Hard ground, less-hard ground.......

Some of the hardest souls to crack.......When cracked have the greatest admiration for God's grace as they can see the vast gulf between them and the gift of salvation.....or sinner versus a Holy, loving God.

Remember the kid that stayed home and resented his prodigal brother. The kid that stayed home had it all........yet he couldn't comprehend the "grace" of God as the prodigal could. The prodigal realized the vast gulf between his previous life, and the life that was always there for him back at home.

Who will value the special cloak from the father the most?

Again, the scriptures just exude with man's willingness based on man's interpretation of how life has been dealt-out to him. One is resentful, another contrite.

Again, Romans 3:23 says it all. There are no "special ones"..but God has blessed the one made in His image with the faculties to discern.........and with that we are without excuse(Romans 1).

 

GE:

Glory to God in the highest!

Note "there be few that FIND it"; not "which go in thereat". Few find it and are also BROUGHT IN through and in Jesus Christ.

Note as well: Not by "LUCK" according to think less stuff, but by GOD SOVEREIGNLY WILLING IN HIS GRACE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Christian Faith is not Muslim fatalism but THE UNFAILING PARTICULAR LOVE OF GOD.

Scorn on ye workers of iniquity, the iniquity of your self-righteousness!