If Calvinism is true is God a racist?

[Rippon]

Now, I know you Calvinists are going to hammer me for this title, but this is an honest question. This is something I really struggled with when I was a Calvinist and I really do wonder how Calvinists answer this question.

I seriously doubt you were ever a Calvinist.And why in the world is this particular OP somehow construed as a condemnation of Calvinism?! In the Arminian scheme of things the distribution of the saved is still the same.

If you look at statistics regarding Christianity you will see some nationalities (such as the Chinese) have very few who claim to believe in Christ. I'm just wondering why?

There might very well be more Christians in China than Christians in America. The Church underground is very healthy from what I hear.

If indeed God is the one making the choice with regard to who He saves and who he passes over,

Amen. The Lord decides who He has mercy upon and who He hardens.

Could these stats rightly bring the objection that God is a racists [sic]in that he prefers to save Anglos more than Asians?

No. That would be a stupid conjecture. The Lord has made everyone. How could He be racist?! How could the Lord be charged with any sin?!

Why do you suppose God chooses to save more people in a particular area of the world?

It is His perfect pleasure to do whatsoever He wants. Why do you dare question the Lord on this? Besides, we don't know when the whole scope of history is revealed just what the percentages will be. He saves from among all tribes,nations and languages.

 

[Rippon]

I believe the problem with this thread is it shows you yet another reason why Calvinism is wrong, and you don't want to hear it.

Your proposition is nonsensical as has been demonstrated by (among others) Martin,Kyredneck, rsr,Tom Butler, Solasaint, Old Regular, Jcjordan, Annsni and canadyjd. Yet you still persist in your quest to tilt at winmills.

 

[Winman]

Isn't it man's disobedience that lands him in trouble? I heard a Christian radio show the other day comment on this and they asked what was the difference in South and North America, why was one Continent mostly Christian and the other not. They answered what I thought to be a very good response in that North America was discovered and populated by people wanting to spread the Gospel and worship God freely, whereas South America was discovered and populated by people wanting to get rich by searching for gold and other treasures. Look at the two today?

This doesn't support Calvinism. You are saying man makes the difference.

North America was populated primarily by Protestants, South America primarily by Catholics.

 

[Winman]

Secondly, from an Arminian perspective, could you explain why the "free-will" of Asians has been so resistive to the gospel, while the "free-will" of western whites has been so receptive?

Simple. The Western nations were Christian and had the scriptures, while Eastern nations were primarily Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist.

You won't accept it, but it shows that it is the preaching of the gospel that makes the difference. In nations where the scriptures and the gospel was widely known and preached you have a high percentage of Christians, and in the nations where the scriptures and gospel was not widely known and preached you have a low percentage of Christians.

But if Calvinsim is true, you should roughly see the same percentage worldwide, unless God is a bigot.

 

[annsni]

Speak for yourself! I don't remember you complaining when many threads were being started by pro-Calvinistic posters. I believe the problem with this thread is it shows you yet another reason why Calvinism is wrong, and you don't want to hear it.

I like horses too much to see them being beaten over and over again when they're dead - no matter WHAT breed they are.

 

[canadyjd]

Simple. The Western nations were Christian and had the scriptures, while Eastern nations were primarily Muslim, Hindu, or Buddist.

That is simply nonsensical and easily shown to be untrue.

The Western nations were pagan. The Eastern nations were pagan. The Middle Eastern nations were pagan. The African nations were pagan.

True Christianity began in the Middle East. It moved south into Eygpt, East into the Near East, into India and further, and then West and eventually into the Americas where it encountered more paganism.

Many of the nations that are now Muslim were, at one time, populated by Christians.

You won't accept it, but it shows that it is the preaching of the gospel that makes the difference.

Wait a second! Aren't you the person who said you believe people are saved according to the light they are given? Aren't you the person who said the gospel isn't necessary for salvation? Have you changed your mind?

I have consistently maintained that the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God has ordained to bring salvation to His elect.

The fact that there are more Christians in Asian than in North America shows the gospel has gone into Asia and has been accepted by many.

But if Calvinsim is true, you should roughly see the same percentage worldwide, unless God is a bigot.

Please explain why Calvinism demands the same percentage of Christians among populations worldwide? Does Arminianism demand the same percentage of Christians worldwide?

Please explain how God bringing 285 million Asians to salvation, but only 239 million North Americans to salvation makes God a bigot against the Asians?

Please explain, from an Arminian perspective, why Western whites accept the gospel much more often than Asians or blacks; since we know the gospel has been widely proclaimed in Asia and Africa?

Is there something about Western white "free-will" that makes them more apt to accept the gospel than Asian "free-will" or African "free-will"?

You must believe Western white "free-will" is superior, since a far greater % of Western whites accept the gospel when they hear it, than do Asians or Africans.

Come on, tell us what you believe! When it comes to accepting the gospel, why is Western White "free-will" superior to Asian "free-will" or African "free-will"?

peace to youraying:

 

[Rippon]

God has not chosen to save Calvinist, many of them who don't know Christ and Christ don't know them. Jesus will say I never knew you, you evil doer.

This nonsensical rant has nothing to do with the nonsensical OP.

Many Calvinists were saved when they were non-Cals. I seriously doubt that any are full-fledged Calvinists at the point of belief except that they know all of their salvation from the first to the last is all of the Lord.

Anyone, of any theological stripe who has not leaned on Christ alone for the redemption of their sins will be told by Christ:"I have never known you."

 

[Winman]

The Western nations were pagan. The Eastern nations were pagan. The Middle Eastern nations were pagan. The African nations were pagan.

True Christianity began in the Middle East. It moved south into Eygpt, East into the Near East, into India and further, and then West and eventually into the Americas where it encountered more paganism.

Many of the nations that are now Muslim were, at one time, populated by Christians.

Those figures reflect today, not hundreds of years ago. Mohammed's wife was a Catholic, that is a known fact. There was a far higher percentage of Christians in the Mideast a millenium ago. It is because of the rise of Islam and their censorship of the Christian scriptures that there is a very small number today. And the spread of Islam east and west has had a profound effect on Africa and Asia.

Wait a second! Aren't you the person who said you believe people are saved according to the light they are given? Aren't you the person who said the gospel isn't necessary for salvation? Have you changed your mind?

I said people are held "accountable" for what is revealed to them.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

I also said that all men have some light, the word of God has always been in the world, and that all men are without excuse.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Now, I cannot begin to say who was saved or who was not, I cannot say that as concerning supposed "Christians" who have the scriptures and the gospel, so much less for those who did not. God alone knows who looked to him and trusted in him.

Please explain why Calvinism demands the same percentage of Christians among populations worldwide? Does Arminianism demand the same percentage of Christians worldwide?

If God simply elects men for his pleasure, and God loves all men as the scriptures say, you should expect to see roughly the same percentage among all nations. Those figures showed about 9% in the Middle East compared to 85% or more in Europe and North America. That doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, these figures agree with non-Cal thinking. We believe men are saved by hearing the gospel and willingly trusting Christ. So we expect to see much higher percentages in countries where the gospel is freely and widely preached.

 

[Robert Snow]

I like horses too much to see them being beaten over and over again when they're dead - no matter WHAT breed they are.

Well, beating the dead horse surely doesn't hurt the horse.

BTW, I will be praying for your father after reading what you said in the other thread entitled "Legalism."

 

[annsni]

BTW, I will be praying for your father after reading what you said in the other thread entitled "Legalism."

Thank you Robert. He looked good and was well ticked off at not seeing the doctor all night. If he's ornery, he's doing well. LOL DH and I will go up to see him, a friend of ours (her hubby is another one of our pastors) and another woman who just had a baby last night! It's a 3 for one - a rarity!

 

[canadyjd]

On the other hand, these figures agree with non-Cal thinking. We believe men are saved by hearing the gospel and willingly trusting Christ. So we expect to see much higher percentages in countries where the gospel is freely and widely preached.

The gospel wasn't "freely and widely preached" anywhere in the beginning. The freedom found in Western democracies is a very new phenomenom.

The gospel was hindered by various levels of persecution everywhere it was preached at the beginning in every area.

Despite the resistance in every area of the world, why have Western white populations accepted the gospel at higher percentage rates than Asians and Africans who have heard the same gospel?

What is it about Western white "free-will" that is superior to Asian and African "free-will" when all hear the same gospel?

peace to youraying:

 

[Winman]

The gospel wasn't "freely and widely preached" anywhere in the beginning. The freedom found in Western democracies is a very new phenomenom.

The gospel was hindered by various levels of persecution everywhere it was preached at the beginning in every area.

Despite the resistance in every area of the world, why have Western white populations accepted the gospel at higher percentage rates than Asians and Africans who have heard the same gospel?

What is it about Western white "free-will" that is superior to Asian and African "free-will" when all hear the same gospel?

peace to youraying:

The first Christians were in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then spread to Asia Minor. The churches Paul founded were mostly in what is today modern Turkey and Greece. Later Paul went to Rome, and from there the gospel spread through the Roman Empire. Yes, Christianity was persecuted, but it spread. I wouldn't say the first Christians were white, there were probably more dark-skinned Christians in the early centuries of Christianity. But around 600-700 A.D.came Islam which quickly spread across the Middle East, Africa, and even the Far East. In time Islam censored other religions (not just Christianity), and so today we do not see such a high percentage of Christians in these areas. There were also competing religions in the Far East, primarily Hinduism and Buddism.

There is nothing superior about western free will, who said that? It is that the gospel was more widely available and preached in the west that made the difference.

 

[canadyjd]

The first Christians were in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then spread to Asia Minor. The churches Paul founded were mostly in what is today modern Turkey and Greece. Later Paul went to Rome, and from there the gospel spread through the Roman Empire.

Don't forget the Ethiopian taking the gospel to Eygpt. Many believe that is how Coptic Christianity began.

Yes, Christianity was persecuted, but it spread. I wouldn't say the first Christians were white, there were probably more dark-skinned Christians in the early centuries of Christianity. But around 600-700 A.D.came Islam which quickly spread across the Middle East, Africa, and even the Far East. In time Islam censored other religions (not just Christianity), and so today we do not see such a high percentage of Christians in these areas. There were also competing religions in the Far East, primarily Hinduism and Buddism.

So persecution has an adverse affect on a person's "free-will" choice to accept the gospel?

It is that the gospel was more widely available and preached in the west that made the difference.

I disagree with your assessment of the situation in the West and in Asia and Africa.

The gospel has always encountered persecution. The gospel has always competed with existing non-salvific belief systems.

The gospel is being preached in Asia and Africa. There has been wide spread penetration of the gospel into these areas.

And yet, Asians and Africans use their "free-will" only 8% or 35% of the time, respectively, to accept the gospel, whereas Western whites are using their "free-will" 85% of the time to accept the gospel.

From the Arminian viewpoint, you must conclude that Western white "free-will" is superior to Asian and African "free-will". There can be no other explanation, from an Arminian viewpoint, since the gospel is being proclaimed to all groups and there is such a wide desparity in the results.

peace to youraying:

 

[Robert Snow]

Your proposition is nonsensical as has been demonstrated by (among others) Martin,Kyredneck, rsr,Tom Butler, Solasaint, Old Regular, Jcjordan, Annsni and canadyjd. Yet you still persist in your quest to tilt at winmills.

I have respect for the posters you listed, although I wish you and Kyredneck were not so abrasave, we just disagree about Calvinism.

 

[Winman]

So persecution has an adverse affect on a person's "free-will" choice to accept the gospel?

Persecution doesn't affect a person's free will to accept Christ, but it certainly affects whether the gospel will be preached freely.

If you don't believe me, try flying to Tehran, Iran, go out in the street with your Bible and start preaching the gospel. If you are lucky you will be in jail when the sun goes down, but you have a equal chance of being dead. It's hard to preach the gospel to the masses when you are in prison or dead.

You are just being silly, this is obvious to everyone, do you really think anyone is fooled by this line of questioning? You need to get up a little earlier in the morning to pull something like this over my eyes. You are just making yourself appear foolish.

 

[Winman]

The gospel is being preached in Asia and Africa. There has been wide spread penetration of the gospel into these areas.

And yet, Asians and Africans use their "free-will" only 8% or 35% of the time, respectively, to accept the gospel, whereas Western whites are using their "free-will" 85% of the time to accept the gospel.

From the Arminian viewpoint, you must conclude that Western white "free-will" is superior to Asian and African "free-will". There can be no other explanation, from an Arminian viewpoint, since the gospel is being proclaimed to all groups and there is such a wide desparity in the results.

On the contrary, Christians in China are required to belong to the state church and closely monitored. Under strict communism they were severely persecuted. There has been some improvement in the last several decades and the numbers of Christians has grown. The fastest growing religion in China is Confusiousism which has much more support from the government and is considered a Chinese religion.

And you must not read the papers, Christians are often persecuted in Africa where Islam is the dominant religion.

http://www.persecution.org/concern/2002/03/p2.html

http://www.persecution.org/concern/2002/03/p3.html

Your last statement is silly, the low numbers of Christians in Muslim countries and countries in the Far East is exactly what non-Cal theology would expect, but contradicts Calvinism.

 

[Martin]

But if Calvinsim is true, you should roughly see the same percentage worldwide, unless God is a bigot.

==That is a very interesting statement. If for no other reason, it is interesting because of the assumption that it rests upon. The assumption seems to be that God is required to save a certain number of people from each group. Yet, the Holy Scriptures never says that God will, or must, save a certain number from each group. God has His reasons for sometimes preventing Christians from entering certain areas (Acts 16:6-8). I don't know those reasons, but I can promise you that race has nothing to do with it. In fact, salvation does not rest upon anything in man (or about man). God saves who He wills and has mercy upon who He wills. He is not under any obligations. Having said that, God makes it clear that people from "every nation and tribes and peoples and tongues" (Rev 7:9) will be saved. What groups will be more heavily represented than others? We can't know that. Just because Christianity is more widely accepted in European nations and America, does not mean there are more true Christians in those nations. I believe that Jesus taught only a minority of mankind will be saved (Lk 13:25-27, Matt 7:21-23). While the number of saved will be uncountable, the number of lost will probably be higher (ie...the truly saved are the minority).

Back to my original point about the assumption behind your statement. If you can't find that assumption stated or supported by Scripture, you are better off to forget it. I believe God is Holy, Just, and Loving. He always does what is right. I don't have to understand everything He does, allows, or wills. That is called faith and that is what we are suppose to live by. Debating how many "elect" come from what nations (etc) seems to be a waste of time and effort. Its like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

 

[Skandelon]

rsr,

First, thank you for addressing the question of the OP in a civil manner and without resorting to personal attack. I appreciate that.

The short answer is we don't know why God chooses to save anyone in particular. And we really don't know what proportion of any group will, in fact, be saved, outward appearance notwithstanding.

You don't know, but you do acknowledge that it does at least appear a bit "lop sided," don't you? I help direct a ministry sending missionaries to Tokyo, and believe it or not this question comes up with some of the people in our group who are teaching Calvinism to the newer converts.

This is not a problem confined to Calvinism. From an Arminian perspective, how could God justly condemn someone for not responding to a call that he had not — because he had grown up in a culture ignorant of or hostile to Christianity — been able to hear?

I believe scripture is pretty clear that men are held responsible for the level of the revelation they have received. I certainly don't think we can fully understand that on this side of heaven, but I can list the scriptures if you would like.

How would an Arminian explain the fact that, for much of Christian history, vast expanses of the globe had not received the Gospel? Would that explanation be any different from a Calvinist's?

Sure it would. The people who are condemned to hell in the Calvinistic system are there because God cursed them from birth with a condition of "Total Depravity" because of what Adam and Eve did, thus destining them to certain eternal condemnation.

In our system they have all that they need to respond to the level of the revelation they have received and thus are "without excuse."

 

[Skandelon]

Persecution doesn't affect a person's free will to accept Christ, but it certainly affects whether the gospel will be preached freely.

If you don't believe me, try flying to Tehran, Iran, go out in the street with your Bible and start preaching the gospel. If you are lucky you will be in jail when the sun goes down, but you have a equal chance of being dead. It's hard to preach the gospel to the masses when you are in prison or dead.

You are just being silly, this is obvious to everyone, do you really think anyone is fooled by this line of questioning? You need to get up a little earlier in the morning to pull something like this over my eyes. You are just making yourself appear foolish.

Actually I would say it does affect some people's willingness to follow Christ. When Jesus spoke to those wanting to be his disciples, he told them to "consider the cost." He used two illustrations: one of a man building a tower and another of someone going to war. One must think about the costs of following Christ and that requires a will. "Come let us REASON together."

So, does know you might be killed or disowned prevent some from being willing to follow Christ? Sure it does!

The bible speaks of many things that affect men's will in salvation. Paul talked about Israel being provoked to envy so that they might be saved. If the "effectual call" is in effect then what would be the purpose of envy in provoking the will?

 

[canadyjd]

....I believe scripture is pretty clear that men are held responsible for the level of the revelation they have received. I certainly don't think we can fully understand that on this side of heaven, but I can list the scriptures if you would like...

In our system they have all that they need to respond to the level of the revelation they have received and thus are "without excuse."

I Cor. 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."

This passage seems to be pretty clear. The world does not come to know God without the gospel.

In fact, the fact they do not come to know God outside of the gospel is called "the wisdom of God".

I also notice that the gospel is the means God has ordained to "save those who believe".

That is conclusive, IMHO.

Perhaps you see it a little differently?

BTW, what is it about Western white "free-will" that makes it superior to Asian and African "free-will"? We know the gospel has gone out throughout Asia and Africa, and yet they respond only 8% and 35% respectively.

Surely, as an Arminian, you must come to the conclusion that Western white "free-will" is superior to Asian and African "free-will", don't you?

peace to youraying: