Geographical Calvinism

Your arrogance and condescending attitude bores me. I would rather tangle with the likes of Timtoolman and Webdog, though we disagree intensely, at least they are not obsessed with their own sense of being above the fray from everyone else. Just about every other post of yours displays this attitude.

 

Sure, I will respond:

I don't know. There are many things about the plan and purposes of God that I don't know.

But the non-Calvinist has the same quandary. Why do certain geographical locations have more Christians? Well, because they chose it. Ergo, those geographical locations are smarter, wiser, better than other areas that didn't choose Christ.

So I honestly don't see how this apparent dilemma only sticks to Calvinists.

 

This reminds me of the person who is confronted for having a judgmental spirit throwing it back to his confronters that they themselves are judgmental. Regardless, I know that I am not alone in my accusations against you, as I have seen others on this board accuse you of the same attitude.

 

AAG,

This question really is an apparent quandary for both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist or anyone who believes in God's perfect omniscience. As soon as God decided to create the world, He knew that people would end up in hell. So, I'm sorry that you aren't satisfied with it, but I really don't have an answer to it. Do you? Do you know the purpose of God in creating a world where people go to hell?

 

Yes, it is sad to see arrogance in any Christian, Calvinist or not. But I disagree that arrogance naturally lends itself to the Doctrines of Grace. It should be the most humbling of all doctrines. But I admit that in our sinfulness, it does not always evidence itself in that way.

 

Matthew 28:19-20 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Ephesians 2:12-15 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Why did God wait so long to send the gospel to the Gentiles? Why was faith in Yahweh and the coming Redeemer generally limited to Holy Land?

When the twelve apostles left to become itinerant preachers/evangelists, why did some of the nations accept and others reject?

Why did the birthplace of Christianity (Israel) become apostate and the gospel travel (and thrive) on the opposite end of the globe?*

Could it be that all of this in the plan of God? God is using certain nations of the world to bring the gospel to the world? He has done so in the past. Might He not do it now and in the future?

By the way, I don't separate Calvinism from the gospel. I believe the bible teaches sovereign grace and it cannot be torn from the gospel.

 

Exactly. This leads us to man having no excuse, compared to man having nothing they can do about it, making God a respector of persons.

He didnt' create a world where people go to hell, He created a perfect creation where sin causes people to go to hell. Your view would make God the author of sin. The only logical conclusion is that man has free will to sin and to accept God's gift of salvation. If we don't have free will, God created sin for us, which I deem heretical.

 

Exactly. This leads us to man having no excuse, compared to man having nothing they can do about it, making God a respector of persons.

He didnt' create a world where people go to hell, He created a perfect creation where sin causes people to go to hell. Your view would make God the author of sin. The only logical conclusion is that man has free will to sin and to accept God's gift of salvation. If we don't have free will, God created sin for us, which I deem heretical. </font>[/QUOTE]Webdog, let's not turn this into another "author of sin" debate. The point is, when God created the world, in His perfect omniscience he knew that people would end up in hell. How could a loving being do such a thing? He should have created nothing at all! And that is really the thrust of AAG's quandary, it's just removed one step back at the point when God decided to create the world.

 

Exactly. This leads us to man having no excuse, compared to man having nothing they can do about it, making God a respector of persons.

He didnt' create a world where people go to hell, He created a perfect creation where sin causes people to go to hell. Your view would make God the author of sin. The only logical conclusion is that man has free will to sin and to accept God's gift of salvation. If we don't have free will, God created sin for us, which I deem heretical. </font>[/QUOTE]Webdog, let's not turn this into another "author of sin" debate. The point is, when God created the world, in His perfect omniscience he knew that people would end up in hell. How could a loving being do such a thing? He should have created nothing at all! And that is really the thrust of AAG's quandary, it's just removed one step back at the point when God decided to create the world. </font>[/QUOTE]God is not just a "loving God" He is also just, holy and vengeful. We do God (and our understanding of Him) an injustice when we spend too much time emphasizing just one of His attributes.

 

Exactly. This leads us to man having no excuse, compared to man having nothing they can do about it, making God a respector of persons.

He didnt' create a world where people go to hell, He created a perfect creation where sin causes people to go to hell. Your view would make God the author of sin. The only logical conclusion is that man has free will to sin and to accept God's gift of salvation. If we don't have free will, God created sin for us, which I deem heretical. </font>[/QUOTE]Webdog, let's not turn this into another "author of sin" debate. The point is, when God created the world, in His perfect omniscience he knew that people would end up in hell. How could a loving being do such a thing? He should have created nothing at all! And that is really the thrust of AAG's quandary, it's just removed one step back at the point when God decided to create the world. </font>[/QUOTE]God is not just a "loving God" He is also just, holy and vengeful. We do God (and our understanding of Him) an injustice when we spend too much time emphasizing just one of His attributes. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Would it be "just" of me to put a treat in my dog's mouth...and then hit her and send her to be euthanized for eating it? Not too "just", or "holy". Vengeful, maybe, but in a sadistic way.

 

Well, duh. I have a feeling the original poster was so anxious to sound controversial that he lost sight of the obvious. Being wise in his own eyes, he became a fool.

 

Yawn. Straw man. Next it will be robots. Then "Calvin is a murderer." Can't you folks think of anything new?

 

This objection betrays a bad heart. It would obligate the CREATOR to the CREATURE. It makes salvation a divine obligation. It denies the right of the potter over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. By the same parity of reasoning it makes the governor of a sovereign state unjust when he pardons one or more men, unless he empties the prison and turns all the prisoners loose.

Our view of election is in harmony with what even the Arminians allow to be proper and just for a human governor. All can see that a governor, by pardoning some men, does not harm others, who are not pardoned. Those who are not pardoned are not in prison because the governor refused them a pardon but because they were guilty of a crime against the state. Isn't God to be allowed as much sovereignty as the governor of a state? Salvation, like a pardon, is something that is not deserved. If it were deserved, then God would be unjust if He did not bestow it upon all men.

Salvation is not a matter of justice but of mercy. It wasn't the attribute of justice that led God to provide salvation but the attribute of mercy. Justice is simply each man getting what he deserves. Those who go to hell will have nobody to blame but themselves, while those who go to heaven will have nobody to praise but God.

Rom 9:22-23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

I challenge the premise to this question. Why do you think that God allowed entire people groups to die without electing any of them? Do you think God won't keep his promise to Abraham that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed? Do you think that Christ didn't purchase "for God persons from every tribe, language, people, and nation"?

I happen to believe that God has elected and will save people from among all the people groups of the earth. It seems to me you have way more 'splainin' to do than I.