Geographical Calvinism

By the way, the Doctrines of Grace only speak to the "how" of salvation, not the "why". So your original question really doesn't deal with the 5-points anyways, which I tried to show early on that this is an issue for both C and A and everyone inbetween. </font>[/QUOTE]In my opinion you can't separate the how from the why ... the Bible doesn't. And the original question does deal with the foundational premise of Calvinism which suggests God elected certain persons to salvation ... it just seems ironic that most of those people happen to live in the same countries and families - another issue in and of itself (genetic Calvinism). </font>[/QUOTE]I see the "why" of salvation in Eph. 1:11 -

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will

We do not know the counsel of His will in all matters.

 

Maybe all are, maybe some are, maybe none are. How would I know? And unless I know, the question is nonsensical.

My answer is that over the whole of human history this has not been, nor will it prove to be, the case.

No, you missed the point of my answer. God elects people before the foundation of the world, without regards to their place or time. He then places those elect people into times and places in which they will hear the gospel and believe. Time and place, then, are tools he uses to work out his plan for their salvation. Election results in specific time and place rather than specific time and place resulting in election.

The two things--election and time/place--correlate, but you are assuming the relationship to be exactly the opposite of what a Calvinist would. Election is the cause of time/place rather than time/place being the cause of election.

 

Why does election have to be balanced? Why did God reveal Himself to Isreal and for hundreds of years ignore other nations?

God doesn't have to be "balanced", He is perfect so whatever He does is never unbalanced.

 

And I'm saying that election isn't restricted to certain people groups, but is rather the choice of certain people, and those people are placed in places and times where they will hear the gospel.

And why are you choosing the arbitary criteria of "the same era" to decide whether election is balanced or not? Why does that make more sense than considering all of human history together? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider all of history as one, since that would be the vantage point God has?

BTW, I don't think God is "balanced", if by that, you mean that he treats all people everywhere exactly equally. And I don't know where, from scripture, you get that idea. God never makes that claim for himself. He makes the claim that he is always be just, but not that he treats everyone exactly equally.

As I've said before, the question is nonsense because its based on silly assumptions, arbitrary criteria.

So, if you think it's so important for God to be balanced, why don't you object that he doesn't cause all people throughout the ages and in every place to have equal opportunity to hear the gospel?

 

Yawn. Straw man. Next it will be robots. Then "Calvin is a murderer." Can't you folks think of anything new? </font>[/QUOTE]I frankly have been wondering if Calvinists can think of anything but Calvinism.

 

Yawn. Straw man. Next it will be robots. Then "Calvin is a murderer." Can't you folks think of anything new? </font>[/QUOTE]I frankly have been wondering if Calvinists can think of anything but Calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]I am a Calvinist, and right now, i'm thinking of food.

 

Is it?

 

So you reject limited atonement and unconditional election? </font>[/QUOTE]All, how does the belief that election is not limited to certain geographical areas negate limited atonement and unconditional election?

 

Here is my answer to your question:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't need to know.
3. God's ways are above my ways.
4. I have no right to judge God and his righteousness or fairness.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Here is my answer to your question:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't need to know.
3. God's ways are above my ways.
4. I have no right to judge God and his righteousness or fairness.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Joe, I appreciate your response but Calvinist's get beat up on that all the time. Whenever they say, "I don't know" as their final answer they get accused of the ostrich position (sticking their heads in the sand). I am not advocating fabrication of a position. Not at t'all. Sometimes they have to look at the premise behind the question. The premise may be fallacious, or it may truly be desirous of the truth. This is where wisdom and walking by the Spirit come into play.

 

doulous,

I appreciate your concern. I am not, however, worried about what a bunch of carnal Arminians think about me.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Doulous,

I do like your blog though. I wish I knew how you did that phoneblogz thing. That was really neat.

Joseph Botwinick

 

So everyone thats not a calvinist is carnal, or just the ones on here?

Or more like someone who shows this type of spirit towards others that is carnal! Yeah, thats the ticket!

Your something else Jospeh.

 

I have learned that you are not much of a reasonable man Joseph. And that the teachings of calvinism is your all and all but I do not insult you by calling you carnal or anything else. Its called respect.