Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

This line of argument has been dealt with and refuted already. God commanded complete obedience to the Law in its entirerty knowing full well it could not be done.

It si a simple logical error. You think that when God makes a demand it implies human ability. In fact that is a non sequitur. The only thing that is necessarily implied is human responsibility to respond.

 

I see arminians make this statement over and over. Yet there is not a single verse in the Bible that says anything like "God would never give a command unless we were able to choose of our own free will to obey or disobey the command". So, given that you are as affected by the fall as the rest of us, and that there's no revealed word on this issue, how is it you have come to this privileged knowledge of what God would or would not do?

 

God sent Moses and Aaron to command Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go. God said in Exodus 3:19, "And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand." God knew that Pharaoh would not let the children of Israel go, but He still sent Moses and Aaron to command Pharaoh to let them go. Hmmm...

[ January 24, 2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

So you're telling me the Bible says God did something He would never do? Get the white-out!!

 

Theological usage is not always the same as colloquial usage. That should be obvious.

Welcome aboard. I have been saying that since day one.

Free will operates in accordance with the nature. God is free but cannot choose to act outside of his nature. In the same way, man is free but cannot choose to act outside of his nature. Natural man will not come in faith to God because he is unwilling; his nature cannot tolerate God.

 

I don't like the term "free will", since if man's will does not step out of the bounds of man's nature, it is (IMO) by definition not "free". But I agree with your explanation 100%.

 

Agree concerning limits of nature, but God created us to be with Him. Therefore, hearing of God and believing, then choosing are well within the limits of man's nature.

I don't know about you, but before I came to belief in God, being from a very close family of 8, I was lonely for God. I didn't know what it was then, but when I finally did of my own free will submit to believing Jesus, I lost my feelings of loneliness, and took on feelings of fulfillment. God may well have been the one who put the yearning in my spirit, but it was my choice alone to believe. I credit, and praise my mother for her persistence in providing me with Christian education.

 

I see Calvinists uses these same type of examples over and over, but just like Romans 9, those are temporal instances, as opposed to the means by which people may be saved. You all keep denying double predestination, but if God only commands repentance that He knows they can't do without His special enabling, and then withholds that from them, all He's doing is assigning these people to Hell, and making a reason to send them. Exodus 33:11 & Luke 12:48 are the closest to saying that God wouldn't do that, as well as Ps. 103:14. God is not playing some game with men, where certain of them are set up to lose no matter what.
Contrary to "Paul wrote Romans 9 anticipating people having no escape from Hell would offend people", this whole idea of eternal preterition or reprobation and the interpretations necessary to read them into scripture was unheard of in Bible times, so no, there are not going to be any scriptures addressing or directly refuting it. So what we're using is Bible principle.

[ January 25, 2003, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

The difference is that the Calvinist examples are taken from the Bible and not from their imagination of what God would do if He were the kind of God they wanted Him to be.

Not everyone does. I don't deny it. I don't know if it's true, but I don't know if it's false, either. Double predestination doesn't bother me. It might be a horrid thing if it worked the way I might think double predestination works. But I know I can't see it from God's perspective, so it's seems rather silly for me to judge the concept from my limited perspective.

Bzzt. For the millionth time, God isn't making a reason in the Calvinist view anymore than He is in the Arminian view. People go to hell in the Calvinist view for the same reaon they go to hell in the Arminian view. They're sinners, and that's where they deserve to go.

Whether you believe in Calvinism, Arminianism, or anything inbetween, you can't get away from a simple logical conclusion: If God's purpose was to save everyone, then He would save everyone. But He is not going to. It may make you feel better to convince yourself that they had an equal chance to choose otherwise of their own free will, but you can't make something true simply because it makes you feel better.

So to repeat: In both cases God tosses X number of people into the lake of fire. It's going to happen. Deal.

Amazing! Does it not seem the least bit imprudent to wave away the plain indisputable language of Romans 9 as "temporal instances", yet take a verse like Luke 12:48 and squeeze out of it the unwritten (temporal or otherwise) axiom that "God would not command anything unless we had the ability to comply?"

 

Youre taking examples from the Bible and reading Calvinistic meanings into them. As I said, Luke 12:48 is a principle that helps us draw our conclusion.

But something dawned on me just after making that post; I should have realized this from the beginning. You keep comparing the New Covenenat command to repent and believe with the Old Covenant Law, which man could not keep, and think one works the same as the other.
But what was really the purpose of the Law in the first place? The only reason it was given was because of sin (Gal.3:19). It was never even really expected to be kept, since its whole purpose was to point out where we fall short (Romans 7:7)

Precisely since it could not be kept, and therefore couldn't save, but only condemn, Paul calls it "the Law of sin and death" (Rom.7; 8:2 cf. 1 Cor.15:56) and "the Letter Kills" (2.Cor.3:6) "The ministration of death (7,8) as opposed to "the ministration of the Spirit", "which gives life" (ibid. ff). Of course, in Gal. 2 & 3 we have the classic passage contrasting the Law with Christ, who can be received by simple faith. The period of time when man was under the Law He couldn't keep, "...God winked at, but now commands men, everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

To equate faith with the Law as people are doing, and make it just another command God gives that man cannot keep, is to reduce the New Testament Gospel to just another "Law of sin and Death"!
That is why so many men are still left without hope in that system, and that is why we oppose it, not simply because it seems "nicer" to us, or whatever you charge! To the non-elect, it is if Christ had not come at all (except as something else from God for them to reject and wind up even deeper in condemnation) What "good news" is this, except to a relative few in the world? IF God was working by unconditional election, He could have just 'enabled' the OT "elect" to keep the Law, and Christ would not have even been necessary.

So once again, there are many scriptuiral principles that lead us to say God wouldn't do that. With my schedule, it is hard for me to think of them all when participating in this debate, but they do linger in the back of our minds. I do advise the other non-calvinists to try to remember more of the scriptural resources that support our side, (and not to get caught up in certain endless circular debates one side brings it back to to try to "stump" the other) so to challenge the Calvinist claim to a monopoly on scripture.

[ January 25, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

And how much hope does a man have in your system, Eric, if, at the end of man's probationery period, you still end up with just as many people in eternal torment as the Calvinist system does? How much hope does your system of teaching truly offer if by your own teaching you claim that the vast majority, free will or not, end up in eternal torment?

Futhermore, how invincible is the purpose of God if any system teaches that just about everyone whom God desires to save, free will or not, ends up being lost from Him forever? Who wins in that case - God or Satan?

Just some things for all of us to think about.

 

"Who gave you to your mother?"

Since there is but one recorded immaculate conception, I guess the credit goes to my biological father. He at least had something to do with it.

Even though he was a righteous living man, and he lived his Christianity, he is not the one who taught me about Jesus. My mother presented me to Christ and by teaching me as she did, she gave me what I needed to make the choice that all men must make.

Did God have something to do with it? Silly question!
Did God create?
Did God make Law?
Did God have Grace, Love, Mercy, and justice toward his creation?
Did God not make the environment in which my parents could live and procreate with me the result?

Of course all of the above are true. God is in His creation through and through. Yes, He is omniscient, and knows all who will live, etc.

God however COMMANDS MAN in his word, "YOU (implied) raise up your child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it". My mother accepted the challenge, and it was a great challenge! So very many mothers and fathers do not accept the challenge and the result is spiritual anarchy world wide.

Being raised at a time when I reached adulthood in California, in the sixties, if I had not been taught the Christian principles, I would have without hesitation been a "flower child", producing "love babies", all in the name of love.
But because of the teaching I received I was not drawn by the great deception into that lifestyle. Never having experienced free sex, drugs of any kind (except prescription) or licentiousness, I owe what I am to my mother.

I owe, who I was to my parents, but now, who I am to my redeemer Jesus the Son of God!

 

And, Yelsew, what about the billions and billions of people who will never have a parent or anyone else in this age who will teach them as your mother did you? Is that fair to them? Is that a level playing field on which to exercise free will in order to be saved?

 

You are implying that I am one of the "elect" because my mother who, in her youth was a dance hall girl, learned about Jesus and made the same decision that all men must make or neglect to make; and who fell in love with Jesus so much that she wanted all six of her children to love him too! (83% do!).

She was one of 11 children, and was the only one who made that crucial decision while in their twenties. The rest of them shunned her, living raucus lives, until they reached their sixth decade when they faced their own mortality. Now, because they learned about Jesus from my mother, 6 of them have confessed Jesus as their savior. and Many of my 44 cousins also confess Jesus. Of the 4 of her generation who remain living this life, two are still humbly confessing Jesus. The other two will not listen.

Selective election does not fit this picture! Persistance in teaching Jesus fits this picture. God's word did not return to Him void, but brought many with it.

Let me add that there wasn't any in her generation or mine that she couldn't whup soundly. At 5'2" tall she could humble her 6'+ brothers in a cat's breath. (She might have beat some into submission)

 

That's wonderful, Yelsew, that you had a godly mother. But you have not dealt with the issue of the billions and billions of people who do not have a mother like yours or anyone else who will teach them the gospel. You have not dealt with the problem in this age of an unlevel playing field. You have not dealt with the unfairness of your own soteriological system.

 

I knew this would be the answer. But I for one was not pushing for "absolute equal chance for everyone". Some do have supposedly a better chance than others, but the mitigating factor is once again, Luke 12:48, which Calvinism doesn't even seem to acknowledge. (God just punishes them all equally for their "sin") That is a better chance than God specifically passing over a person out of a particular "hatred" for him. You all insist God is passive, but this is the only way to consistently have God be passive with regard to the lost. You do have a point with "if God really wants to save all...", but for one thing, being born to Christian parents or in a Christian society does not guarantee a "better chance"; if anything, it could guarantee greater hardening or blindness, as people are used to the lingo, and it doesn't mean anything to them, and they see and pick out the sins/hypocrisies of Christians, etc. Just think of ancient Israel. People who have never heard may be more likely to respond because of the newness of it. Now as to those who never hear, this is a hard teaching. In fact, we're accused of rejecting a teaching because it is "hard", but to just shrug it off as "oh, well, those people just weren't "elect" is actually "the easy way" if you don't mind the other hard position that raises-- That God purposefully left them that way to show us His "wrath" when He sends them to Hell. (Do you want to enjoy seeing some jungle dweller you knewer knew existed being tortured just to show God's power? Aren't there so many more nicer exaples of His power)
Also, it has been suggested that such a person could come to a point where they cry out to "Whoever You are", and then God would send the Word to them so they could believe (Just like you would say if they are elect, God would send His Word).
At this point, it becomes more speculative, but that's because the Bible doesn't tell us to worry about what happens if people never hear, but to make sure we do what we can so that they will hear.

 

Ken H.

Salvation is not the result of the amount of knowledge of God that one has, but rather what one does with what one has!

Man has the innate ability to believe even the smallest of lies and act on it. If man can do that with a lie, man can do that with the smallest amount of truth. It is individual man's responsibility to act on what he has, rather than what he does not have. That is what I did, and that is what every man must do! If you do not actively believe in Jesus, you passively reject him. Like I said on another topic, if you are in the train station and it arrives, you must actively board the train or you will still be in the station when the train has left. Then you are left to ponder the possibility that was the last train! You may however be blessed with another train. But you still must actively board that train or again you are left standing in the station after the train is gone. There are only so many trains!

That is what makes the playing field even, we each act, or not act, on what we have. Faith the size of the tiny mustard seed is sufficient! In the face of all that my mother gave me, I still had to take the "action" necessary to have eternal life with Christ. Those who only get a faint glimpse into God must still act upon it as if they had the whole story. That is not my game plan, but it is the way God makes it happen.

Here's something that addresses this issue pretty well.

Since all men are not, at the start, given the same amounts of everything, and life is not judged on the amount you have at the end. One can only do with what one is given, and make the very best of it,...that is free will choice!

When it comes to believing, I cannot believe based on what you or anyone else knows, I can only believe on what I know. I cannot believe on your behalf either, I must believe for myself and no other. I can act on what I know to your benefit, and you to mine, but I cannot believe for you, nor you for me.

 

There is one Bible, not two. Repentance and faith are themes throughout.

Amen! So much for the speculation that God would never command anything unless we were able to comply of our own free will. I hope you will now point out how absurd this axiom is whenever your fellow free-will advocates recite it.

Wow - if you had taken that any farther out of context, I'm afraid only NASA would have the transportation to get to it. Here's a larger section. (By the way, I love the "free will" in verse 26.)

Repent of what? Of such ignorance. There is a definitely a general call for everyone to repent, so I'm not disputing your point. But this verse isn't it.

It would turn faith into another law of sin and death if God Himself did not give the free gift of faith to the elect. What you say only makes sense if God had not planned to give us faith, and left us to discover that we could not muster it on our own. But that's not how it works, so I don't see how you can make any such connection.

Nevertheless, the fact that you can imagine a scenario that doesn't exist (one where God does not give the gift of faith) doesn't seem related in any way to the problem at hand, and that is whether or not God commands us to do something that we cannot do of our own free will. Clearly, God does this regarding the law, and clearly God does this regarding faith. The difference is that He provides faith.

That seems logical, but I don't know if it would actually be possible. I don't think we'll know until we meet God, and even then we may not.

Regardless, I don't see how you can connect the dots from that to the assumption that we have free will. Quite the contrary, your observation proves to me that we do not have free will. If we had free will (in the sense that we could choose to do anything good or bad without any inclination or bias), we could choose to follow the law. The fact that we cannot follow the law should tell you that we do not have free will.

 

Perhaps we should all rethink our idea of a God that tortures or torments His own creation.

[ January 26, 2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Ken H ]