Do Anti-Calvinists Believe God is a Robot?

If we add Bible to Bible and realize that we have a choice to believe or not believe, then this verse becomes slightly different in meaning, indicating that those who believe were predestined to become holy and blameless and were predestined to become adopted. This is in line with the fact that Jesus turns none away that come to Him and Paul's mention in Philippians 1:6 that God will complete the good work He began. </font>[/QUOTE]You lost me. If the verse read, "Just as He chose before the foundation of the world to make us who would be saved holy and blameless", I might agree with you.

But that's not what it says. It says, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love".

There are two statements being made, one follows after the other:

1. He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
2. Why? That we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

And how is it possible to be predestined to become adopted after you are adopted (saved)? "Pre" has a very specific meaning. It does not say, "having postdestined us to the adoption as sons."

[ October 29, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

The choosing is said to be "that we should be holy and without blame"
Not that we should be "in Christ"

the proper interpretation can be found by noting the words "ACCORDING AS" at the begining of the verse which connects it to the previous one.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, Who Hath blessed us will all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundatuon of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

The choosing had nothing to do with Salvation but had to do with our position in Christ. And this can be confirmed by reading on additional verse

"And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ"(eph 2:6)

Once a man get's in Christ he gets in on the choosing. God chose that whoever was in his son would be "blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places" and holy and without blame before him in love"

Also grace was not Physically given to any man "before the World began" for the simple reason that Man was not around to give it to.

"where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare it if thou hast understanding."

 

Here's the whole thing again:

I fail to see how "according as" modifies anything.

It says we were "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world" not that we were chosen before the foundation of the world to have a certain position in Him.

So you're saying that we couldn't have been chosen before the foundation of the world because we weren't around then? Admittedly, this is a long shot, but I'm guessing that this is why the text uses words like "predestined".

I plan to make two corned beef sandwiches tomorrow. I plan to separate out the corned beef so that the fatty slices go in one sandwich and lean slices go in the other. I will put mustard on the lean one and mayonnaise on the other. I prefer lean conred beef with mustard. So here's what I will say tomorrow to the sandwich with mustard: "I chose you before going shopping, that you should be lean and eaten with mustard, having predestined you to be a sandwich that is yummy according to my good pleasure."

According to your reasoning, the only thing I could have predestined was the "yumminess" position of one of these sandwiches, but that I didn't actually plan to make one yummy and one not as yummy (to me). That's just ignoring the plain language of what I said, which is what I believe you are doing to this text in Ephesians. "in Him" and "predestined to the adoption as sons" are pretty clear..

You do realize, of course, that this statement was meant to humble the listener, not to make a point about the order of creation. Regardless, do you honestly know anyone who would argue that we were around when God created heaven and earth?

 

Exactly. Thank you, Shilo.
I received a letter from a young lady this morning who is confused and afraid and hurt because of Calvinist doctrines. She has been reading parts of these threads and is honestly afraid God might be the Calvinist God. I was so angry! How dare the Calvinists think they have a right to spread such confusion and fear?

The verses they keep using for 'proof' of predestination are verses which tell the DESTINATION of the believer -- that was decided beforehand -- not WHO the believers would be. God has allowed us to choose. Yes, He knows who will choose what, but that does not invalidate our freedom to choose. And choosing is NOT a 'works'. It is simply a choice regarding God's work.

Because Christ Himself is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, it is clear that knowledge that sin would happen was there from that same foundation and the remedy for it put in place before it ever occurred. It was all worked out in time, but it was determined ahead of time.

And He died for the sins of the world, not just an elect few. And at the same 'before time', it was decided that believers would be conformed to HIM, would become holy, and eventually would reign with Him. That is the predestination.

God did NOT create people just to abandon them to hell. That is NOT the God I know and love and trust. The God of the Bible loves each and every person ever born, and truly does have a plan for their lives, each and every one. We cannot be part of that without being in Christ, and that choice is left to us, one way or another.

But to say that God has pre-selected a few and abandon the rest is to malign God's character. When I see the results it is causing still in the lives of people who are writing to me because of these threads, I am strongly beginning to wonder where the 'light' of Calvinism is coming from. Jesus is the light of the WORLD. But there is one who parades as an angel of light -- and one of the marks of a cult is this business of 'if you are not one of us, then you are going to hell.'

Calvinism is not just wrong, it is dangerous.

 

Helen, elsewhere you have complained about the "condescension" and lack of love in posts. Are you referring to this, and to your post above?

If He does know beforehand that people will be born and will die, having rejected Him, wouldn't it be more loving for Him to keep them from being born? He KNOWS these people won't believe! Doesn't He? Yet He still permits them to be born, knowing that they will die in their sins. The reason Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd and others have advanced the "Openness Theology" is because of this very reason. They have a true grasp of what foreknowledge means - and it collides with "God's love" and "free will."

According to the Synod of Dort, as they understand the Scriptures, "Christ's death is sufficient for the whole world, yet efficient only for the elect." And no, it's not just a few - it's an innumerable host.

Romans 9:14-21 - "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.' So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.' Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. YOu will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

While some would like to say this is referring to "nations," let it be remembered that Pharaoah was an individual. Pharaoah hardened his heart against God (human responsibility). God hardened Pharaoah's heart (divine sovereignty). Both are true. Both must be maintained. Pharaoah rejected the signs, the miracles, the warnings, the words of the prophet. He is responsible.

This, again, is a condescending an "unloving" statement. You are not just speaking of a theology, but the words you are using show that you are speaking of individuals. No one here has stated that "if you are not one of us, then you are going to hell." We have only asserted what you have, and others have, that unless people repent of their sins and trust Jesus Christ alone to save them, they will be lost and will go to Hell.

Now you are stating that we are part of a cult, that we are instruments of the evil one ("the angel of light"), and that what we believe is dangerous.

Well, what we believe IS dangerous. It tore up the settled institutions in Europe who were stuck in the quagmire of Roman Catholicism. It caused Europe to be evangelized during the Protestant Reformation. It brought about the very first Protestant missiological works and Protestant missionaries. It brought about the Modern Missions Movement. It brought about the Great Awakening. It caused John Newton to pen the hymn "Amazing Grace." It is dangerous, dangerous to the kingdom of darkness.

Rev. G

 

If predestination the way Calvinists teach it were true, then it wouldn't have mattered if Roman Catholicism were torn up or not. The elect were still the elect.

But, at the core of it, it was not Calvinism which challenged Roman Catholicism, but the Bible itself. It is God's Word which stands. And it is that upon which I take my stand.

edit: about the loving thing. I am angry because of the pain and confusion Calvinism is causing people God loves and who need love from us. This is an anger because of love, not in spite of it.

[ October 29, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Catholicism, Pentecostalism, and the majority of Southern Baptists are Arminian in nature?

Sounds like a good reason to be a Calvinist, if you ask me!

 

Helen, if you would stop deciding what is love and what people need, fewer people would be hurt. God created us to depend completely upon him. If calvinism is true, then it would be hateful on your part to encourage a different understanding of God. That would be idolatry. Alot of people are hurt and mad that it is God's way or hell. Should we comfort their false ideas or call them to repentance? People NEED to submit to God. People do not need to feel good about truth.

 

Yes, the Reformers took their stand on the Scriptures alone (sola Scriptura). Still, you need to ask yourself, "What was being preached from the pulpits - from the Bible - that challenged Roman Catholicism?" It wasn't "Arminian" doctrine.

So, you have the right to state that Christians aren't Christians - that they are part of a cult - that they are messengers of the evil one - because you are angry? If a "Calvinist" were angry, thinking that "Arminianism" is against God's Word - that it opposes divine truth - and it makes him angry and he states so, then HE is unloving rather than being essentially loving? That is quite a double standard, sister! Not only that, but none of us who are Reformed have questioned the salvation of those who disagree with us doctrinally. We are not the ones who have stated that those who are "against us" are going to Hell.

This is a sad day, indeed.

Rev. G

 

Ken,

Your no-nonsense communication of the truth has convinced me that it's time to stop messing around.

Non-Calvinism is works salvation, plain and simple. ScottEmerson's (a self-avowed non-Calvinist, if not Arminian) association of Arminianism with Roman Catholicism and Pentecostalism illustrates that point.

I am grateful that the grace of God has blinded the minds of non-Calvinists by keeping them from understanding the implications of their works-based theology. I believe if they understood the logical implications of their theology, they would not have been able to be saved.

Praise God that the non-Calvinists on this board will be rescued from the eternal damnation that will be experienced by their theological bedfellows.

 

"Implications of our 'works based theology'"...
You want to talk about "implications? Well, to return to the original theme of this thread, no, "robot" is not the best illustration of this teaching. A better one is a script.
God has written a story of a world where the future is open, and in the story people have choice and if they believe the Gospel they are saved. But God is really the one who wrote everything that happens, as well as the means for it happening. So one Christian prays for God to save some people he knew of who he couldn't reach. God listened to him and then sends two other Christians their way. The first obeyed and shared the Gospel with two of the people, saying "...IF you receive Christ, you will be saved; if not, you will be lost...". It appears either has a choice, but that is only in the story. So one accepts Christ, the other doesn't. Another Christian doesn't obey, and passes another person without sharing the Gospel. That person dies without Christ. In reality, God had decreed from eternity that the first person was elect, and He scripted him into the world as the first person witnessed to, while the others were the "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction", who are punished for their "free choice" of rejecting God. That was all they could do, given their inability, but in the story, it was "freely" made, so they are now punished eternally for it. Also in the story, God had effectively responded "yes" to the prayer for the first person. But in reality, this was simply the means He used to accomplish in time what He had decreed from eternity (the others were an automatic "no" since they were not "elect"). The obedient Christians were thus "used by God" to bring one of His "sheep" "into the fold". God could have done it without them, but in this story, He wants people to be saved after responding to the Gospel, even though it is by his election rather than their response. The disobedient Christian was not used of God to win anyone, and will answer to God for that, but the person he neglected to witness to was not decreed to be elect anyway.
With this, the Calvinist seems to have it all put together, and this is the only way the "Potter" could be "free" and the "clay" be under His control. But obviously, this world is presented in scripture as more than a script, and these are real living souls, not actors playing a role who are involved; or literal lifeless matter. We must admit that the way the primary causes of a God in a timeless realm and the "secondary causes" of a real, living realm of time fit together are above our understanding. You cannot read salvation history like it is completely outside of time, because in dealing with us, God interacts with the time, even though He is not confined in it. He has not asked any of us to try to tell it from His viewpoint where everything has been said and done. Now we can't completely explain this, but that is the only way to square with all the scriptures and not wind up with a god who looks to trap people in sin and death by sending people to Hell He withheld an opportunity to repent (while giving them a "call" for them to further damn themselves by "refusing"), yet still holds them "accountable" for not repenting, and that simply calling out for Him to save is a "work" which He must make them do (the Bible does not regard this as a "work", so that statement about non-Calvinism is way off.)

[ October 29, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Your reasoning (and the apparent outrage at the idea of Calvinism) assumes that this whole "play" is about who gets saved and who doesn't and whether or not the outcome is "fair". I could be wrong, but I personally don't think that's main plot of the play.

 

It's not works-based theology. Repeat that five times fast. I can understand why it's convenient for you to believe that, but it really isn't. I don't know where you get your information about it, but the information is incorrect.

Wait a minute! I thought God was completely in control of Salvation in your frame of reference! How could logical implications have KEPT an Arminian from believing in Christ, if they were elect? Your whole rant has fallen.

So Catholics and Pentacostals are going to Hell? That's a mighty big assertion. Perhaps you should leave the straight-talking to Ken.

 

By "play" (that it is not the whole point of) you mean all of history, if I'm correct. Well, I'm not arguing whether all of life to God is about salvation. I used that as an example of this issue, which is about who gets saved and who doesn't, though one could extend it to all of life.

 

If you're going to draw conclusions about whether or not God would do this or that, don't you think you'd need to know the point of creation, and have all of the "inside" information on how everything works?

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the following parable from Matthew is a direct parallel to what's going on here on earth with the saved and unsaved. I'm not claiming it is -- I don't know if it is or not, but it will help me make the point.

If it's a direct parallel, then we have these "weed" people sown by the enemy, and the "wheat" people sown by God. God foreknew long before He planted the "wheat" that the enemy would sow "weeds." So he chose before the foundation of the earth that only the wheat would be saved, and the weeds burned. From our perspective, however, we have no idea who's a wheat and who's a weed. So we can't fathom the possibility that what God is doing is not only fair, but it's the only reasonable way to handle the situation.

Like I said, I don't claim that it's a perfect parallel, but I hope you can see that it's awfully brazen of any humans -- Calvinists or Arminians -- to argue from the perspective that we know what would be fair or not with respect to salvation. We just don't know what God knows, so all such speculation is entertaining but farily meaningless.

 

Npetreley....

No man is " in Christ " Before he is born agin

Every man was "In Adam " when Adam died

You and the rest of the "elect" were NOT " In Christ" you were "aliens" "alone in the world" "children of wrath" "dead in trespasses and sin" "without hope" "without God" and "unknown"

The believer was Chosen "from the beginning" according to 2 thes 2:13..so how can you say then that you are elected "before" the beginning??

If election was eternal, how were you SANCTIFIED in eternity (1 pet.1:2) when eph 2:12-13 clearly states that you were anything But sanctified?!?

In Matthew 22:14 the CALL precedes the election

Yes, you, since you claim to have been elected In Christ BEFORE the foundation of the world.

If you were "In Christ" you HAD to be already saved Cause No sinner Is "In Christ" Before they accept him as savior.

So you lost your salvation when you were born, (since you weren't born "in Christ" but Adam)

..And then you were under the wrath of God.(jn 3:36)(even though you claim you were "in Christ" and thus saved already)

only to have to get BACK into Christ in order to be saved...I hope you don't believe in eternal security that would make you a hyprocrite!

[ October 30, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: shilo ]

 

Eric B,
Allow me to introduce you to my good friend, Mr. Paragraph. He will be your friend if you let him.

 

I did exactly that and it cured me of Calvinism and sent me to Kansas. Thanks for the mantra, Mr. Wilkinson.

Wait a minute! I thought God was completely in control of Salvation in your frame of reference! How could logical implications have KEPT an Arminian from believing in Christ, if they were elect? Your whole rant has fallen. </font>[/QUOTE]An individual who believes that salvation turns on his choice, not God's, is assigning merit to himself. If you really comprehended that, you would be rejecting biblical salvation by grace. Basically has God cut you a break to this point by not letting you understand all that you believe. He could have simply revealed truth to you, and maybe He still will. Either way, he'll bring maximum glory to himself through you.

The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith. Any Catholic, Pentecostal, or Baptist who does not believe that will go to Hell.