• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Doctrine of Unconditional Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
Silverhair. If man has a true free will then does
God know what he's going to do before he does it? And if you say yes then my next question is does he have the power to stop it if he wants to. If you answer "Yes" then you are in the exact same boat as a Calvinist in that God is indeed responsible for what happens.
I tend to be Calvinistic but I admit this is an area where I am not completely satisfied with the Calvinist position. But honestly, with your view of free will the only logical conclusion would be to move to a limited foreknowledge view of God, where although he the best chess player ever he really can't tell what a person's next move is. He will always win, but he has to respond to peoples moves because you cannot predict a truly free will - if it is truly free.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Silverhair. If man has a true free will then does
God know what he's going to do before he does it? And if you say yes then my next question is does he have the power to stop it if he wants to. If you answer "Yes" then you are in the exact same boat as a Calvinist in that God is indeed responsible for what happens.
I tend to be Calvinistic but I admit this is an area where I am not completely satisfied with the Calvinist position. But honestly, with your view of free will the only logical conclusion would be to move to a limited foreknowledge view of God, where although he the best chess player ever he really can't tell what a person's next move is. He will always win, but he has to respond to peoples moves because you cannot predict a truly free will - if it is truly free.
he seems to be advocating a type of Open theism for how God operates in realm of salvation!
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
First, I find it ironic you neglected a comma between No and God in your sentence. The actual accuracy without the comma makes me smile.

However, knowing that was in err, exactly where do we read this assertion of yours in scripture? Is this recorded in the creation narrative someplace?
Certainly God gave Adam and his helper, Eve, the capacity to rebel, which they did. But, where is free will exactly taught? I can point to the Trinity in Jesus baptism and other passages. I just want to know exactly where you get true free will, where the created being is not bound by the rules of the creator, but can override the will of the Creator.
Please, provide this theologically rich passage for us so that man can cast off the bondage placed on him by the Creator. I await your sharing.

Glad I could give you a smile.
I find it interesting that you chose the words "capacity to rebel". I looked in Webeter to see how he would define capacity {Ability, in a moral or legal sense}. So what you have shown is just what you were looking for. Adam & Eve had the moral ability to make a choice and that ability was given to them by God as you said.

So Austin did God cause Adam & Eve to sin or did He give them a free will so they could choose between following Him or being like Him? Then we can look at Cain, God gave him a choice or do you think God determined the choice that Cain would make. The bible would go with free will choice by Cain. Gen 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." And we see what Cain decided to do Gen 4:8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

So we see free will right from the start of scripture. How you can miss this i do not understand.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
he seems to be advocating a type of Open theism for how God operates in realm of salvation!

No, I am advocating for biblical view of how God is sovereign. You seem to think everyone has to be a Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist, etc but I just use the bible, I am after all just a baptist.
 
Last edited:

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Silverhair. If man has a true free will then does
God know what he's going to do before he does it? And if you say yes then my next question is does he have the power to stop it if he wants to. If you answer "Yes" then you are in the exact same boat as a Calvinist in that God is indeed responsible for what happens.

That logic string only works if you believe that God has to determine all that happens, as Calvinists do. God is sovereign and has complete foreknowledge of all that will happen. The Calvinist sees foreknowledge and read foreodrained, that is their mistake.
Just because God knows all that will happen does not mean that He causes all that will happen. So I am not in the same boat as the Calvinist.
The Calvinist wants to say God determines everything that happens but then want to avoid the logical outcome of that view.


I tend to be Calvinistic but I admit this is an area where I am not completely satisfied with the Calvinist position. But honestly, with your view of free will the only logical conclusion would be to move to a limited foreknowledge view of God, where although he the best chess player ever he really can't tell what a person's next move is. He will always win, but he has to respond to peoples moves because you cannot predict a truly free will - if it is truly free.

Why would my view require a limited foreknowledge? Calvinism limits God within their deterministic box and then says that everyone else in wrong if they do not agree. The big problem for them is that the bible does not agree with their view either.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I am saying that your view of foreknowledge puts God in the same position of being directly responsible for all actions, even evil ones because if he has the power to intervene and chooses not to he allowed it to happen. You're the one who a couple of pages back accused Calvinists of making God responsible for evil because he ordained it. I'm saying that if you go with a free will position, and God knows what's going to happen, and he let's it go on anyway he is just as responsible as the Calvinistic method that you oppose.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 4 am EST (Thr) / 1 am PST (Thr)
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
Is Unconditional Election of only some to Salvation unfair ?

Lets see what one Gospel writer has stated:

Election is not about a man’s will, it is not about man choosing God, but about God choosing whomsoever He wills to be saved. Again, people see this as unfair. They say, ‘What chance do we have if God does the choosing?’ The elephant in the room which all lost men fail to see, is: no man has any chance to choose God, for they are all dead in trespasses and sins (see Eph.2:1,5; Rom. 3:9). God is the only hope, the only chance any lost, Hell-deserving sinner has. Man is not neutral, he is dead. God’s choosing to save some helpless and hopelessly unworthy people is the glory of God. God explains this as His Goodness: “And He said, I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy” (Ex. 33:19). The goodness of God is to be gracious to those whom He wills to be gracious, and to show mercy toward those whom He wills to be merciful. If you do not believe and abide in this doctrine, you do not have God. God’s choosing those to whom He would be merciful and gracious, IS GOD’S GOODNESS, not any display of unrighteousness on His part. Flee anyone and everyone who dares to claim that election is in any way unrighteous.44

Let us now examine the question: “‘Is there unrighteousness with God?’ This is not an objection of Paul’s, but of an adversary, which he takes up and returns an answer to; and which itself greatly serves to settle and confirm the true sense and meaning of the apostle in this place; as that it could not be, that election and rejection of men should proceed according to their merits; or that God chooses some for their good works, and rejects others for their wicked works, because no man could ever pretend to charge God with unrighteousness on this account; nor could it be that God chose and rejected men, upon a foresight of their good and evil works, for this also would not be liable to such an objection; nor that the Jews, having made the law of none effect by their traditions, despised the Gospel, crucified Christ, and persecuted His disciples, are therefore cast off, and the Gentiles, being obedient both in word and deed, are received into favour, for this likewise would not be chargeable with unrighteousness by men; but that two persons, as Jacob and Esau, and the same may be said of all mankind, being upon an equal foot, not being yet born, nor having done either good or evil, an inequality, a difference is made between them, by God Himself; the one is chosen, the other passed by: now in this is some show, some pretence at least, for such an objection; nor is it any wonder to meet with it from the carnal reason of men; wherefore we may be sure that the latter, and not either of the former, is the true sense of the apostle; since only this, and not either of them, is liable to such an exception: let us attend to the apostle's answer, which is ‘first’ in his usual manner, by way of detestation and abhorrence, ‘God forbid’: God is not unrighteous in His nature; nor in any of His ways and works; nor in this, in choosing some and rejecting others. There is no unrighteousness with God in that part of predestination, commonly called election; for this is neither an act of justice, nor injustice; not of justice, but of grace and mercy; of undue and undeserved grace and mercy, of mere Sovereign grace and mercy; and is what God was not obliged to do; wherefore to choose some and not others, is no act of injustice; for injustice is a violation of justice, which has no place in this affair: if it is an act of injustice, it must be either to them that are chosen, or to them that are not; not to them that are chosen, to them it is an act of favour and good will, they are chosen to grace and glory, to holiness here, and happiness hereafter; not to them that are passed by, because they had no right nor claim to the grace and glory, which by this act are denied them, and therefore no injustice is done them.” Moreno Dal Bello https://www.godsonlygospel.com/by-grace-alone
Click to expand...

What's being said is that No, unconditional election of some is not unfair, its not a matter of justice at all, but a matter of undeserved mercy
 

Brightfame52

Well-Known Member
I notice that you fail to look at the whole Greek sentence 3-14. What does 13 say
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Why do you avoid that part of the sentence? Paul is clear about this in:
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

The text is clear
1) Those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved
2) They call because they believe.
3) They believe because they heard.
4) They heard because a preacher shared the Gospel.

Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Calling → Salvation.

Salvation sure seems to have a lot of conditions for your so called unconditional election. The bible does not agree with your view does it.
Rabbit trail and evasion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top