-
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!
Does unconditional election make God partial?
- Thread starter 4His_glory
- Start date
Notice the "details".
The "subject" is salvation as we see "in the text". God's "impartial" basis for achieving results "in the judgment" is stated as "judgement according to deeds" rather than pure bias.
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]That's odd - my version does not capitalize "law". Anyway, the details say that God is partial to those who do the law. As someone once said, "impartiality demands that God NOT 'favor the FEW over the many' for ANY reason", not even doing the law (or the Law) I suppose.
Oh, wait - the text also says that God is not partial, doesn't it. Hmmm. I guess that definition of "impartiality" will not do, then.
Do you do the law, Bob?
GeneMBridges
New Member
Actually, the definition of "partiality" with respect to election is that God selects/elects due to something rooted in the individual being election. It refers to the means, not the ends of election.
The "condition" is found in that person, not God in your scheme. "Unconditional election" means that the selection criteria is found in God alone, not in any man. Bob, since all men believe for different reasons, it is your position that reduces to partiality with God.
It is your position that grounds election in something in person. Partiality is to look into the future to see who's good enough to pick God and then God chooses them. THAT is God showing partiality because it has God picking someone because of something in THEM!.
It conflates mercy and justice. You would have God elect based on foreseen faith, something in man. That is partiality. Moreover, since man must do something to get elected, it moves election out of the ethical category of mercy into the category of justice, contrary to Scripture that says that election is about mercy, not justice.
Yup, and that's exactly what unconditional election is. Since God is the one electing, there is no partiality with Him. Since this is without grounding in man, it is not partial. However, you continue to act as if Calvinists teach it is apart from any means at all. God does not choose anyone based on some foreseen virtue or merit, but his appointment unto life is through the secondary or instrumental cause of faith, not apart from the fulfillment of that condition. No man is elected apart from the agency of faith. The issue is the grounding of the election...in man or God, not the ends of election alone. By grounding it in man, the Arminian, not the Calvinist makes God partial.
You continue to say that unconditional election makes God arbitrary?! Tell us, Bob, what is less arbitrary than God? Was creating the universe, "arbitrary?" Must God disclose all His personal criterion to man to avoid this charge? You're attacking the character of God, because you're attacking his attribute of independence. Since libertarian free will is the mode of man's faith in your scheme, YOU are the one who is arbitrary. You are mirror-reading, and here is why:
Your position assumes libertarian free will, the belief that we are free to want to do otherwise. By definition, this is causeless choice, and I'm using the definition of contra-causal freedom used by Arminian theologians, include Walls and Dongell, Pinnock, and even Dave Hunt, and Norm Geisler.
A. There are an endless number of Scriptures that affirm that our choice to believe or reject the gospel is done so of necessity because of our innermost affections and inclinations. For example, in John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. We all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. Quoting the Old Testment prophet Isaiah, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for the error of choosing without intent by saying, “THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.” This reveals that it is impossible to honor Jesus with a faith that does not also honor Him from the heart. This is very different from the kind of faith libertarians are describing.
B. You must answer this question: "Why did A believe but not B?" According to libertarianism, was it chance that generated this difference in natural wisdom between the two? Was it random? Or was one man naturally just smarter or wiser than the other? The only two alternatives left to us here are either that one person just happened to understand (‘just because’) by chance, or that one was already better equipped than the other (in his natural self) to respond positively to the gospel command.
a. If by chance, then he believed ARBITRARILY, so God is grounding election in the criterion of ARBITARINESS, which you say the Calvinist does.
b. If by being better equipped than the other, then God is shown to be partial, which you adamantly repudiate.
Yup, and this is said in reference to man's sinfulness, not unbelief, contrary to the Arminian assertion it has to do with unbelief alone.
Men will be declared just before God by their compliance with the Law....and since all have sinned, none fit this qualification, which is the point of this text, and from this Paul builds the doctrine of imputed righteousness, which is the righteous of God revealed from heaven, which forms the core of the doctrine of justification by faith. This text has a sum total of zero to do with election. It has everything to do with the sinfulness of man before God.
Let's see.
A. You've conflated sense and referent of a word.
B. Who is reading his theology into the text?
A. If we were to look at the word "election," we would see that it is ”a technical theological term in the Bible having nothing to do with the democratic political process. The subject of election is God, who chooses on the basis of his sovereign will for his creation. Associated with election are theological terms such as ‘predestination,’ ‘providence,’ and ‘covenant.’ (Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary; San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1985.)
That definition is rooted in the text. The word “choice” is “eklektos/eclektos” which means according to the definitions above, “picked out, chosen by God,” etc. It is a lexical definition.
The word "chosen" in Greek is "ekloge." In the KJV it is translated as "election" six times and "chosen" one time. It means:
"to make a special choice based upon significant preference, often implying a strongly favorable attitude toward what is chosen - ‘to choose, choice.’" (Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains; New York: United Bible Societies; 1988, 1989.)
"the act of picking out, choosing. the act of God’s free will by which before the foundation of the world he decreed his blessings to certain persons, the decree made from choice by which he determined to bless certain persons through Christ by grace alone 2) a thing or person chosen 2a) of persons," (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995.)
"picking out, choice, election" (Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.)
"Ekloge occurs seven times in the New Testament. Once it signifies an election to the apostolic office.—Acts 9:15. Once it signifies those chosen to eternal life.—Rom. 11:7. In every other case it signifies the purpose or the act of God in choosing his own people to salvation.—Rom. 9:11; 11:5,28; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Pet. 1:10." (Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology; Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group, 1999.)
The word "foreknow" refers to choice. Check the standard lexicons for its usage in the texts regarding God foreknowing persons. This is the lexical definition of it. It is your theology that is reading a definiition into the verb "foreknow" that is not in the text. Even in 1 Peter, the word refers to a predetermined plan and God actively choosing. Moreover, "foreknow" is an active verb. If God is "foreknowing" mens free choices in election, then:
A. He is learning.
B. Such foreknowledge is passive, not active. God is simply looking at data, not decreeing the data. If God's foreknowing was of free choices, we would expect to see the passive voice, not the active voice with respect to the verb and the referent. The same with "choose, elect, etc."
B. The issue is where the criterion lies for election...in God alone or man. The issue is the referent, not the sense (the definition). What makes unconditional election impartial is that God elects without respect to anything in man at all. Since instrinsic qualities, actions, etc. in man are excluded from the criterion and God is selecting with a purpose in mind, election is neither arbitrary or partial.
A. The text deals with why all Jews are NOT elected. Paul's answer is not "because the Gentiles are elected." His answer is that some Gentiles are elected, but not all of them, but that all persons are elected individually, not corporately. Honestly, how one can get election based on heredity from a text arguing against it simply is beyond me.
B. If your position is valid, then you should be a universalist, since Paul also says that all those that are predestined are also called, justified, and glorified. Will you seriously argue that all those predestined are not also called and all those called are not justified and all those justified are not glorified. How do you get "some" of those predestined being justified from Romans 8:29 -30? Where is the text that says that?
And no Calvinist says otherwise. As I've stated already. God does not choose anyone based on some foreseen virtue or merit, but his appointment unto life is through the secondary or instrumental cause of faith, not apart from the fulfillment of that condition. No man is elected apart from the agency of faith. The issue is the grounding or anchor, the determining factor of the election itself Where is it located according to Scripture?...in man or God? The issue has nothing to do with the ends of election alone.
By grounding it in man, the Arminian, not the Calvinist makes God partial. Why? Because the faith arises from natural man himself. The Calvinist has God supplying the condition of faith Himself. Justification is conditional. Election is not. You're conflating justification with election and saying election unto justification is based on the condition of justification itself being satisfied by believers. By reversing the order, you are saying God elects a man to be saved based on him acting to save himself. Since man is saved by being justified (declared righteous), you're saying that God has elected who WILL BE saved (from eternity past, e..g TO BE justified, on the basis of them being justified. That's not logical, and it is Romanist.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Does it use periods spaces and other punctuation not in the Greek text?
BTW - nice going on the detail!
Really.
When a Judge decides the cases of ten people and HE claims that they will be judged with the OUTCOME based on a judgment of "deeds".
Is that the Calvinized definition of "being partial"??
When Paul says "THOSE WHO DO..." will receive one reward and then says that "Those who Do" somthing evil receive another outcome - based on the unbiased impartial rule of "deeds" is he telling the truth?
Is that unbiased impartial method to be "called Partiality and pure BIAS" by Calvinists??
How could a Calvinist ever be a school teacher if they do not know the definition of impartial?
How could they ever be a judge?
Absolutely right.
ALL must have the SAME conditions of repentance (vs 4 of chapter 2) and the SAME conditions of fruits/works (Matt 7) evaluated.
FOR ALL it is SEEN that the one who ENTERS through the door of repenance DOES produce the good fruits.
But since the impartial judgment is based on the DEEDS of either the CHANGED tree or the unchanged tree - the judgment is impartial.
ALL are given the same door of repentance.
So Paul shows BOTH JEWS and GENTILES succeeding in going through that door and BOTH Jews and Gentiles FAILING to go through that door.
The judgment "based on deeds" reveals it all according to Paul's claim.
Should we believe him?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impartiality demands that God NOT "favor the FEW over the many" for ANY reason -- not even arbitrary reasons. This "perfect" example of PARTIALITY is "calvinized" to be called the definition of "impartial".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Teacher/Judge/umpire that claims to be IMPARTIAL can not favor "player-a over player-B".
The nonsensical idea that "Player-A" is favored when they score more points or play by the rules is silly.
the nonsensical notion if the umpire does NOT "arbitrarily favor A over B" then they are "partial" is left for Calvinism to defend.
In the mean time - the obvious point here remains.
The CLAIM to impartiality IN ROMANS 2 - is seen IN THE TEXT to deal with what people DO and it SEEN to result in BOTH successes and failures.
It is impossible to spin that - twist it- bend it to favor Calvinism in this case.
Calvinism basically DEFINES Grace as "partiality" where "God IS PARTIAL to the few" for purely arbitrary reasons. It insists that IF any difference IN person-A vs Person-B is found as the BASIS for choice (even a zillion years from now) it means grace is no longer grace.
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impartiality demands that God NOT "favor the FEW over the many" for ANY reason -- not even arbitrary reasons. This "perfect" example of PARTIALITY is "calvinized" to be called the definition of "impartial".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretending not to know what "partial" means is not serving your cause. I recommend another approach.
The Teacher/Judge/umpire that claims to be IMPARTIAL can not favor "player-a over player-B".
The nonsensical idea that "Player-A" is favored when they score more points or play by the rules is silly.
the nonsensical notion if the umpire does NOT "arbitrarily favor A over B" then they are "partial" is left for Calvinism to defend.
In the mean time - the obvious point here remains.
The CLAIM to impartiality IN ROMANS 2 - is seen IN THE TEXT to deal with what people DO and it SEEN to result in BOTH successes and failures.
It is impossible to spin that - twist it- bend it to favor Calvinism in this case.
Calvinism basically DEFINES Grace as "partiality" where "God IS PARTIAL to the few" for purely arbitrary reasons. It insists that IF any difference IN person-A vs Person-B is found as the BASIS for choice (even a zillion years from now) it means grace is no longer grace.
In Christ,
Bob
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi 4His Glory;
The Calvinist view of Unconditional Election is not really unconditional at all. If it were, it simply would have included everyone on the planet. The fact that Calvinism teaches it as unconditional is misleading. There is nothing unconditional about something that is only offered to a few. To only offer it to just a few is reason enough for question.The offer of Salvation is made freely to all.
Larry;
It was not God's will that only some hear the gospel and most others wouldn't, that is shear nonsense.
Christ said;
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Why do you suppose this is so? Could it be that he wanted the world to know?.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
The Calvinist view of Unconditional Election is not really unconditional at all. If it were, it simply would have included everyone on the planet. The fact that Calvinism teaches it as unconditional is misleading. There is nothing unconditional about something that is only offered to a few. To only offer it to just a few is reason enough for question.The offer of Salvation is made freely to all.
Larry;
It was not God's will that only some hear the gospel and most others wouldn't, that is shear nonsense.
Christ said;
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Why do you suppose this is so? Could it be that he wanted the world to know?.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
4His_glory
New Member
Hi Mike,
I feel that you really don't understand unconditional election.
How do you explain the fact that God does indeed elect people to slavation, and that before the foundation of the world?
I feel that you really don't understand unconditional election.
How do you explain the fact that God does indeed elect people to slavation, and that before the foundation of the world?
Where have Calvinists argued anything about arbitrary nature of God's election? I have never seen a Calvinist argue that, and I have probably read more Calvinists than you have. Aren't you being dishonest to talk about Calvinists arguing that God's election is arbitrary? That is your argument about Calvinism, and it is false.
[qb]
The above is a perfect example of the "calvinized-redefinition" of impartial.
In Pastor Larry's proposal above "Partial is defined as allowing ANYTHING except your OWN bias to determine the SELECTION of the FEW over the many".</font>[/QUOTE]Larry didn't say that did he Bob? You are being very disingenuous. Your arguments and tactics are once again being exposed for the fraud that they are. You simply cannot argue on teh basis of what we believe, because you know there is nothing wrong with it. You have to argue on what we don't believe, or on what Scripture doesn't say.
That is shameful. Why do you persist in that? Why not change your ways and argue as a Christian gentleman?
If God elected people based on their response, he would be being partial to those who responded a certain way. Again, as I have pointed out many times and not one of you has an answer for it, those in 21st century America have a much greater chance of hearing the gospel than those in 9th century BC Africa. God would be partial to give those in 21st century America a greater chance of salvation than those in 9th century BC Africa. That is why unconditional election is so important. Those in all places and times have the same opportunity.
You are the one redefining Scripture to fit your own scheme. That's worse than redefining our beliefs.
On what basis you say this?
This is a lie. Salvation is not only offered to a few. It is offered to all, without discrimination. Those who disagree with that usually don't call themselves Calvinists.
You are correct ... and speaking like a Calvinist. It is amazing to me how many of you guys will borrow from Calvinistic teaching to support your own ideas.
Shear??? I think "sheer" is the word you are looking for
The stones didn't cry out did they? God has ordained the the message of the gospel be preached through men, not stones (Rom 10:14ff). That is good enough for me.
It is right there in His word for all to see. You just need to believe it.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvinists argue that the perfectly arbitrary nature of God's "pure" partiality -- "pure Bias" is so arbitrary that it could not possibly "be partial".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Point remains -
Here is the Link --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1557.html#000000
And it says ...
That arbitrary SELECTION - is the argument they make. MORE than this they emphasize the fact that there must BE NO difference between those selected - those FAVORED and the "MANY" not favored.
This arbitrary selection process is HIGHLIGHTED as THE reason that such a grossly PARTIAL method is "impartial"!!
The grossly nonsensical nature of the Calvinist argument here could not be more obvious.
I would like to point out that "pretending not to notice" the point of the argument will not be successful here any more than it has been in the past.
(At some point Calvinists have to be willing to advance their own arguments with some kind of compelling response to this question.)
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvinists argue that the perfectly arbitrary nature of God's "pure" partiality -- "pure Bias" is so arbitrary that it could not possibly "be partial".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a good example of your getting lost in your word games in order to avoid the point entirely.
The Point remains -
Here is the Link --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1557.html#000000
And it says ...
So though you want to side track on whether "NOTHIN in man that determines the choice" means "arbitrary SELECTION" of person-A vs person-B -- the point remains.
That arbitrary SELECTION - is the argument they make. MORE than this they emphasize the fact that there must BE NO difference between those selected - those FAVORED and the "MANY" not favored.
This arbitrary selection process is HIGHLIGHTED as THE reason that such a grossly PARTIAL method is "impartial"!!
The grossly nonsensical nature of the Calvinist argument here could not be more obvious.
I would like to point out that "pretending not to notice" the point of the argument will not be successful here any more than it has been in the past.
(At some point Calvinists have to be willing to advance their own arguments with some kind of compelling response to this question.)
In Christ,
Bob
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Hi 4His Glory;
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
I see Election as unconditional just not like Calvinist. I believe that everyone has been chosen and planned for but neither of these are written in stone. Unless the person chosen is willing by his own will. I believe that we all have the God given right as to whether or not we follow our destiny. When we don't follow, it's called rebellion. How can you rebel against God if He never wanted you in the first place? Yet we are all called rebels before Salvation.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Simply repeating a nonsensical argument is not the way to "explain" or prove it Pastor Larry.
You have to come up with some kind of "reason" that an umpire SHOULD NOT show IMPARTIALITY by SEEING what player-A DOES and what player-B DOES rather than just arbitrarily picking one to FAVOR!
This can not be any more obvious than it is at this point.
I await your choice of a time to see the point and respond to it.
Romans 2 STATE that God IS impartial when it comes to salvation.
This is beyond dispute.
You can not simply ignore the details given and say "YES but to do that is to be partial". Because that would just be a calvinized-redefinition of the term "partial" that is not apparent at all from the text.
You need a better way to support your view.
In Christ,
Bob
That was a good example of your getting lost in your word games in order to avoid the point entirely.</font>[/QUOTE]Did you even read what I wrote Bob? I said that Calvinist's do not argue for arbitrary selection. You keep using that idea like it is something we talk about. It isn't. You are misguided, and are misguiding others.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />quoteastor Larry said
Where have Calvinists argued anything about arbitrary nature of God's election? I have never seen a Calvinist argue that, and I have probably read more Calvinists than you have. Aren't you being dishonest to talk about Calvinists arguing that God's election is arbitrary? That is your argument about Calvinism, and it is false.
What is even funnier ... and sadder ... is that for support your position, you post a link that has nothing to do with arbitrary selection. Why? The post you reference is entirely biblical. YTou shouldn't be arguing with it.
The point was never made. It was a false point from the beginning.
I haven't "pretended not to notice." I have addressed your point from teh beginning as misguided and unbiblical.
Why should we respond to questions about things we don't believe? There is no reason for us to. But in spite of that, we have done it anyway. We have responded to this silly assertion of yours from the beginning. We have taken the time to teach you what we believe and you aren't listening. Don't you see the problem there??
Listen again: We don't believe in arbitrary selection. This issue should never again come up. God elects people to salvation for his own glory and his own purposes.
I
ILUVLIGHT
Guest
Larry;
False accusation will only get ignored. It is still misleading
False accusation will only get ignored. It is still misleading
No problem since I haven't made any. You are the one who made false statements.
There is nothing at all misleading about unconditional election. You simply will not learn what it means.
There is nothing at all misleading about unconditional election. You simply will not learn what it means.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Yes I saw that. But since you conveniently calvinized-the-definition for "arbitrary" so that "deciding to favor Person-A over Person-B" without ANY REGARD to actual differences between A and B can be called "impartial" in an calvinized world that redefines "partial" and "Arbitrary" it was a circular argument on your part.
Which meant that that primary POINT in the argument remains. AS I SHOW in the QUOTE - the Calvinist position is that NOTHING about Person-A or B is taken into account when deciding to FAVOR A over B!!
The point remains.
How much easier can this be???
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Partial -- "Favoing person A over Person B"
Arbitrary - Making the choice of A - without any regard to anything about person-A or B.
This is obvious.
This is apparent.
This is beyond dispute.
And yet in an "all-for-Calvinism" style of posting - many will jump right in and deny the obvious no matter how simple the obvious point may be.
I just can't believe you guys are stuck on this one.
In Christ,
Bob
Arbitrary - Making the choice of A - without any regard to anything about person-A or B.
This is obvious.
This is apparent.
This is beyond dispute.
And yet in an "all-for-Calvinism" style of posting - many will jump right in and deny the obvious no matter how simple the obvious point may be.
I just can't believe you guys are stuck on this one.
In Christ,
Bob
This is one reason I refused to debate with on the other website, Bob. You don't listen. You have repeatedly made stuff up, refused to listen to people tell you what they believe, made up your own definitions, and misrepresented other people.
Why? Can your position not stand without this type of argument? Is your belief so weak that you cannot argue against what we actually believe?
We are not stuck on this one. You are stuck because you won't listen, you continually make stuff up, and then won't drop it.
If your position is really this weak, then you need to reconsider it. You need to reconsider simply based on the biblical revelation, but that's another issue.
Why? Can your position not stand without this type of argument? Is your belief so weak that you cannot argue against what we actually believe?
We are not stuck on this one. You are stuck because you won't listen, you continually make stuff up, and then won't drop it.
If your position is really this weak, then you need to reconsider it. You need to reconsider simply based on the biblical revelation, but that's another issue.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Your child or grandchild is on baseball Team-B. Every time they come up to bat - whether they swing or not, and no matter where the ball is thrown the umpire calls a strike.
You get upset but the managers are all happy because they claim the umpire is not-partial and is completely objective.
You charge that the umpire is Biased so he walks up to the mic and say "I favor team A". The crowd asks what A has done to be favore and he says "nothing. It has nothing to do with either team - I just decided to favor A".
Everyone goes home claiming that the umpire was partial and was arbitrary.
All except the Calvinists.
In Christ,
Bob
You get upset but the managers are all happy because they claim the umpire is not-partial and is completely objective.
You charge that the umpire is Biased so he walks up to the mic and say "I favor team A". The crowd asks what A has done to be favore and he says "nothing. It has nothing to do with either team - I just decided to favor A".
Everyone goes home claiming that the umpire was partial and was arbitrary.
All except the Calvinists.
In Christ,
Bob
You got it Right Bob - We Calvinists are the A Team.
