Does unconditional election make God partial?

Bob,

Do you do the law?

 

Somehow, I am quite sure that you didn't post this seriously. Analogies never quite work great, but this one didn't even get started. Where in the world did you come up with this idea?

In the analogy, the umpire is not following the rules. God always follows his rules. And that was as close as your story came to being an analogy. From there, it was all downhill.

 

The "Rules"

Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial"

 

Everyone goes home claiming that the umpire was partial and arbitrary.

All except the Calvinists.

By contrast 1Cor 6 tells us this about the impartiality of God in salvation

Rom 2 argues this point about the impartiality of God in salvation

Matt 7 tells us this about the impartial judgment of God in salvation

Matt 5 tells us this about the impartiality of God in salvation

 

I meant to add the Romans 3 point that Paul makes in my previous post "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith! God forbid! In fact we ...."Rom 3:31.

Now what was that word he used next .... ?

 

Establish, or uphold. But I wasn't asking about Paul. Do you do the law?

 

By faith I "uphold" and "establish" the LAW as James says the saints are to be "effectual doers" and not judges of the Law.

But you say you do not want to focus on the words of Paul (scripture) with your statement
"I wasn't asking about Paul. Do you do the law? "

Does "my practice" change scripture?

Are you challenging the Romans 2 point about "hearers only not being justified?"

Are you challenging Christs statement about "Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord but those who DO the will of My father"?? (Matt 7)

Are you challenging the pre-cross statement of Christ "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"?

Are you challenging these texts is such a way that if anyone chooses obedience rather than rebellion - they are foolishly IN HARMONY with scripture??

What is your point in avoiding the text and asking about "my practice"?

In the mean time - God's Word says --

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since we seem to be going through the NT teaching on HOW a born again Christian under the New Covenant "With the Law written on the tablets of the human heart" Heb 8 is to relate to the Law of God "and establish" it by faith (Rom 3:31) --

Might as well include this NT teaching on that point as well.

And here John shows us that the saints are still to keep the commandments of God AFTER the resurrection of Christ!

Is it any surprise that Paul is in full agreement with John on this post-cross requirement to ”keep the commandments of God”?

In Christ,

Bob

 

So getting back to Romans 2 -- and the IMPARTIAL God whose process of judging in the matter of salvation (and IN the context of the call to repentance (Rom 2:4)) "results" in some saved and some lost JUST as He describes IN Romans 2...

Let "the text" speak.

They are all judged "According to deeds".
They are ALL judged and it is not the "HEARERS of the law but the DOERS that WILL be JUSTIFIED".

Why treat ALL in this way?
Because "God is not partial"??

How then does Calvinism accept this chapter?

It does not.

 

I did not say that. I simply wanted you to answer the question.

You have borne false witness against me (again). What does the law say about that?

 

whatever,

Ah, I think I see what you are getting at!

Regards, KJB

 

Please consider any one (or all) of those texts as "my answer".

If you need me to pick one for your answer - take James 1.

In the mean time - the "details" of Romans 2 "remain" and the point remains from Romans 2 about God being impartial when it comes to salvation.

Odd as that might seem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I cannot see where James 1 says anything about what the law says about bearing false witness. However, other Scriptures make it clear that we are not to do so. Since you have done so, I suppose your answer must be "no".

Romans 2:11 is speaking of God not being partial to Jews over Gentiles. This would be clearer if you would post verses 8-10 too, instead of skipping from verse 7 to verse 11.

By your own definition, posted earlier, if those who keep the law are saved and if those who do not keep the law perish, then God is indeed partial toward those who keep the law. May I remind you?

Not even for keeping the law.

 

Since you appear to want to flee the actual topic on the impartiality of God in salvation as described in Romans 2 (AND the BASIS for that partiality SHOWN to deal with the actions of the those saved and/or lost) -- I will remind you "again" of the consistency of that theme in the NT text. (since it is basic to the New Covenant promise of the Law of God written on the heart).

 

Many times Calvinists on this board get lost in details and complain that the scriptures posted are "too long" to read. They gloss over the details in their responses and are loathe to focus on those "inconvenient specifics" so devastating to Calvinism. Your recent posts being no exception.

In an effort to sharpen the focus between vs 4-13 I tried to JUST LEAVE IN those specifics you were trying to dodge and gloss over. (Which even so - you have done "once again" )

But on the off chance that your feigned interest in more of the text "is real" here it is "Again".

(Note: This kindness, tolerance and patience of God is seen as "long suffering" and patience in Romans 9)

Vs 4 shows us that the mercy - kindness - grace leads us to repent. This chapter starts with the Gospel basics of God's offer to grant repentance and that all need to repent.

The Context for Romans 2 is STARTING with judgment, AND of the mercy of God that leads to repentance.

Let's continue letting the scripture speak for itself;

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”. Paul here identifies the “impartial” basis of God’s judgment. Instead of His simply “arbitrarily selecting” some to favor and others to ignore – ALL are judged according to deeds IN the context of the “call to repentance” of vs 4.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Further - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Some have supposed that a “judgment” that is impartial as Paul points to in vs 6 and 11 must “only have failing cases”. But Paul shows in vs 7 that such is not the case. The “Good News” does not require God to arbitrarily be “partial to the FEW of Matt 7” as some have supposed. Rather it allows for God to be “impartial” and to SAVE mankind on that basis!

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" because God will “favor the few over the many”. He does not let us suppose that others are lost for doing evil while the “favored” ones do evil and go to heaven. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

But basic to Paul’s solution is the affirmation that God is NOT partial when it comes to the Gospel – when it comes to Salvation. That means that He is NOT favoring the “few” of Matt 7 over the “many” so that He can save the “Few”. Rather – impartiality demands that ALL be given the same salvation-sequence. ALL have the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and ALL have the Drawing of God (John 12:32) and ALL have the Lord Jesus Christ standing at the door and knocking – and ALL have the SAME promise of the New Covenant that “changes the TREE itself” Matt 7 and writes the Law of God on the heart (Heb 8).

Rather than simply “favoring some over others” the system defined above is “impartial” as God HIMSELF is “Impartial”. This Gospel truth was a huge problem for the Jews and is a big problem for Calvinism.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Many times Calvinists on this board get lost in details and complain that the scriptures posted are "too long" to read. They gloss over the details in their responses and are loathe to focus on those "inconvenient specifics" so devastating to Calvinism. Your recent posts being no exception.


</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
hummm

well, i see it this way. many PASSOVER verses and somehow call this looking at the details.

When Calvinist read...well..let me say this...when most Calvinist read the text, they uphold the WHOLE text. Each verse is taken into account.

*******************************
Calvinist look at...

The verses on God is holy and to be feared and the verses on man sin nature and mans need.

They look at verses that says God will is non-partial and verse that say God shows partiality.

They look at Gods love of the world and also see verses that God can hate.

They see verse that tell of Christ coming into the world as the light...and also man that stays in the his darkness.

They look at the Gods call to all man to be saved...and also that man does not seek God.


*********************************

Arminianism looks at..Gods love and says...

Forget God can hate...
Forget man has a sin nature..
Forget NO man does not seek God...
Forget God has showen partiality when choosing/electing a nation, groups and people.
Forget man it is NOT by the will of man salvation comes


One must deal with the whole Bible and not run from it.

Do not pick and choose your verse..take on the whole bible as truth....the whole truth...nothing but.


In Christ...James

 

Greetings all:

I would like to point something out - not so much about the point under discussion, but rather about how the issue is argued. Consider the following statements made several days ago:

and

These snippets of arguments make very clear appeals to what I will call the "legitimate tools of rational argument". Scott_J objects based on inconsistency whereas 4His_Glory objects based on the nonsensical idea that we can violate causality and produce faith before we even existed.

Fine. I am completely OK with deploying such "rational" arguments. I like to think I am committed to a rational style of argumentation.

However, I have used the same general principles of argumentation to make a case that the very idea of truly unconditional election (election which is not based on our characteristics) cannot work logically. I will repeat a tiny part of my argument as follows:

To the best of my recollection, the response to my arguments were mostly of the form "you are over-thinking" or "you are using human reasoning that cannot be trusted" (I acknowledge that Pastor Larry attempted to explain how revelation through scripture can be integrated with rational thinking).

I suspect that you know where I am going: How do we determine when logical and rational argumentation is "OK" and when it is "deceitful human thinking"? Now I am not saying there is not an answer here. I am just saying that a lot more work needs to be done to "justify" the deployment of a rational argument. In the secular world, no one requires such justification since logical, rational argument generally carries the day.

To be fair to Scott_J: He has adopted a consistent position (to my mind): he has openly declared that, yes, God is partial as per the Scriptures.

To be fair to 4His_Glory: I have quoted you as a representative example of the use of "rational argument" on the part of someone who believes that God is,in fact, not partial. Other people could have been quoted just as easily.

 

Concerning who is made guilty by the law...

The "Context".