Does unconditional election make God partial?

Thanks Andre

 

Great post Andre, I think you said it well. The problem is both sides take a rational stand or logic stand that goes further then the Bible. As we try to explain it I feel that calvinist try to make it fit the teachings of calvin, and they will not work.

We know that:

God knew or knows who will/are His from the beginning.

We know that He chose first. I think this make sense since He made the decision to send Christ. But we must choose also.

We know that God died, tasted death for all yet all will not be saved.

We know that God God does work the hearts of any or all that He desires. I think we can prove that in every case that God harden or hid His word we see people who Goc knew would reject, or that it states in the text they had hardend first. Or that they refused to believe.

It is when we go further, stating that we are taking things to its logical conclusion, that we all come up with a model that does not fit. I don't think romans answer is so much that it is agreeing or disagreeing with the question of how can man be held accountable. But more saying that you cannot understand an infinite God and His ways . So whou are you to question. If we knew all that God knew where would faith be?

I think we can say God is partial to those who believe and call upo0n the name of the Lord, butnot partial in who is allowed to do that. So in a real sense calvinism is very partial but biblical christianty is not.

IN Christ,
Tim

 

I think you hit on something here. This is what "elect" is, that God chose us in the matter you stated. Great post.

 

Timtoolman -

The scripture agrees with you. 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that men perish because they believe not, and then in vs 11 it says that because they believe not, God sends them delusions to believe the lies of the false-teachers.

The rejection of Christ comes BEFORE the hardening of the heart.

 

Timtoolman,

Pastor Larry is not here so I'll have to do this task.

For the umpteenth time We do not take the Bible and try to make it fit John Calvin's Beliefs.

We take the Bible and see what is simply there.

We see man as a depraved, lost, sinful, creature unable to save himself, and totally dependent on God for Salvation. Romans 3:23

We see a God who chose a Nation and certain people and we see that the Bible calls that Election. Mark 13:27

We see God accomplishing everything he set out to accomplish on the Cross in his Son Jesus Christ.
Col 1:20

We see God working in the hearts of men and women effectively calling them to faith in Christ. Acts 13:48

We see God's promises that all he calls as His own will never perish. John 10:28-29

Now you can take your personal salvation experience and describe it anyway you want to, but at the end of the day what you say about your salvation will be very similar to the above.

Our Main Difference is in the HOW Salvation happens in an invididual's life.

 

It has been repeatedly pointed out that in Romans 2 -- Context is the very thing Calvinism must ignore so it can continue with its "unconditional election" (arbitrary selection) model EVEN though the text says that IN the case of SALVATION God who judges ALL is NOT partial AND SO some are lost and some saved ON THAT IMPARTIAL basis because the judgment OF BOTH is done (by deeds according "to the text") RATHER than according to "arbitrary favoring" of the FEW.

I could keep repeating this same point and you can keep pretending you don't understand it. But how does that tactic of yours really "help" Calvinism??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let "the text" speak.

#1. They are all judged "According to deeds". BUT NOT ALL are bound for hell according to the Romans 2 text.
#2. The Results of that impartial judgment “of deeds” is NOT that all go to hell for it is all IN the context of the call to repentance.
<6 who will render to each person according to his deeds:
<7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

#3. They are ALL judged and it is not the "HEARERS of the law but the DOERS that WILL be JUSTIFIED"..

#4. Romans 2 includes BOTH successful AND failing cases for both Jews and Gentiles. It does NOT argue that when all are judged all go to hell.
#5. Romans 2 argues that the “Doers of the Law” – will be justified. It does not say that they are “sinless” or “need no justification”. It is IN the context of salvation and the need for repentance that we SEE these “doers” for they are those who accept the Gospel.

Why treat ALL in this way?

ANSWER: Because "God is not partial"??


How then does Calvinism accept this chapter?

ANSWER: It does not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Christ makes the same point about the impartial process of the Gospel in Matt 7 that we see in Romans 2.

"NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord but he who DOES the will of My father" Matt 7.

Just as Romans 2 does not anticipate "ONLY FAILURE" in that impartial judgment of God - neither does Matt 7.

See it again - for the first time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here are my thoughts on the deeds judgment mentioned in Romans 2 (and in Matt 7 as it turns out).

#1. Romans 2 provides BOTH successful and failing cases for BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

#2. Romans 2 SAYS they are ALL judged based on DEEDS and the RESULT of that impartial judgment is that SOME fail and some succeed.

This is devastating to Calvinism.

#3. Romans 3 is IN the GOSPEL CONTEXT of the kindness and goodness of God - and the call to repentance.

This means that WITHIN the Gospel scenario there IS impartial JUDGMENT that results in SOME having eternal life and some not.

#4. Paul declares that the JUDGMENT is "according to my gospel". The judgment he speaks of is part of the Gospe.

#5. The Judgment results in "JUSTIFICATION" according to the text. It does not simply happen in a Gospel VOID where ALL those judged are condemned because of course - ALL are sinners.

#6. The DEEDS mentioned are the same FRUITs of MAtt 7 that Christ shows as "determining" outcoming.

#7 The ENTIRE thing is said to occur in an impartial manner and is GUARANTEED to be impartial because GOD HIMSELF is impartial when it comes to salvation according to Rom 2:11

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "obvious" point in both Romans 2 and Matt 7 is that it is NOT a scenario where God "arbitrarily selects out from among the doomed a few to FAVOR".

Both texts are going out of their way to START within the context of the Gospel and to SHOW that in that context of the goodness of God as our Father - and the call to repentance and forgiveness - WE HAVE a judgment of "deeds" where some fail and some pass.

It is NOT the more "general" case of Romans 3 where ALL are condemned WITHOUT the need for a "future judgment" since ALL have sinned.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Proof - notice how many times it is "impossible" twist Romans 2 around on each successful case listed IN THE TEXT by saying "AND so since all are condemned impartially all go to hell"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

bob i will drop this tread for now.

we are talking about the same subject or another tread.

unless the subjetc changes on this tread..no need to go back.

as it stands now...to you romans is saying the deeds judgement is when we see if we have salvation..if i understand you right

 

IF I am talking about Romans 2 on another thread - please stop me. This is the one that has the term "partial" in the subject title so it is the one I check for Romans 2 "stuff".

The "deeds judgment" has nothing to do with "us seeing something about ourselves". In Romans 2 Paul speaks of a future justification for all saints based on a future judgment. That judgment is "not partial" and is "in the context of the Gospel" where all have responded to - or rejected the Gospel and their fruits are clearly seen by those things written in the books.

(See Daniel 7 for the exact event described literally by Daniel.)

In that end-time judgment event - THE impartial JUDGMENT of ALL results in "JUDGMENT PASSED IN FAVOR OF THE SAINTS". Daniel 7:22

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think you hit on something here. This is what "elect" is, that God chose us in the matter you stated. Great post.
</font>[/QUOTE]Web I think since God knew us before the beginning of time or before we were born He chose to provide salvation for us. Not really deep. No conflict in scripture there.

 

Those of you who do not consider yhourelf calvinist let me know and I will refrian from using it. If you follow calvin's teaching and think they are biblical then stand up and don't be ashamed to be called a calvinist or follow. I simply do not think it is biblical so I use followers.

Agian if you are offended then let me know I will refrain.

I agree mostly with your post Hardseller but let me ask you this. Did anyone besides Isrealites gain salvation in the old testement or was it only Jews?

 

Timtoolman,

I became a "calvinist" before I ever read anything John Calvin ever wrote. I still haven't read much of what he wrote. I became a "Calvinist" because the majority of Baptists in the first century of Baptist history were "Calvinists".

You do not offend me by calling me a Calvinist. We all understand that is a word that is commonly used to describe the Doctrines of Grace.

As far as anyone besides Israelites coming to salvation - absolutely yes. Remember Rahab who is included in the genealogy of Jesus Christ? Remember Ruth the Moabitess? Those come to mind quickly and I'm sure there are others. God has never hesitated to choose people from all tribes and all races and all nations.

 

HardSheller --

Do you believe God loves EVERYONE or just the believers?

Do you believe that the sacrifice of Christ propitiates (appeases God) for the sins of the "Whole World"? Or just "believers"?

Does the bible ever say "The Whole World will be saved"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

</font>

• Do you believe God loves EVERYONE or just the believers?</font>

Yes. God loves all men and offers the free gift of salvation by the blood sacrifice of His beloved Son to all. God hates sin, tho and those who choose to refuse the drawing of the Holy Spirit and remain in sin do so freely.

</font>

• Do you believe that the sacrifice of Christ propitiates (appeases God) for the sins of the "Whole World"? Or just "believers"?</font>

The blood sacrifice of Christ Jesus is capable of saving the whole world but covers the sins of only those who accept that free salvific gift.

</font>

• Does the bible ever say "The Whole World will be saved"?</font>

On the contrary. Only a few will be saved.