Geographical Calvinism

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think it does us all good to come to a place in life where we are able to say: there are certain things about God's sovereignty and human responsibility that can't be explained within the confines of a 5-point system.

By the way, the Doctrines of Grace only speak to the "how" of salvation, not the "why". So your original question really doesn't deal with the 5-points anyways, which I tried to show early on that this is an issue for both C and A and everyone inbetween. </font>[/QUOTE]In my opinion you can't separate the how from the why ... the Bible doesn't. And the original question does deal with the foundational premise of Calvinism which suggests God elected certain persons to salvation ... it just seems ironic that most of those people happen to live in the same countries and families - another issue in and of itself (genetic Calvinism).

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think it does us all good to come to a place in life where we are able to say: there are certain things about God's sovereignty and human responsibility that can't be explained within the confines of a 5-point system.

By the way, the Doctrines of Grace only speak to the "how" of salvation, not the "why". So your original question really doesn't deal with the 5-points anyways, which I tried to show early on that this is an issue for both C and A and everyone inbetween. </font>[/QUOTE]In my opinion you can't separate the how from the why ... the Bible doesn't. And the original question does deal with the foundational premise of Calvinism which suggests God elected certain persons to salvation ... it just seems ironic that most of those people happen to live in the same countries and families - another issue in and of itself (genetic Calvinism). </font>[/QUOTE]I see the "why" of salvation in Eph. 1:11 -

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will

We do not know the counsel of His will in all matters.

 

[All about Grace]

A Calvinist who believes that absolutely no infants who die are elect is certainly not common. Perhaps you should find them and ask them your question, because for the majority of us who do believe that God can elect, regenerate, and save infants your question is nonsensical.

So the gist of your answer is ... maybe the infants that are dying in those places are elect?

How would you or I know if the deck is stacked against some people groups? How would you or I know if, in the end, there will be certain people groups overrepresented among those saved?

The "stacked deck" comment was intended to be sarcastic (as indicated by the graemlin), but nevertheless the heart of the question remains the same regardless of time period. Whether it is 1006 or 2006 the challenge remains: why are there more "elect" within certain people groups while some people groups have no knowledge of Jesus Christ?

Your answer indicates a geographical and chronological election process whereas certain people of certain places and at certain times are elected. And at the end all these people come together around the throne. So God's election becomes geographically centered and chronologically fulfilled.

 

[All about Grace]

I see the "why" of salvation in Eph. 1:11 -

And in John 3.16, Rom 3:25-26, Rom 5:8, and in multitudes of other texts that point to both God's redemptive purpose and the offer of life to all people.

We do not know the counsel of His will in all matters.

Then why do we try and restrict his salvific purposes and plan to a five-point system?

 

[russell55]

So the gist of your answer is ... maybe the infants that are dying in those places are elect?

Maybe all are, maybe some are, maybe none are. How would I know? And unless I know, the question is nonsensical.

Whether it is 1006 or 2006 the challenge remains: why are there more "elect" within certain people groups while some people groups have no knowledge of Jesus Christ?

My answer is that over the whole of human history this has not been, nor will it prove to be, the case.

Your answer indicates a geographical and chronological election process whereas certain people of certain places and at certain times are elected. And at the end all these people come together around the throne. So God's election becomes geographically centered and chronologically fulfilled.

No, you missed the point of my answer. God elects people before the foundation of the world, without regards to their place or time. He then places those elect people into times and places in which they will hear the gospel and believe. Time and place, then, are tools he uses to work out his plan for their salvation. Election results in specific time and place rather than specific time and place resulting in election.

The two things--election and time/place--correlate, but you are assuming the relationship to be exactly the opposite of what a Calvinist would. Election is the cause of time/place rather than time/place being the cause of election.

 

[All about Grace]

I am not suggesting time/place result in election. What I am challenging is the "balance" (for lack of a better term) of an election that seems to be restricted to a certain people group while other people groups live and perish (during the same era) with what appears to be little or no elect.

 

[4His_glory]

Why does election have to be balanced? Why did God reveal Himself to Isreal and for hundreds of years ignore other nations?

God doesn't have to be "balanced", He is perfect so whatever He does is never unbalanced.

 

[russell55]

What I am challenging is the "balance" (for lack of a better term) of an election that seems to be restricted to a certain people group while other people groups live and perish (during the same era) with what appears to be little or no elect.

And I'm saying that election isn't restricted to certain people groups, but is rather the choice of certain people, and those people are placed in places and times where they will hear the gospel.

And why are you choosing the arbitary criteria of "the same era" to decide whether election is balanced or not? Why does that make more sense than considering all of human history together? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider all of history as one, since that would be the vantage point God has?

BTW, I don't think God is "balanced", if by that, you mean that he treats all people everywhere exactly equally. And I don't know where, from scripture, you get that idea. God never makes that claim for himself. He makes the claim that he is always be just, but not that he treats everyone exactly equally.

As I've said before, the question is nonsense because its based on silly assumptions, arbitrary criteria.

So, if you think it's so important for God to be balanced, why don't you object that he doesn't cause all people throughout the ages and in every place to have equal opportunity to hear the gospel?

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
I agree. Would it be "just" of me to put a treat in my dog's mouth...and then hit her and send her to be euthanized for eating it? Not too "just", or "holy". Vengeful, maybe, but in a sadistic way.

Yawn. Straw man. Next it will be robots. Then "Calvin is a murderer." Can't you folks think of anything new? </font>[/QUOTE]I frankly have been wondering if Calvinists can think of anything but Calvinism.

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
I agree. Would it be "just" of me to put a treat in my dog's mouth...and then hit her and send her to be euthanized for eating it? Not too "just", or "holy". Vengeful, maybe, but in a sadistic way.

Yawn. Straw man. Next it will be robots. Then "Calvin is a murderer." Can't you folks think of anything new? </font>[/QUOTE]I frankly have been wondering if Calvinists can think of anything but Calvinism.

</font>[/QUOTE]I am a Calvinist, and right now, i'm thinking of food.

 

[All about Grace]

And I'm saying that election isn't restricted to certain people groups, but is rather the choice of certain people, and those people are placed in places and times where they will hear the gospel.

Election is based on the choice of certain people placed at the right time and place?

And why are you choosing the arbitary criteria of "the same era" to decide whether election is balanced or not? Why does that make more sense than considering all of human history together? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider all of history as one, since that would be the vantage point God has?

It makes more sense if you happen to be one of the right people at the right place at the right time.

BTW, I don't think God is "balanced", if by that, you mean that he treats all people everywhere exactly equally.

That's not what I mean by "balanced" so the rest of your point is moot.

the question is nonsense because its based on silly assumptions, arbitrary criteria.

I've come to notice that these type of questions are only nonsense and silly to those who are on the inside of the club. It would not be as arbitrary and silly if one of your children was not the right person at the right time and place. But then again, I have never heard a die-harder admit that there is a good possibility their own children are not a part of the club. But that is another discussion -- perhaps we could entitle that thread "Genetic Calvinism".

 

[doulous]

Here is just one of those puzzling issues ... if Calvinism is true, why is God's election so geographically limited?

Is it?

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It don't believe it is restricted, hence I reject your premise.

So you reject limited atonement and unconditional election? </font>[/QUOTE]All, how does the belief that election is not limited to certain geographical areas negate limited atonement and unconditional election?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
The issue of God's sovereignty and its relationship with human responsibility has been argued since the inception of the church. For 2000 years this issue has been debated and no doubt it will continue to be debated another 2000 (if the Lord does not return). The reason there is no clear winner in this debate? There is strong biblical support for both sides of the discussion. That's why God is God and we are not. You can never fully explain God within the confines of a human system or theology. It was a great day when I came to this realization and shifted my primary focus elsewhere.

That being said, there are some practical concerns on both sides of this issue that are worth consideration. I must say upfront that I fall into the more "God-centered" approach to theology (which often surprises many in light of my flexibility regarding methods). However I do see some practical inconsistencies in the system Calvinism which remind us it is a human system and will always be a human system (not matter how this statement offends die-hards). I can simply admit any human approach has its weaknesses.

Here is just one of those puzzling issues ... if Calvinism is true, why is God's election so geographically limited?

In other words, why did God choose to elect hundreds of thousands of people in certain geographical locations and yet refused to elect hundreds of thousands and even millions in other parts of the world? Is this consistent with His obvious love for the world and mandate to spread the gospel worldwide? If God is ultimately "responsible" for election, why did He choose to elect multitudes in certain areas and yet thousands die every day in other parts of the world never having heard the name of Jesus? Election seems to be geographically limited.

Geographical election is an enigma in light of Scripture's evidence that God is a world-wide God.

Again human systems can't always explain the actions of an infinite God. Just one example.

Now let the fun begin as the die-hards try and explain geographical election away without attributing too much credit to human responsibility. And be careful - remember I am one of you.

Here is my answer to your question:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't need to know.
3. God's ways are above my ways.
4. I have no right to judge God and his righteousness or fairness.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by All about Grace:
The issue of God's sovereignty and its relationship with human responsibility has been argued since the inception of the church. For 2000 years this issue has been debated and no doubt it will continue to be debated another 2000 (if the Lord does not return). The reason there is no clear winner in this debate? There is strong biblical support for both sides of the discussion. That's why God is God and we are not. You can never fully explain God within the confines of a human system or theology. It was a great day when I came to this realization and shifted my primary focus elsewhere.

That being said, there are some practical concerns on both sides of this issue that are worth consideration. I must say upfront that I fall into the more "God-centered" approach to theology (which often surprises many in light of my flexibility regarding methods). However I do see some practical inconsistencies in the system Calvinism which remind us it is a human system and will always be a human system (not matter how this statement offends die-hards). I can simply admit any human approach has its weaknesses.

Here is just one of those puzzling issues ... if Calvinism is true, why is God's election so geographically limited?

In other words, why did God choose to elect hundreds of thousands of people in certain geographical locations and yet refused to elect hundreds of thousands and even millions in other parts of the world? Is this consistent with His obvious love for the world and mandate to spread the gospel worldwide? If God is ultimately "responsible" for election, why did He choose to elect multitudes in certain areas and yet thousands die every day in other parts of the world never having heard the name of Jesus? Election seems to be geographically limited.

Geographical election is an enigma in light of Scripture's evidence that God is a world-wide God.

Again human systems can't always explain the actions of an infinite God. Just one example.

Now let the fun begin as the die-hards try and explain geographical election away without attributing too much credit to human responsibility. And be careful - remember I am one of you.

Here is my answer to your question:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't need to know.
3. God's ways are above my ways.
4. I have no right to judge God and his righteousness or fairness.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Joe, I appreciate your response but Calvinist's get beat up on that all the time. Whenever they say, "I don't know" as their final answer they get accused of the ostrich position (sticking their heads in the sand). I am not advocating fabrication of a position. Not at t'all. Sometimes they have to look at the premise behind the question. The premise may be fallacious, or it may truly be desirous of the truth. This is where wisdom and walking by the Spirit come into play.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

doulous,

I appreciate your concern. I am not, however, worried about what a bunch of carnal Arminians think about me.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Doulous,

I do like your blog though. I wish I knew how you did that phoneblogz thing. That was really neat.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
doulous,

I appreciate your concern. I am not, however, worried about what a bunch of carnal Arminians think about me.

Joseph Botwinick

So everyone thats not a calvinist is carnal, or just the ones on here?

Or more like someone who shows this type of spirit towards others that is carnal! Yeah, thats the ticket!

Your something else Jospeh.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

 

[Timtoolman]

I have learned that you are not much of a reasonable man Joseph. And that the teachings of calvinism is your all and all but I do not insult you by calling you carnal or anything else. Its called respect.