If Calvinism is true is God a racist?

[Skandelon]

Amen. The Lord decides who He has mercy upon and who He hardens.

The only problem with that proof text Rippon is that when Paul says that he is speaking about the Getiles, who are being shown mercy and the Jews, who are being hardened. And later those same people he speaks of as being "hardened" in Romans 11 prove not to be the "non-elect reprobates" you assume them to be because Paul believes they might be saved. (Rm 11:14-21)

 

[Winman]

==That is a very interesting statement. If for no other reason, it is interesting because of the assumption that it rests upon. The assumption seems to be that God is required to save a certain number of people from each group. Yet, the Holy Scriptures never says that God will, or must, save a certain number from each group. God has His reasons for sometimes preventing Christians from entering certain areas (Acts 16:6-8). I don't know those reasons, but I can promise you that race has nothing to do with it. In fact, salvation does not rest upon anything in man (or about man). God saves who He wills and has mercy upon who He wills. He is not under any obligations. Having said that, God makes it clear that people from "every nation and tribes and peoples and tongues" (Rev 7:9) will be saved. What groups will be more heavily represented than others? We can't know that. Just because Christianity is more widely accepted in European nations and America, does not mean there are more true Christians in those nations. I believe that Jesus taught only a minority of mankind will be saved (Lk 13:25-27, Matt 7:21-23). While the number of saved will be uncountable, the number of lost will probably be higher (ie...the truly saved are the minority).

Back to my original point about the assumption behind your statement. If you can't find that assumption stated or supported by Scripture, you are better off to forget it. I believe God is Holy, Just, and Loving. He always does what is right. I don't have to understand everything He does, allows, or wills. That is called faith and that is what we are suppose to live by. Debating how many "elect" come from what nations (etc) seems to be a waste of time and effort. Its like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

But I do have scripture to support what I say.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter said God is no respecter of persons but in every nation those that fear him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.

So why would only 9% of those in Middle Eastern nations be Christians, and over 85% in Europe and North America?

How do you answer this?

 

[Winman]

Actually I would say it does affect some people's willingness to follow Christ. When Jesus spoke to those wanting to be his disciples, he told them to "consider the cost." He used two illustrations: one of a man building a tower and another of someone going to war. One must think about the costs of following Christ and that requires a will. "Come let us REASON together."

So, does know you might be killed or disowned prevent some from being willing to follow Christ? Sure it does!

The bible speaks of many things that affect men's will in salvation. Paul talked about Israel being provoked to envy so that they might be saved. If the "effectual call" is in effect then what would be the purpose of envy in provoking the will?

Well, I was speaking of ability. I agree with you that persecution will keep a person from professing Christianity.

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

And many believe that the reason Nicodemus came to see Jesus at night was so other Pharisees would not know of it.

 

[Skandelon]

I Cor. 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."

This passage seems to be pretty clear. The world does not come to know God without the gospel.

In fact, the fact they do not come to know God outside of the gospel is called "the wisdom of God".

I also notice that the gospel is the means God has ordained to "save those who believe".

That is conclusive, IMHO.

With regard to those who never hear the gospel I agree with this scholar: http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45932

Perhaps you see it a little differently?

BTW, what is it about Western white "free-will" that makes it superior to Asian and African "free-will"? We know the gospel has gone out throughout Asia and Africa, and yet they respond only 8% and 35% respectively.

Surely, as an Arminian, you must come to the conclusion that Western white "free-will" is superior to Asian and African "free-will", don't you?

peace to youraying:

With regard to this question I agree with Winman's answers in this thread...

That saves time

 

[Martin]

But I do have scripture to support what I say.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter said God is no respecter of persons but in every nation those that fear him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.

==Acts 10:34 only proves my point (Rev. 7:9). It does not prove, in any fashion, that God has to save a certain number from any group. Your assumption is unBiblical.

So why would only 9% of those in Middle Eastern nations be Christians, and over 85% in Europe and North America?

How do you answer this?

==As I have already pointed out, I put ZERO credit to such stats. I don't believe, for one single second, that 85% of Americans and/or Europeans are true Christians. At best, those stats are wishful thinking. At worst, those stats are deception.

Why do I reject such stats? The answer is HERE (post 18 from this thread). I would also make reference to the points I made in post 37.

 

[Winman]

==Acts 10:34 only proves my point (Rev. 7:9). It does not prove, in any fashion, that God has to save a certain number from any group. Your assumption is unBiblical.

==As I have already pointed out, I put ZERO credit to such stats. I don't believe, for one single second, that 85% of Americans and/or Europeans are true Christians. At best, those stats are wishful thinking. At worst, those stats are deception.

Why do I reject such stats? The answer is HERE (post 18 from this thread).

I disagree. If God elects people unconditionally and is no respecter of persons or nations, you should see about the same percentage of Christians in nations around the world. You might see 45% in one country, maybe 53% in another for example, but not 9% compared to 85%.

And yes, those figures cannot be entirely accurate, many claim to be Christians who are not. But still, you must admit the percentage of the populations in Middle Eastern and Far East countries is much lower than Europe or Western nations. That is generally accurate.

 

[Martin]

I disagree. If God elects people unconditionally and is no respecter of persons or nations, you should see about the same percentage of Christians in nations around the world.

==That is your faulty assumption and not Biblical fact. I reject your assumption totally.

You might see 45% in one country, maybe 53% in another for example, but not 9% compared to 85%.

==Where is your Biblical evidence for that? You have none. It is just your opinion, your assumption of how you think things should be. I can't accept that. Again, I reject your assumption.

And yes, those figures cannot be entirely accurate

==Those stats are probably not even in the right ballpark.

But still, you must admit the percentage of the populations in Middle Eastern and Far East countries is much lower than Europe or Western nations. That is generally accurate.

==I can't agree with that. Yes, there are more "church" folks in America than in other nations, but that does not mean there are more Christians. I don't know how many true Christians are in any country at any point in history and neither do you or your stats.

 

[jcjordan]

What's sad about this thread is the unbiblical view of race. There is only one race...the human race.

 

[psalms109:31]

Truth

This nonsensical rant has nothing to do with the nonsensical OP.

Many Calvinists were saved when they were non-Cals. I seriously doubt that any are full-fledged Calvinists at the point of belief except that they know all of their salvation from the first to the last is all of the Lord.

Anyone, of any theological stripe who has not leaned on Christ alone for the redemption of their sins will be told by Christ:"I have never known you."

You want the world to know that some Christ will not save and they need to hear that. I just want to also remind them and have the hope that is in the word. That whosoever believes in Jesus will be saved and nothing will change the will of God.

 

[psalms109:31]

passages

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

James 2:26
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

[canadyjd]

With regard to those who never hear the gospel I agree with this scholar:

So, you agree with someone who denies the necessity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in bringing people to salvation.

I agree with scripture, which I quoted and clearly states the gospel is the means God has ordained to bring people to salvation.

With regard to this question I agree with Winman's answers in this thread...
That saves time

It also avoids answering the question directly or addressing the scripture I quoted directly.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

What's sad about this thread is the unbiblical view of race. There is only one race...the human race.

Very good point.:thumbs:

peace to youraying:

 

[Cypress]

Very good point.:thumbs:

peace to youraying:

Would you prefer ancestry to race. The terms can be interchanged. I don't think race should be offensive, if that is your understanding of the word, as it should be. There is so much genetic overlap that race as determined by physical characteristics is meaningless.

 

[jcjordan]

Would you prefer ancestry to race. The terms can be interchanged. I don't think race should be offensive, if that is your understanding of the word, as it should be. There is so much genetic overlap that race as determined by physical characteristics is meaningless.

So your point proves my point about the stupidity of the OP. Every calvinist believes that God will save people from every tribe and tongue. If He only chooses to save one, that's His business. He's not obligated to save any one of us much less an equal proportion from each ethnicity. Do we scream racism when God chose Abraham and His descendants?

 

[canadyjd]

Would you prefer ancestry to race. The terms can be interchanged. I don't think race should be offensive, if that is your understanding of the word, as it should be. There is so much genetic overlap that race as determined by physical characteristics is meaningless.

The OP was meant to be offensive. The question could have been asked without the offensive suggestion that "calvinism" makes God a racist.

All he had to say was "why do Asians believe at a lower % rate than Anglos?" The conversation would have, or at least could have, taken a much more civil tone.

peace to youraying:

 

[Martin]

The OP was meant to be offensive. The question could have been asked without the offensive suggestion that "calvinism" makes God a racist.

That is very true. The OP was meant to cause a stir, to create an argument, to get a rise out of people. And, to be honest, Skandelon was successful in doing that. These type of threads don't encourage solid, Biblical dialogue. This is the type of thread that promotes name calling and wild accusations. As I have said already in this thread, the whole topic is a waste of time (if not blasphemy). If one does not agree with Calvinism that is fine. However those who disagree should, and often times do, involve themselves in meaningful and serious discussions. This thread does not do that and, it is my belief, it was never intended to. This is the real reason you don't see me responding to much of Skandelon's threads.

In fact, and I don't know how I just noticed this, Skandelon's handle is a misspelled form the of the greek term skandalon. The term literally means "the trigger in the trap on which the bait is placed and that springs the trap when it is touched by the animal, causing the trap to close". It the refers to traps, enticements which lead to ruin. I'm sorry, but I can't believe Skandelon's handle is just an accident. It is the poster's way of telling us what he is about. That certainly explains why vast majority of the threads he has started on Calvinism are like this one.

 

[Jerome]

Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism:

A form of government like your own could not exist one day in China. Even now, the people of Russia are unfit for any form of constitutional government. And among the Kaffirs and Hottentots of Africa, even a government, such as exists in Russia, would be wholly inconceivable. All this is determined and appointed by God, through the hidden counsel of His providence.

To put it concretely, if you were a plant you would rather be a rose than mushroom; if insect, butterfly rather than spider; if bird, eagle rather than owl; if a higher vertebrate, lion rather than hyena; and again, being man, richer than poor, talented rather than dull-minded, of the Aryan race rather than Hottentot or Kaffir.

 

[canadyjd]

.....In fact, and I don't know how I just noticed this, Skandelon's handle is a misspelled form the of the greek term skandalon. The term literally means "the trigger in the trap on which the bait is placed and that springs the trap when it is touched by the animal, causing the trap to close". It the refers to traps, enticements which lead to ruin. I'm sorry, but I can't believe Skandelon's handle is just an accident. It is the poster's way of telling us what he is about. That certainly explains why vast majority of the threads he has started on Calvinism are like this one.

Yes, I believe you are on to something.

peace to youraying:

 

[Skandelon]

That is very true. The OP was meant to cause a stir, to create an argument, to get a rise out of people. And, to be honest, Skandelon was successful in doing that. These type of threads don't encourage solid, Biblical dialogue. This is the type of thread that promotes name calling and wild accusations. As I have said already in this thread, the whole topic is a waste of time (if not blasphemy). If one does not agree with Calvinism that is fine. However those who disagree should, and often times do, involve themselves in meaningful and serious discussions. This thread does not do that and, it is my belief, it was never intended to. This is the real reason you don't see me responding to much of Skandelon's threads.

Racist: The belief that a particular race is superior to others.

My question was actually one brought up by a new Christian from Tokyo who is being discipled by a Calvinistic college student. He was concerned about "his people" because he thought God hadn't chosen very many of them and so he asked if God was "racist," in that he thought God preferred anglos because it appeared to him that God was choosing to save many more of us. Whether Calvinists want to admit the difficulty with their perspective or not, it is a reality...especially in my line of work.

In fact, and I don't know how I just noticed this, Skandelon's handle is a misspelled form the of the greek term skandalon. The term literally means "the trigger in the trap on which the bait is placed and that springs the trap when it is touched by the animal, causing the trap to close". It the refers to traps, enticements which lead to ruin. I'm sorry, but I can't believe Skandelon's handle is just an accident. It is the poster's way of telling us what he is about. That certainly explains why vast majority of the threads he has started on Calvinism are like this one.

I spelled it that way on purpose because the other spelling wasn't available.

And actually, Christ was called Skandalon: 1 Corinthians 1:23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentile.

 

[Cypress]

Racist: The belief that a particular race is superior to others.

My question was actually one brought up by a new Christian from Tokyo who is being discipled by a Calvinistic college student. He was concerned about "his people" because he thought God hadn't chosen very many of them and so he asked if God was "racist," in that he thought God preferred anglos because it appeared to him that God was choosing to save many more of us. Whether Calvinists want to admit the difficulty with their perspective or not, it is a reality...especially in my line of work.


Could some apologies be in order, then?