If Calvinism is true is God a racist?

[Steven2006]

I haven't read this thread ( I had avoided it until now, but it just keeps bumping up). I understand the point the OP was trying to make. However IMO to raise the question even if it is only to try and make a point, is still offensive.



Act 10:34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand {now} that God is not one to show partiality, (emphasis mine)

 

[Johnv]

If Calvinism is true is God a racist?

 

[Martin]

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.

==Anyone who is familiar with actual Calvinist beliefs/teachings would see that the young man's concern was not based on an accurate understanding of Calvinism. You see, Calvinism teaches that God saves people based on nothing within themselves. God does not look at race, sex, or background when saving people. The Scriptures make that clear.

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.

==Yes and in that context it is not a bad thing. However, looking at your posts, your use of the term certainly raises questions. Are you using the term in reference to Christ and the Gospel? Or are you using the term in reference to your attempts to cause disagreement over the issue of Calvinism?

 

[Cypress]

I haven't read this thread ( I had avoided it until now, but it just keeps bumping up). I understand the point the OP was trying to make. However IMO to raise the question even if it is only to try and make a point, is still offensive.



Act 10:34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand {now} that God is not one to show partiality, (emphasis mine)

And that would include creating all men equally capable of accepting or rejecting the gospel would it not?

 

[Winman]

==Anyone who is familiar with actual Calvinist beliefs/teachings would see that the young man's concern was not based on an accurate understanding of Calvinism. You see, Calvinism teaches that God saves people based on nothing within themselves. God does not look at race, sex, or background when saving people. The Scriptures make that clear.

==Yes and in that context it is not a bad thing. However, looking at your posts, your use of the term certainly raises questions. Are you using the term in reference to Christ and the Gospel? Or are you using the term in reference to your attempts to cause disagreement over the issue of Calvinism?

Well, if he misunderstands Calvinism, who's fault is that? Skandelon told you this Japanese fellow "is being discipled by a Calvinistic college student". It seems to be the opposite of what you say, this Japanese fellow understands clearly what he is being taught, and cannot understand if God elects unconditionally why are not more people in his nation the elect?

 

[Martin]

Well, if he misunderstands Calvinism, who's fault is that? Skandelon told you this Japanese fellow "is being discipled by a Calvinistic college student". It seems to be the opposite of what you say, this Japanese fellow understands clearly what he is being taught, and cannot understand if God elects unconditionally why are not more people in his nation the elect?

==I don't know what college he is attending nor do I know the quality of his teachers and his personal study on the subject. So I can't say if the college is to blame for this young man's misunderstanding or if the young man is to blame. Certainly there are many good resources on Calvinism available. If this young man has, or has not, taken the time to study those resources is not known. However I do know what unconditional election means. It means that God does not save a person based on anything within them. So things like race, ethnicity, sex, eye color, and haircolor have nothing to do with election. God elects certain people based on His good pleasure (Eph 1:3-6), not based on any temporary physical attributes.

 

[Winman]

==I don't know what college he is attending nor do I know the quality of his teachers and his personal study on the subject. So I can't say if the college is to blame for this young man's misunderstanding or if the young man is to blame. Certainly there are many good resources on Calvinism available. If this young man has, or has not, taken the time to study those resources is not known. However I do know what unconditional election means. It means that God does not save a person based on anything within them. So things like race, ethnicity, sex, eye color, and haircolor have nothing to do with election. God elects certain people based on His good pleasure (Eph 1:3-6), not based on any temporary physical attributes.

Ephesians 1:3-6 does not say we are elected because of God's pleasure, God has no pleasure and it is impossible to please him without faith.

Read it again.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

We are chosen "in him" vs. 4. You cannot be elect outside of Jesus Christ. God did not elect unbelievers before the foundation of the world and then regenerate them to believe. God elects according to foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2) those he saw would believe on Christ.

Four times in this passage you gave as proof-text it refers to being in Christ.

1) "in Christ" vs. 3
2) "in him" vs. 4
3) "by Jesus Christ" vs. 5
4) "in the beloved" vs. 6

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

So, you do not understand the very scripture you post as proof-text. It repeatedly shows we are elected or chosen in Christ. No one will ever be chosen or elected outside of him.

The reason there is a smaller percentage of Christians in the Middle East and Far East is simple. The gospel has not been as widely known and preached there. It is forbidden in most Middle Eastern countries, a person can be put to death for preaching the gospel. There are competing religions in the Far East, especially Hinduism and Buddism.

But if God is simply going around regenerating people to believe as Calvinism teaches, you should expect to see roughly the same percentage of Christians to population worldwide.

You know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to accept it, plain and simple.

 

[annsni]

Ephesians 1:3-6 does not say we are elected because of God's pleasure, God has no pleasure and it is impossible to please him without faith.

Read it again.

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

We are chosen "in him" vs. 4. You cannot be elect outside of Jesus Christ. God did not elect unbelievers before the foundation of the world and then regenerate them to believe. God elects according to foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2) those he saw would believe on Christ.

Four times in this passage you gave as proof-text it refers to being in Christ.

1) "in Christ" vs. 3
2) "in him" vs. 4
3) "by Jesus Christ" vs. 5
4) "in the beloved" vs. 6

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

So, you do not understand the very scripture you post as proof-text. It repeatedly shows we are elected or chosen in Christ. No one will ever be chosen or elected outside of him.

The reason there is a smaller percentage of Christians in the Middle East and Far East is simple. The gospel has not been as widely known and preached there. It is forbidden in most Middle Eastern countries, a person can be put to death for preaching the gospel. There are competing religions in the Far East, especially Hinduism and Buddism.

But if God is simply going around regenerating people to believe as Calvinism teaches, you should expect to see roughly the same percentage of Christians to population worldwide.

You know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to accept it, plain and simple.

The passages say that He has chosen us in Him - not that He chose us because we were in Him. Big difference.

 

[Winman]

The passages say that He has chosen us in Him - not that He chose us because we were in Him. Big difference.

So, do you believe God chose you outside of Christ?

 

[annsni]

So, do you believe God chose you outside of Christ?

The Bible says God chose me in Christ. But He did not choose me because I Christ was in me.

 

[Winman]

The Bible says God chose me in Christ. But He did not choose me because I Christ was in me.

That is serious error. You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have believed on him. Here is what Spurgeon said on the matter:

The phrase "in Christ Jesus," then, has a weight of meaning in it. "How do we come to be there?" saith one. To whom we answer: our union to Christ is practically and experimentally wrought in us by faith when a man giveth himself up to Christ to sink or swim with Christ, when he leaneth his soul wholly on the Beloved, when as for his good works he abhorreth them, and as for his self-righteousness, he counteth it dross and dung, when he clingeth to the sole hope of the cross, then is such a man in Christ. He is further in Christ when he loves Jesus, when the heart having trusted and reposed in the cross, is moved with deep and warm affection to the Crucified, so that the soul clings to Christ, embracing him with fervent love, and Christ becomes the bridegroom, and the heart becomes his spouse, and they are married to one another in a union which no divorce can ever separate. When love and faith come together, then is there a blessedly sweet communion; these two graces become the double channel through which the Holy Spirit's influence flows forth daily, making the Christian to grow up more fully unto Christ Jesus in all things. The riper the Christian becomes, the nearer to the glory, the closer to the perfection which is promised, the more completely will he think and act, and live and move, in Christ his Master, being one with Jesus in all things. I shall not detain you longer over that one matter, every true Christian is in Christ.

You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have placed your trust in Christ. If you were in Christ before the foundation of the world, then you were born again before the foundation of the world.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

And Spurgeon also says this, that no man is born "in Christ".

I. First, then, let us consider THE CHRISTIAN'S POSITION—he is said to be "in Christ."

There are three stages of the human soul in connection with Christ: the first is without Christ, this is the state of nature; the next is in Christ, this is the state of grace; the third is with Christ, that is the state of glory.

Without Christ, this is where we all are born and nurtured, and even though we hear the gospel, and the Bible be in all our houses, and even though we use a form of prayer, yet until we are born again, we are without God, without Christ, and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel. A man may stand at the banqueting-table, and may be without food, unless he puts out his hand to grasp that which is provided; and a man may have Christ preached in his hearing every Sabbath-day, and be without Christ, unless he putteth forth the hand of faith to lay hold upon him. It is a most unhappy condition to be without Christ. It is inconvenient to be without gold, it is miserable to be without health, it is deplorable to be without a friend, it is wretched to be without reputation, but to be without Christ is the worst lack in all the world. O that God would make all of us sensible of it who are now the subjects of it, and may we no longer tarry in the position of being without Christ.

So, you believe you were saved "in Christ" from before the foundation of the world? You were born saved and have no need to be born again?

No, we are chosen or elected "in him", that is Christ. Now we know that we were not born into this world born again, and only become born again when we trust in Christ. Therefore God had to elect or chose us on the condition that he foresaw we would believe when we heard the gospel.

You cannot be chosen or elect outside Christ. God doesn't choose you or elect you to become a believer afterward. You must be a believer first to be in Christ.

Your doctrine is serious error.

 

[annsni]

That is serious error. You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have believed on him. Here is what Spurgeon said on the matter:



You cannot be "in Christ" unless you have placed your trust in Christ. If you were in Christ before the foundation of the world, then you were born again before the foundation of the world.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

And Spurgeon also says this, that no man is born "in Christ".



So, you believe you were saved "in Christ" from before the foundation of the world? You were born saved and have no need to be born again?

No, we are chosen or elected "in him", that is Christ. Now we know that we were not born into this world born again, and only become born again when we trust in Christ. Therefore God had to elect or chose us on the condition that he foresaw we would believe when we heard the gospel.

You cannot be chosen or elect outside Christ. God doesn't choose you or elect you to become a believer afterward. You must be a believer first to be in Christ.

Your doctrine is serious error.

Where did I say that I was in Christ before I was saved?

The Bible says that while I was still a sinner, Christ died for me.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Now, I know you Calvinists are going to hammer me for this title, but this is an honest question. This is something I really struggled with when I was a Calvinist and I really do wonder how Calvinists answer this question.

This is such a funny question, skandelon. very funny. God a racist ?

If you look at statistics regarding Christianity you will see some nationalities (such as the Chinese) have very few who claim to believe in Christ. I'm just wondering why?

As a matter of fact there are plenty of believers in China, then and now. Though I do not subscribe to the idea of missions in order to get souls eternally saved, it is a matter of fact that those missionaries who went to China back in the very early days found people whose hearts were prepared for the receipt of something other than ancestor worship.

If indeed God is the one making the choice with regard to who He saves and who he passes over, then can we conclude that God more often passes over Asians while choosing Anglos?

He did make the choice of who he saved, and whom He passed over. I got news for you, skan, the task of redemtion and salvation is OVER, FINI, KAPUT, DONE. Look at your Bible and try to divide the word correctly.

Eternal salvation is over, and the Bible describes a scene in heaven where those who came out of tribulation (not the dispensationalist great tribulation, mind you) came from all nations, and tongues, and kindred, etc., and there is a book in the Bible that shows Christ saying "now is the prince of this world judged".

So salvation and redemption is finished, and the prince of this world, Satan, was judged at the cross, and His people, all of them, "us", he has obtained eternal redemption for.
I am sorry to say to you that the implication is ain't nobody gon' be saved no more. Everybody that will be saved are already saved, everybody that will be redeemed are already redeemed, and everybody that's been passed over's been passed over, and all we're waiting for right now, is the second coming of Christ for His own, followed by the promulgation of judgment or the carrying out of the sentence for Satan, his angels, and the wicked.

Could these stats rightly bring the objection that God is a racists in that he prefers to save Anglos more than Asians?

no, it can't.

Why do you suppose God chooses to save more people in a particular area of the world?

He does not. That is your supposition.

 

[MB]

Now, I know you Calvinists are going to hammer me for this title, but this is an honest question. This is something I really struggled with when I was a Calvinist and I really do wonder how Calvinists answer this question.

If you look at statistics regarding Christianity you will see some nationalities (such as the Chinese) have very few who claim to believe in Christ. I'm just wondering why?

If indeed God is the one making the choice with regard to who He saves and who he passes over, then can we conclude that God more often passes over Asians while choosing Anglos? Could these stats rightly bring the objection that God is a racists in that he prefers to save Anglos more than Asians?

Why do you suppose God chooses to save more people in a particular area of the world?

What if God is a racist there isn't a whole lot anyone can do about it but, the fact that there are Christians in just about every country should prove, He isn't racist. How many there are isn't as important as you might think. There are many Anglo’s who think they are Christians and aren't. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven. You never know there may be more Asians than Anglos. More blacks, than whites. That gate is just as narrow as it has always been and there will be very few enter it in comparison to how many there are.
Make no mistake about it Salvation is all of God. Man has a choice alright but he never chose God. Though I'm not defending Calvinism.
God first chose us.
Didn't God give us His Word?
Didn't God draw us to Him?
Didn't a messenger from God convince us of His gospel through hearing it?
Didn't His Holy Spirit convict us of our sins? and
Didn't all this He has done take you to your knees in submission to Him?
If so all you did was give up your choice to rebel any longer. Because you quit your rebellion you believe you had something to do with your own Salvation. Quitting something, the last time I checked was doing absolutely nothing concerning it any longer.
How can you claim you had anything to do with your own Salvation?
How can you claim you chose Christ when He had already chosen you.
It's true we are told to Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but,
no one can believe unless they are first convinced. We do not convince our selves because we do not know of Christ until we are told. We do not convict our selves because it's takes God's Holy Spirit to convict us. Please if you would show us where in the Bible it says we can believe with out being convinced or, hearing the gospel or, give up our rebellion, with out being drawn, convinced, and convicted. I gave up because I ran out of excuses when I was convicted. My choice was to give up I had no other options. It's why they call it surrender.
MB

 

[MB]

As a matter of fact there are plenty of believers in China, then and now. Though I do not subscribe to the idea of missions in order to get souls eternally saved, it is a matter of fact that those missionaries who went to China back in the very early days found people whose hearts were prepared for the receipt of something other than ancestor worship.

There is only one way a heart can be prepared to receive Christ and that is to hear the gospel. It isn't as if God couldn't have prepared there hearts. It's just that God never changes. He always does what He says He will and the way he says it.
MB

 

[pinoybaptist]

There is only one way a heart can be prepared to receive Christ and that is to hear the gospel. It isn't as if God couldn't have prepared there hearts. It's just that God never changes. He always does what He says He will and the way he says it.
MB

I'm sorry, I will have to disagree with this statement.
There was no gospel when Job said he knew that his redeemer lives, no gospel before Jesus Christ was born, crucified, died, and rose from the dead (which is what the gospel is all about) yet the old man at the temple and the lady at the temple recognized who the infant Jesus was, there was no gospel when John the Baptist was in the womb, yet he knew who the baby was in the other womb, and certainly the Bible says God prepared the heart of Lydia for Paul's words.

The Holy Spirit goes way ahead of anyone else on this plane called time, and He, being God and omnipresent, does not need means to prepare anyone's heart.

 

[Skandelon]

This is such a funny question, skandelon. very funny. God a racist ?



As a matter of fact there are plenty of believers in China, then and now. Though I do not subscribe to the idea of missions in order to get souls eternally saved, it is a matter of fact that those missionaries who went to China back in the very early days found people whose hearts were prepared for the receipt of something other than ancestor worship.



He did make the choice of who he saved, and whom He passed over. I got news for you, skan, the task of redemtion and salvation is OVER, FINI, KAPUT, DONE. Look at your Bible and try to divide the word correctly.

Eternal salvation is over, and the Bible describes a scene in heaven where those who came out of tribulation (not the dispensationalist great tribulation, mind you) came from all nations, and tongues, and kindred, etc., and there is a book in the Bible that shows Christ saying "now is the prince of this world judged".

So salvation and redemption is finished, and the prince of this world, Satan, was judged at the cross, and His people, all of them, "us", he has obtained eternal redemption for.
I am sorry to say to you that the implication is ain't nobody gon' be saved no more. Everybody that will be saved are already saved, everybody that will be redeemed are already redeemed, and everybody that's been passed over's been passed over, and all we're waiting for right now, is the second coming of Christ for His own, followed by the promulgation of judgment or the carrying out of the sentence for Satan, his angels, and the wicked.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation and how will they know unless they hear? We are the means He has chosen for all to hear and believe, even Calvinists affirm such teaching and your "hyperism" is heresy that should be rebuked at every turn.

 

[psalms109:31]

scripture

2 Chronicles 16:9
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

 

[Skandelon]

2 Chronicles 16:9
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

Maybe they meant to say, "For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts were made by him to be fully committed to him."

 

[Martin]

Ephesians 1:3-6 does not say we are elected because of God's pleasure, God has no pleasure and it is impossible to please him without faith.

==Actually the text does say that we are "predestined...to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved" (Eph 1:5-6). The phrase "kind intention" can be rightly translated "good pleasure". The term Paul used here is "Eudokian" which means "good will, pleasure, favor; desire, purpose, choice". In other words, the text clearly indicates that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ chose (elected) us in Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). He predestined us to be adopted as His sons and He did all of this according to the good pleasure (kind intention) of His Divine will. Election is not based on anything in man. That is why we call it unconditional. Nothing a man is, nothing a man does, and nothing a man can be played any role in his election. Election is based on God's plan, purpose, and will. It is not based on us in any way.

We are chosen "in him" vs. 4. You cannot be elect outside of Jesus Christ. God did not elect unbelievers before the foundation of the world and then regenerate them to believe. God elects according to foreknowledge (1 Pet 1:2) those he saw would believe on Christ.

==The problem with what you are saying is that "He chose us in Him", "He predestined us to adoption", and He has given us an "inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose" (Eph 1 various). This is not a general statement about salvation in Christ alone, this is a statement of Divine election of each Christian. Each Christian has been chosen by God before the foundation of the earth. 1Peter 1:2 does not tell us what God foreknew. Faith? Works? The individual? However Paul does in Romans 8:29 when he says, "those whom He foreknew". Foreknowledge is of individuals and it is not passive. Peter's letter itself proves that foreknowledge is not a passive knowledge (1Pet 1:20). God foreknows His people. In fact, He has always known who His people were. Why? Because He chose them and, in time, He will draw them to Christ and raise them up on the last day (Jn 6:37-40, Rom 8:29-30, etc).

So, you do not understand the very scripture you post as proof-text. It repeatedly shows we are elected or chosen in Christ. No one will ever be chosen or elected outside of him.

==Nobody is saying a person can be saved outside of Christ. My point above was, and still is, that we have been chosen in Christ. We are His elect. Our salvation is His doing (1Cor 1:30-31).

The reason there is a smaller percentage of Christians in the Middle East and Far East is simple. The gospel has not been as widely known and preached there. It is forbidden in most Middle Eastern countries, a person can be put to death for preaching the gospel. There are competing religions in the Far East, especially Hinduism and Buddism.

==That is true.

But if God is simply going around regenerating people to believe as Calvinism teaches, you should expect to see roughly the same percentage of Christians to population worldwide.

==And, once again, I will point out that you don't have one shred of Biblical evidence to back up your assumption. You have created that assumption in your own head and are forcing it on Scripture. Nothing in the Bible says, or implies, that election should result in "the same percentage of Christians to population worldwide". You are promoting false doctrine because you are forcing an alien concept onto Scripture. I don't care that you reject Calvinism, that is fine with me, however I do care that you continue to use that false assumption as if it is fact. If you are going to reject Calvinism, at least do so on Biblical grounds and not those types of unBiblical assumptions.

You know what I am saying is true, you just don't want to accept it, plain and simple.

==I'm glad you think you know what I know. Actually I don't believe what you are saying is true. I believe your understanding of Scripture is wrong and your assumption about populations and election is nothing shy of false doctrine. I will not accept your views for those reasons. Even if I were to be convinced that Calvinism is wrong, I would still reject your assumption. Why? Because it is not based on Scripture. That, my friend, is very plain and very simple. :thumbs: