Non-Calvinists: Best argument?

[The Archangel]

This double Predestinarian argument just doesn't hold water. If there were 3 or more alternatives for man's eternal destiny, maybe. But there are only two. To not choose someone as one of the elect has exactly the same result as to choose them as one of the damned. Maybe you can assume that you know God's mind and His ways and say that His motive is different. I don't believe that's possible.

BaptistBeliever,

You raise a good point. And, yes, there is a tension. I am not a Double Predestinarian. You stated:

To not choose someone as one of the elect has exactly the same result as to choose them as one of the damned.

This is true. But, your point raises another point. It would seem you believe everyone deserves to be chosen. We don't. We all deserve hell. That God chooses some to escape Hell is not fair, it is grace.

Why God chooses some and not others is mystery and I don't pretend to know God's mind.

It is true that God's choosing one group to be saved requires the other group to be damned. So, God's choosing to save some out of all of us who are condemned does, ipso facto, necessitate the unchosen to be condemned, but they are already condemned. In essence, they loose nothing--the unchosen are not condemned based on God's choosing. Some of the condemned are saved based on God's choosing.

I hope that helps clarify the argument, even if you disagree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Outsider]

Archangel,

You posted:

If you'd like, I'd be happy to explain the Limited Atonement thing, at least as I read it in scripture.

I would like for you to explain this to me.

I have to say that I am able to see this somewhat. I think most people, including myself, look at limited atonement as unfair instead of a free gift. I have waivered many times on this subject. When its just me and Lord, its not even a question. I thank Him for what He freely done for me.
I settle into the doctrine of foreknowledge. Which, if you truly accept and search it out, it is actually a watered down version of election, but it is easier to handle.

Most people are scared to death of the words "Election" or "Predestination". They ultimately dismiss it because it appears unfair. This is the one point that I struggle with. I just can't accept that Christ died for a select few.

I would like to discuss this with you some more. I'm afraid I am a 4 pointer, but this day and time, if you believe in 2 or 3 of Calvin's points, you are tagged as a Hyper-Calvinist - lol.

 

[convicted1]

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument

I am one who, like a lot of others, agree with some of Calvin's beliefs, and disagree with some.

Total Depravity- I completely agree with this. Man on his own, will not turn to God. It takes the "drawing" of that sweet, Holy Spirit to draw man. I like using Acts chapter 9, when Apostle Paul(Saul at that time), was on his way to Damascus to persecute the church, when the Light shinied about him, and Jesus spoke to him. We can do nothing until the "Light" shines on us(Spirit drawing us)

Perseverance of the Saints- Another one of his beliefs I agree with. That which God saves, will remain saved. I don't use it as a license to sin, but those that are truly washed in the Blood of Jesus, will walk and talk differently, and will be known by their actions as a CHRISTian.

Limited Atonement- Don't agree with this one. When Jesus died on the cross, he left no one out. I think a lot of confusion comes about the "elect" from the book of Romans. It gives references to the "elect" several times, but at this time, the church is being preached unto the gentiles(Rome). They, like us, before Jesus died on the cross, had no hope....considered dogs. I truly believe that Paul was calling them "elect" because Israel(Jews) did not believe Jesus was who He said He was. So they were "dis-elected"(if that's a word), and we becames "elect" IMHO. By their rejection of Jesus, we became elected.

Irresistible Grace- This is one that I am "iffy" on. There was a time when God was really dealing with me. I went to church, cried at the preaching, singing, shouting, but in time, I quit and was worse than I was before. Reminds me of when the unclean spirit is out of a man, it walketh through dry places, seeking rest and findeth none. When it goes back, it finds it swept and garnished. It takes back seven spirits more evil than it, and the state of that man is worse than the first( not word for word, but kinda close). In time, when God began dealing with me again, I heeded and in time, by His Grace, He saved me!! I did resist it at one time, the other time, I didn't...this is why I kinda disagree with Iresistible Grace.

I know some will agree with me, some will try to tear it down. But, this is my honest opinion.

Sorry about the "U" in TULIP....I can't remember what it stands for. May God bless!!

Willis

 

[TCGreek]

The U stands for Unconditional Election.

 

[convicted1]

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument?

Thanks TCGreek....I will have to read up on it, see what it truly means according to Calvin, and give my thought! Thanks again

Willis

 

[convicted1]

RE: Non-Calvin's best argument?

Unconditional election is the controversial Calvinist teaching that before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons. Unconditional election was first codified in the Belgic Confession (1561), re-affirmed in the Canons of Dort (1619), which arose from the Quinquarticular Controversy, and is represented in the various Reformed confessions. It is one of the five points of Calvinism and is often linked with predestination.

I found this when I went to www.ask.com. This is the one belief of TULIP I do not agree with at all. I do believe that when made us, He knew which way we would go, but He didn't make us do it. When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, they did it of their own volition(sp?), not because God decreed it. If any die lost, it was because they rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. I just believe God will give all a chance, but most will not accept it.

Willis

PS I know that most, if not all, know what Unconditional Election is, I just wanted to copy and paste it for the "few" who don't...like I was until abput 5 mins ago. LOL

 

[TCGreek]

And you're not alone.

 

[sag38]

My best argument. I don't believe in fatalism which seems to be the end result of Calvinism. If I had no choice in my salvation then I really have no choice in anything else that I say or do. I have no choice in anything that happens in my life or this world. I am but a robot following my program along with all the other robots to our designated end (one being heaven or hell).

And, save me the I can't read God's mind, I have no right to question God, etc. I'm not questioning God. Rather, I'm questioning a particular interpretation of the scripture.

 

[bbas 64]

Sorry. I must have misread what you wrote. I'll have to come back to this later today or tomorrow. Too much to do at this very moment!

Good day, Matt

I know you have some scriptures to look at, I have been where you are at....

Just need to add another for your consideration, and to get your understanding.

Jer 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters; and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend, in the siege and in the distress, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their life, shall distress them.

In Him,

Bill

 

[cowboymatt]

Matt, I have wrestled with this very thought many times over the last 10 years, and I cannot seem to get a good grasp on it. I am not a 5 point Calvinist, but my theology would be somewhat Calvinistic.

My problem comes into reconciling the fact that God does not create evil with passages such as Is. 45:7; Amos 3:6; and Lam 3:38. And then even passages such as 1 Kings 22 where God uses a lying spirit. Can I get your thoughts on these issues?

It seems to be a rather important one and I cannot seem to wrap my mind around it.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?

Lamentations 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?

In none of these things is God the original cause of evil, which is the problem that I have with Calvinism. But in each case God is identified as the source of disaster and calamity. In two of the cases, Isa and Lam, these things are set off against good things, prosperity and good things, clearly indicating what is intended: God is the source of all things. In the case of Amos, v. 7, which helps me understand the purpose behind the statements in v.6, speaks of God's plan, another indication that he is the source of all things.

Each of these passages is not centrally about God doing bad things, instead each of them is an affirmation, in language that the prophets audiences would understand, that God is the source of all things.

 

[cowboymatt]

Good day, Matt

I know you have some scriptures to look at, I have been where you are at....

Just need to add another for your consideration, and to get your understanding.

Jer 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters; and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend, in the siege and in the distress, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their life, shall distress them.

In Him,

Bill

In Jer 19.1ff. God is telling the Israelites what will happen to them if they break the covenant. The "curses" get especially ghastly at v.9 where cannibalism is in view. However, there is some question about who the "them/they" is. Is it the attackers, the Israelites, or is the first one the attackers and the second one the Israelites? Either way, here God is indicating that it is he who will judge the breaking of the covenant, that is the central point of this passage.

 

[bbas 64]

In Jer 19.1ff. God is telling the Israelites what will happen to them if they break the covenant. The "curses" get especially ghastly at v.9 where cannibalism is in view. However, there is some question about who the "them/they" is. Is it the attackers, the Israelites, or is the first one the attackers and the second one the Israelites? Either way, here God is indicating that it is he who will judge the breaking of the covenant, that is the central point of this passage.

Good Day, Matt

I agree with your main points here, But the question does settle down too is God the cause for "them" (whomever they are) to act in a cannibalisic fashion?


Jer 19:9 "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them."'

In Him,

Bill

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. . . .


In none of these things is God the original cause of evil,

Can God create something and still not be the original cause of it?

This is where my struggle comes in....

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel,

You posted:

I would like for you to explain this to me.

I have to say that I am able to see this somewhat. I think most people, including myself, look at limited atonement as unfair instead of a free gift. I have waivered many times on this subject. When its just me and Lord, its not even a question. I thank Him for what He freely done for me.
I settle into the doctrine of foreknowledge. Which, if you truly accept and search it out, it is actually a watered down version of election, but it is easier to handle.

Most people are scared to death of the words "Election" or "Predestination". They ultimately dismiss it because it appears unfair. This is the one point that I struggle with. I just can't accept that Christ died for a select few.

I would like to discuss this with you some more. I'm afraid I am a 4 pointer, but this day and time, if you believe in 2 or 3 of Calvin's points, you are tagged as a Hyper-Calvinist - lol.

Outsider,

If you would, please let me answer this on my blog. I'll do a post outlining my position. I'll update the thread when it is done and you can visit by clicking the link on my "Signature"

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Jkdbuck76]

1. Why do you have a Calvinist as an avatar?
It is a joke. I cut his hair. It is a jab at one of the other posters here.

2. Most Calvinists do not believe that "God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell". But if He did, who are you to question it?
I am nobody.

3. How does God foreknow? Does He learn? Or does He decree?
He does not learn. He existed before time. He's omniscient. We're looking at the parade out of a peephole; He sees it from the top of a skyscraper.

4. Calvinists believe that "those who are saved wannabe saved and those who are lost wannabe lost." But I would add that the lost want to live in sin and go to heaven when they die anyway, but they don't actually want to be "saved" in the Biblical sense.
Yep. Living like hell and hoping for heaven.

my responses in bold above. Rippon, Archangel and others, thanks for the conversation. Now I have more things to think about.

 

[Salamander]

The Lord made Judas and yet said "It were better if that man had never been born..." That kind of cuts your protest down to size .

That would be due to his actions peformed out of his will, not becuase he was born.

 

[Salamander]

Can God create something and still not be the original cause of it?

This is where my struggle comes in....

define "evil".

Evil that comes from the devil is devilish/ evil that comes from God serves the purpose of God and is not devilish.

The Judgement of God seems evil to men who cannot see the end product.

 

[AAA]

jkdbuck,

In your first point, you seem to be outlining a position that is referred to as "Double Predestinarian." Please allow me to show why this concept is not the best way to view the Calvinist position.

1. In general, those who dislike predestination of any type seem to think it unfair and that idea, that it is unfair, betrays this thinking: All of us are born neutral, that is we are born neither good or bad.
2. The Double Predestinarian position basically claims God creates some to be bad (thus the song "Born to be Bad!) and He creates some to be good--to, someday, be regenerated and subsequently respond to God in repentance and faith.
3. The single predestinarian position essentially rejects these two ideas.

The Single Predestinarian position can be described this way:

1. God created Adam in His image and likeness. The image is functional in that man shows God to be the ruler of the earth as we rule earth in His stead as His representative and likeness is intrinsic in that we resemble Him in His characteristics. (Genesis 1:26)
2. Man fell and damages the image and likeness. I have argued the functional aspect remained (we still rule as God's representative) but the likeness is hopelessly marred.
3. Every human being after the fall was pro-created in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5)
4. The curse of the fall has now passed to us all and Adam's broken image (his sin, his rebellion, etc.) has now become the inheritance of us all so that we are all born bad--enemies of God (Because, among other things, we do not properly reflect His character, as seen in our sinfulness)
5. Since we are all born with a default evil or bad position, God chooses to redeem some of us by regenerating us (giving a new heart that can seek after Him (John 3; Ezekiel 36)
6. Those who have been regenerated seek Him and find Him and respond to Him in repentance and faith and become justified.

Here is an analogy I've used before:

The Arminian system of salvation sees salvation as God protecting those who have been saved from running out into oncoming traffic and being hit by a car and killed. The Calvinist system sees mankind as already dead--having been thrust into the traffic, hit, and killed by Adam's sin. So, in salvation, God walks among the corpses and touches some of them (chosen by His own good pleasure) and brings them back to life (through regeneration) and saves them through their repentance and faith.
​

I hope that helps you to understand the position, even if you don't agree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Good post..n/t

 

[cowboymatt]

Bill and PastorSBC: I think the problem that both of you are feeling would be alleviated by understanding that the OT gives God very human attributes -- anthropomorphisms. This was in accomodation to the people for whom the OT was written...so that they could understand. The point of all of the passages we are talking about is not whether or not God created or caused anything; the point is that God is the behind it all.

If we want to know what the Bible has to say about God's role with evil and sin we should look to passages that are about that: like James 1, which clearly indicates that evil and sin are the fault of humanity. It is one of the rules of interpretation: the clearer passage that is actually about the subject in question is the one on which to lean.

 

[Andy T.]

If we want to know what the Bible has to say about God's role with evil and sin we should look to passages that are about that: like James 1, which clearly indicates that evil and sin are the fault of humanity. It is one of the rules of interpretation: the clearer passage that is actually about the subject in question is the one on which to lean.

Most Calvinists would agree with you here, which is why a belief in Calvinism does not require a belief that God is the direct cause or author of sin. So I think your no. 2 objection in your original post is not really a valid one against Calvinism. It might be valid objection against God's omniscience, though. Truth is, if you believe in the perfect omniscience of God, you can be accused of God "causing" sin, since He knew what was going to come about when He decided to create the world. There was a good discussion between Russell55 and Allan regarding this very issue here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=46878