Question for Calvinists

[Yeshua1]

I would think that Calvinists would take exception to the idea that God predetermines to save a some to the neglect of all others. The notion that Calvinistic doctrine equates to divine neglect highlights a core misunderstanding of Calvinism (regardless of one's theological leaning on the topic).

God is actively determining to whom the grace of calvary would be applied towards, but allows the rest to stay in their natural state already found in!

 

[Winman]

God is actively determining to whom the grace of calvary would be applied towards, but allows the rest to stay in their natural state already found in!

Ever choose teams when you were a kid? You purposely chose your friends or the guys who you knew were good players.

By the same token, you purposely passed by some fellas. Either you didn't like them, or they couldn't play well.

But passing by someone is just as much a determination as choosing someone.

 

[Van]

Not to mention the non-Calvinistic claim that God is actively determining to whom the grace of Calvary would be applied...." The actual doctrine is God is not actively determining to whom the grace of Calvary would be applied, but that He made the determination of foreseen individuals before creation.

As I have said many times, Calvinists like to present views that are not Calvinism in order to make it sound less irrational.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not to mention the non-Calvinistic claim that God is actively determining to whom the grace of Calvary would be applied...." The actual doctrine is God is not actively determining to whom the grace of Calvary would be applied, but that He made the determination of foreseen individuals before creation.

As I have said many times, Calvinists like to present views that are not Calvinism in order to make it sound less irrational.

The Grace of Calvary is based upon those whom God predestines and foreknew due to them being elected out beforehand by Him to be found in Christ, correct?

 

[JonC]

God is actively determining to whom the grace of calvary would be applied towards, but allows the rest to stay in their natural state already found in!

Would you describe this as divine neglect?

 

[Skandelon]

The problem is the word “neglect.” It no more fits in the Calvinistic understanding of election than “man saving himself” fits into Arminianism. Each are either deliberately derogatory characterizations or genuine misunderstandings of the other’s theology.

Webster: Neglect: 1. to give little attention or respect, to disregard. Obviously this does not fit Calvinistic theology as they don’t claim that God gives little attention or respect to the lost…nor does God disregard the lost (God is attentive to the lost and exercises justice). 2. To leave undone or unattended, especially through carelessness. Again, this is far from understanding the Calvinistic view of election as they find a divine purpose for those who don’t believe.

Sounds like your saying that 'neglect' is too soft a word...as it seems the non-elect would WISH for mere neglect when in reality they are going to get his relentless hatred and torture, right?

I have heard Calvinists reference 'passing over' the non-elect to let them go their own way. In some regard that would be a form of 'neglect' wouldn't it?

I do see what you mean about neglect carrying the connotation of obligation, as if God owes those not chosen something....good insight. Thanks

 

[Skandelon]

God is actively determining to whom the grace of calvary would be applied towards, but allows the rest to stay in their natural state already found in!

Natural state? Did Mother nature make that state? Who, if not God, decides the 'natural state' of anything?

 

[steaver]

Natural state? Did Mother nature make that state? Who, if not God, decides the 'natural state' of anything?

Good observation :thumbsup:

But the Calvinist declares it is not God who caused their natural state of being born into sin, no, it is Adam's fault!
God is in Sovereign control only when it is most convenient for Him to be so.....................

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Good observation :thumbsup:

But the Calvinist declares it is not God who caused their natural state of being born into sin, no, it is Adam's fault!
God is in Sovereign control only when it is most convenient for Him to be so.....................

Are you bloody kidding me?!?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Natural state? Did Mother nature make that state? Who, if not God, decides the 'natural state' of anything?

He misspoke ...it isn't a natural state...it is a corrupted state.

 

[steaver]

He misspoke ...it isn't a natural state...it is a corrupted state.

Either way, God didn't cause it, correct?

 

[The Archangel]

I realize this author is not supportive of Calvinism, but would Calvinists here agree with him that this is a correct summary of our contention?

Evangelical leaders, such as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller and many other influential teachers are all promoting John Calvin’s so-called “doctrines of grace.” In short, these doctrines teach that God has long ago decided who will and will not be saved. Accordingly, the chosen ones, a preselect number of people referred to as “the elect,” will most certainly be saved, while the rest are left without any hope. Of course, there is much more explanation and various approaches of interpretation given by Calvinistic teachers that may serve to somewhat soften the blow of this harsh claim. Nonetheless, the idea that God has predetermined to save a particular number of people to the neglect of all others is the primary point of dispute regarding this dogma.​

There are numerous problems with the tenor of this quote....

First: To say that "God has predetermined to save a particular number of people to the neglect of all others..." grossly misunderstands the situation of the non-elect. This author (who has, as yet, gone unnamed) would seem to have us believe that the non-elect are sitting there weeping that they are not chosen (the use of the word "neglect" implies this). Nothing could be further from the truth. Man is constantly described in Scripture as having a heart that desires "only evil continually."

It simply is not the case that everyone is willing and God "neglects" a subset of the willing.

In reality, no one is willing. God overcomes the unwillingness of some, but not all, of the unwilling--those whom He decided to save.

Second: The issue for non-Calvinists is not those whom God "neglects." The issue is seen in the constant kicking against the true and accurate part of the authors statement, that "God has predetermined to save a particular number of people." Most non-Calvinists are greatly offended by this, because they cannot come to grips with a truly sovereign God.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

Most non-Calvinists are greatly offended by this, because they cannot come to grips with a truly sovereign God.

The Archangel

This card has been played over and over again. In reality it is the Calvinist who limits God by insisting that in God's Sovereignty, God is not allowed to give mankind a freewill. Now who is it who cannot come to grips with a truly sovereign God?

 

[The Archangel]

This card has been played over and over again. In reality it is the Calvinist who limits God by insisting that in God's Sovereignty, God is not allowed to give mankind a freewill. Now who is it who cannot come to grips with a truly sovereign God?

Let's see....

God is only truly sovereign when He isn't... Or, God is only truly sovereign when He limits His sovereignty... Or, the Potter is only truly the potter when the clay is able to direct the Potter's will...

Nope, not buyin' it.

And, besides, no Calvinist I know says that man doesn't have freewill, that God doesn't give man freewill. So, your statement, in addition to being both logically bizarre and inaccurate, creates a strawman by insisting we don't believe something that we clearly do...

The will of man--who desires only evil continually--is only "free" when God intervenes and graciously overcomes our sinful, only-evil-continually-desiring heart. When converted, an individual freely chooses Christ, but it's only because God has made the unwilling willing.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Let's see....

God is only truly sovereign when He isn't... Or, God is only truly sovereign when He limits His sovereignty... Or, the Potter is only truly the potter when the clay is able to direct the Potter's will...

Nope, not buyin' it.

And, besides, no Calvinist I know says that man doesn't have freewill, that God doesn't give man freewill. So, your statement, in addition to being both logically bizarre and inaccurate, creates a strawman by insisting we don't believe something that we clearly do...

The will of man--who desires only evil continually--is only "free" when God intervenes and graciously overcomes our sinful, only-evil-continually-desiring heart. When converted, an individual freely chooses Christ, but it's only because God has made the unwilling willing.

The Archangel

False, men who are "servants" of sin not only have the ability to choose good, Paul directly says they chose to obey the gospel. It was "then", AFTER choosing to obey the gospel that they were made free from sin and became servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.


Again, Paul thanks God that while these Romans "were" servants of sin, they obeyed the gospel delivered them.

This verse is fatal to your view and shows it complete error.

Men do not have to be made free of sin to obey the gospel as Calvinism falsely teaches. The scriptures teach that when sinners who are servants of sin choose to obey the gospel, at that moment they are made free of sin and become servants of righteousness.

Game over.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are numerous problems with the tenor of this quote....

First: To say that "God has predetermined to save a particular number of people to the neglect of all others..." grossly misunderstands the situation of the non-elect. This author (who has, as yet, gone unnamed) would seem to have us believe that the non-elect are sitting there weeping that they are not chosen (the use of the word "neglect" implies this). Nothing could be further from the truth. Man is constantly described in Scripture as having a heart that desires "only evil continually."

It simply is not the case that everyone is willing and God "neglects" a subset of the willing.

In reality, no one is willing. God overcomes the unwillingness of some, but not all, of the unwilling--those whom He decided to save.

Second: The issue for non-Calvinists is not those whom God "neglects." The issue is seen in the constant kicking against the true and accurate part of the authors statement, that "God has predetermined to save a particular number of people." Most non-Calvinists are greatly offended by this, because they cannot come to grips with a truly sovereign God.

The Archangel

Yes which I can only interpert as still being in rebellion.

 

[steaver]

Let's see....

God is only truly sovereign when He isn't... Or, God is only truly sovereign when He limits His sovereignty... Or, the Potter is only truly the potter when the clay is able to direct the Potter's will...

Nope, not buyin' it.

The Archangel

You fail to see your fallacy. God creating a freewill is not God limiting His sovereignty. Let's use Adam for an example, Calvinist say Adam had true freewill to choose life or death before the fall. What then? Did God limit His sovereignty in giving Adam a freewill to choose life or death? Or, the only option left for the Calvinist is that God made Adam choose death, for after all, God is the Potter, Adam had no freewill to choose anything apart from God causing that choice unless it be charged that God had given up His sovereignty or had limited His sovereignty with Adam. Your charges about the sovereignty of God towards the non-Cal are laid right back at you for allowing Adam the freewill to choose his destiny.

 

[The Archangel]

You fail to see your fallacy.

It isn't a fallacy, but I digress...

God creating a freewill is not God limiting His sovereignty. Let's use Adam for an example, Calvinist say Adam had true freewill to choose life or death before the fall. What then? Did God limit His sovereignty in giving Adam a freewill to choose life or death? Or, the only option left for the Calvinist is that God made Adam choose death, for after all, God is the Potter, Adam had no freewill to choose anything apart from God causing that choice unless it be charged that God had given up His sovereignty or had limited His sovereignty with Adam. Your charges about the sovereignty of God towards the non-Cal are laid right back at you for allowing Adam the freewill to choose his destiny.

First, there are two categories that you're conflating into one--Adam before the Fall is fundamentally different from the rest of us after the Fall.

Second, God ordained (which is fundamentally different from saying that God decreed or caused) Adam's sin.

Adam's will--again, before the Fall--is different from his will after the Fall and our will as well. After the Fall, Adam and the rest of us do not have the same free will as Adam had before the Fall. This is fundamental and basic to the Bible and to theology. Paul is clear, in our present state (after the Fall) we are slaves to sin. Genesis is clear that, after the Fall, man desires only evil continually. In other words, there is no "free" will after the Fall.

So if, as the Bible says, the "World [and man] are by sin destroyed and dead" (Basil Manly, Jr's words) there is no freedom in the sense in which Adam had free will. Since "in Adam" all died and all Fell, than all mankind has a will which is enslaved to sin.

What God does, in regeneration, is to set people free from that slavery so that they may freely choose Him. That God chooses not to redeem all is His prerogative. He owes salvation to no one--under any circumstances. That He saves any is a miracle of His grace.

How else can a heart which is "desperately wicked" and an only-evil-continually-desiring heart choose God except God intervene and change that heart?

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

It isn't a fallacy, but I digress...



First, there are two categories that you're conflating into one--Adam before the Fall is fundamentally different from the rest of us after the Fall.

Second, God ordained (which is fundamentally different from saying that God decreed or caused) Adam's sin.

Adam's will--again, before the Fall--is different from his will after the Fall and our will as well. After the Fall, Adam and the rest of us do not have the same free will as Adam had before the Fall. This is fundamental and basic to the Bible and to theology. Paul is clear, in our present state (after the Fall) we are slaves to sin. Genesis is clear that, after the Fall, man desires only evil continually. In other words, there is no "free" will after the Fall.

So if, as the Bible says, the "World [and man] are by sin destroyed and dead" (Basil Manly, Jr's words) there is no freedom in the sense in which Adam had free will. Since "in Adam" all died and all Fell, than all mankind has a will which is enslaved to sin.

What God does, in regeneration, is to set people free from that slavery so that they may freely choose Him. That God chooses not to redeem all is His prerogative. He owes salvation to no one--under any circumstances. That He saves any is a miracle of His grace.

How else can a heart which is "desperately wicked" and an only-evil-continually-desiring heart choose God except God intervene and change that heart?

The Archangel

Total deflection! The issue was God giving freewill to Adam and whether or not that constitutes God turning over sovereignty or limiting His sovereignty. This is the charge you lay upon the non-cal for believing God gives freewill. Yet you declare Adam was given freewill without God giving up His sovereignty. Double standard, you can't have it both ways, and you should stop declaring to the non-cal that God is being limited by freewill. It is disingenuous to say the least.

 

[JonC]

Sounds like your saying that 'neglect' is too soft a word...as it seems the non-elect would WISH for mere neglect when in reality they are going to get his relentless hatred and torture, right?

Not really. What I mean is that "neglect" is too hard a word for understanding Calvinistic theology within its own context. By "relentless hatred and torture" (a literal Hell) you are implying a specific judgment (and I may not consider myself a Calvinist, although I do believe in a literal Hell). But in the context being discussed (the appropriateness of "neglect) we should be looking at whether or not God saves sinners (as if the "elect" and "non-elect" are at the start under just condemnation). Even here, however, Calvinists do not necessarily agree. And neither case would indicate neglect or a relentless hatred on the part of God. Another interesting view that applies is whether or not salvation history centers around man or God.