Rain on the "Just" and "Unjust" ?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Peruse the context.

You need to elaborate.

 

[kyredneck]

You need to study the context of 2 Tim 2.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You need to study the context of 2 Tim 2.

Larry...I was up all last night with a man w/ pancreatic cancer....Im not firing on all 6.

 

[Aaron]

Typed this response in another thread wherein Calvinists were attempting to argue that since "rain falls on the just and the un-just"...that God "loves" everyone:
I thought this response was warranted:

Yes it does.

And wiser men know that it would be more loving of God to simply never have created or breathed the breath of life into the poor damned wretch to begin with.

It were certainly better for the pre-damned wretch for God NEVER to have CREATED THEM than that he possibly give them some 75+years of temporal Earthly "prosperity" only to condemn them to an infinite ETERNITY of torture. I'm pretty sure anyone would take the "just don't create me to begin with" option, if given a choice.

B.T.W: Isn't this "rain shines on just and unjust" argument taxed a little more than it can pay?

Lemme ask the Cal sycophants who are so addicted to this crack-rock of an argument a few questions:

1.) Do ALL of the condemned receive this "rain" or earthly blessing? I mean..do ALL of the "condemned" receive a "love" from God in terms of temporal Earthly prosperity?

2.) Aren't there MANY heathen condemned persons who ostensibly live their ENTIRE LIVES in squalor, poverty emotional and physical pain who go on to an eternity of hell and torment?

3.) Do you contend that ALL (heck even MOST) of the damned live lives of temporal happiness and success?

4.) If "the rain shines on the just and the un-just" don't the "monsoons" and "floods" and "tornadoes" and "hurricanes" do likewise?

5.) Does God protect the damned from natural disasters and famine and plague and war in a way such that they are "loved" by not ever having to experience them?

6.) Does the following scenario I am proposing NOT exist?

a.) A young girl is born to impoverished parents in India in 900 a.d.
b.) Her "father" is a vicious and perverted wretch who cares little for his wife or his own children
c.) Her "father" divides his time between working, paying insurmountable debts and visiting with disease-ridden un-bathed prostitutes who have given him venereal diseases which he passed on to his wife years ago, purchasing opiates and alcohol to dull the misery and meaningless and pain of his existence, and occasionally molesting his 8-year old daughter who subsists on roughly a bowl of rice and some tepid water a day plus some aging and fouling fish once per week.
d.) At the age of twelve her father dies, and she and her widowed mother (who statistically had 3 children die in infancy or before age 5) scrape out a living gathering refuse and weaving carpets and drapes for a nominal subsistence.
e.) When our fortunate lass reaches the age of fifteen her mother dies of a combination of malnutrition, leprosy and the venereal diseases her "husband" passed onto her 15-years ago.
f.) Our young lass (not knowing how else to eek out a meager existence) resorts to some form of prostitution in order survive..........(after all, she lost her virginity at age 7 to her father anyway no?)
g.) She feels little or no guilt for her life-style since she was born (according to God's perfect [and quite loving] decree) a sinner who "wants" to do nothing but sin and hasn't heard the gospel or that anyone "loves" her (whatever the heck that means).
h.) After 15 years of survival as a prostitute and at the ripe old age of 30 she shares a particular venereal disease with a man not unlike her own loving "father" who then passes that on to his OWN wife (but this is ancillary to our story).
More importantly......at the age of thirty.....she is withered, sick, aged, broken-down, and looks like she is fifty or more, and cannot reasonably charge the 10 rupees she used to charge....(since there are too many 16-year olds commanding that price)......so she has to drop her price down to 5 rupees per encounter.
I.) Eight years, 5 mis-carriages and one (now deceased) son who survived to the age of 4 later, she dies at the happy old age of 38..........sick and broken-down while bathing in the filthy waters of the Ganges River hoping to wash away her "sins" (whatever those are)........and she goes on to the GLORIOUS "loving" eternity of perpetual fires and punishment for her status as the "non-elect".....After all, she is indeed a "sinner" who "chose" to reject a God she's never heard of, thus, she must suffer eternally for having rejected him.

Conclusion: Calvinists delude themselves with this scenario of prosperity pouring down on the damned. You can have the "rain on just and unjust" argument sure................as long as you include my (quite accurate) scenario along with it. I promise you, it's far more common than the billionaire play-boy scenario you imagine.

As I stated earlier....................if my wife "loved" me in a similar manner as God as taught by Calvinism is a God who "loves".................................................
I'll pass on Calvinism "love", and just take the "don't create or 'love' me at all" option.

Care to defend your scenario farther?

Ever and anon the cry is "why doth He yet find fault?"

 

[kyredneck]

2 Tim 2:11-26 is in the very same sense and 'vein' as 1 Cor 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:20.

 

[kyredneck]

Ever and anon the cry is "why doth He yet find fault?"

"Who art thou oh man, that repliest back to God?"

 

[Amy.G]

You two realize that these are professing Christians here that have been taken captive by the devil by the will of God, right?

I'm not sure of your point, but these false teachers were not true Christians and were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place, which it had not. They apparently did not believe in a bodily resurrection which according to Paul was heresy.

1 Corinthians 15:16-17 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

[jonathanD]

1. Calvinist's don't believe that.
2. Repentance by definition is a VOLITIONAL act of the will.
3. In Calvinist thought, God must GIVE you repentance and dictates your response which is irresistible.
4. That's not repentance. Calvinism does not teach that man can change his mind and voluntarily turn to Christ in repentance.
5. The Calvinist view of "repentance" is no different than the universalist explanation of salvation with a different audience. Although universalism has everyone being saved, and Calvinism only the elect, both camps of theology hold that God saves the individual apart from any act of the will. Thus even though the recipients are different, the soteriological system is the same.
6. The Calvinist view of repentance is not a Biblical one.

1. False
2. You've imported your contra-causal presuppositions into that term. Regardless, a VAST majority of Calvinists believe men have volitional freedom. So again, deception.
3. The response is effectual. You are, again, arguing against a hypothetical man who desires to resist but is unable. This man does not exist (again, see volitional freedom from a compatibilists view).
4. Show me, biblically, where repentance requires contra-causal freedom. I'll save you time, you can't.
5. Oooh...association with universalists. Very clever...and fallacious.
6. That is your oft repeated opinion, but the fact remains that Calvinists DO believe in repentance. Your stating that they do not is dishonest. I will not hold my breath and wait for your apology.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Ever and anon the cry is "why doth He yet find fault?"

The simple question isn't whether there is "fault" or not. I only really pose one question with this O.P:

Do you consider God to have in a true normative and meaningful sense to have "loved" this hypothetical woman? Would you argue that she was "loved" in the respect that there was "rain upon the just and the unjust" etc...

Some Calvinists would forthrightly answer in the negative.
"Fault" is not the purpose of the O.P. it's a different question entirely.

 

[Inspector Javert]

1. False
2. You've imported your contra-causal presuppositions into that term. Regardless, a VAST majority of Calvinists believe men have volitional freedom. So again, deception.
3. The response is effectual. You are, again, arguing against a hypothetical man who desires to resist but is unable. This man does not exist (again, see volitional freedom from a compatibilists view).
4. Show me, biblically, where repentance requires contra-causal freedom. I'll save you time, you can't.
5. Oooh...association with universalists. Very clever...and fallacious.
6. That is your oft repeated opinion, but the fact remains that Calvinists DO believe in repentance. Your stating that they do not is dishonest. I will not hold my breath and wait for your apology.

Jonathan,

I know that some Calvinists (specifically, I believe, the older Divines) do not argue that God truly "loves" the non-elect:

I feel that that is a very honest and straight-forward position to hold. I would like to know your thoughts on my O.P. if you would care to weigh in.

 

[InTheLight]

I always find it comical when Calvinists try to tell non-calvinists what they really believe. Every time that happens, it's a straw man.

Fixed your post.

 

[DrJamesAch]

1. False
2. You've imported your contra-causal presuppositions into that term. Regardless, a VAST majority of Calvinists believe men have volitional freedom. So again, deception.
3. The response is effectual. You are, again, arguing against a hypothetical man who desires to resist but is unable. This man does not exist (again, see volitional freedom from a compatibilists view).
4. Show me, biblically, where repentance requires contra-causal freedom. I'll save you time, you can't.
5. Oooh...association with universalists. Very clever...and fallacious.
6. That is your oft repeated opinion, but the fact remains that Calvinists DO believe in repentance. Your stating that they do not is dishonest. I will not hold my breath and wait for your apology.

I can give you quote after quote from Calvinist themselves that show Calvinists do not believe in volitional freedom. And yet you contradict yourself when you say that Calvinists actually DO believe in volitional freedom and in the same breath ask to be shown where contra-casual freedom is involved in repentance.

Here's a simple clue. Not only is the metanoi itself a clear definition of a personal volitional act, that is what repentance means, an unforced change of mind, but if God merely predetermines mans salvation, then why not simply just save them without repentance? Oh wait..that's exactly what God does in Calvinism. So although in Calvinism, man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, yet his change of mind (repentance) is required to be saved (or which according to you, it isn't, you can't seem to make up your mind).

Since God has already determined that you are saved before you are even born in the Calvinist system, you in effect, were saved BEFORE YOU REPENTED, and therefore repentance was not even required in salvation. The fact that John Calvin as well as the creeds even argue this for infants proves that there are even some specific class of elect that are saved without ever having needed to repent.

"III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." WC ch 9

So if God regenerates infants, He could merely do the same with those who reach the age of accountability. Yet in Calvinism, it is denied that a person can call upon the Lord to be saved (an entire thread was devoted to that subject alone).

And yet here's the real kicker. Calvinists say that repentance and faith is a work, but only that it is a gift from God (a term found NOWHERE in Scripture). Yet if faith is a work, then even if God gives it to you, God is still saving you BY WORKS.

Verses for contra-casual free will repentance:

Acts 8:22 "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Notice that Peter told him to REPENT BEFORE he would pray to God to be forgiven.

Mark 6:12. Jesus preached that men SHOULD repent. No mention of Him GIVING them repentance, the decision is ON THEM (that men SHOULD REPENT).

Luke 13:

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Jesus makes clear that there is no difference between sinners He is talking to and sinners that died in the OT and He commanded them to repent with a HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT. Note EXCEPT YE repent. Except is a CONDITION that depends on the man's WILL

Matthew 18:3, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Again, an appeal not only to the will but to the humility of becoming child-like.

Revelation 2:5 "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." This shows the definition of repentance is a volitional change of mind and turning to a belief opposite of what you had previously shown.

Acts 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent"
Shows a call to ALL MEN, EVERYWHERE to repent not just "elect". And there is no "effectual" call attached to this. The word "effectual" itself is only used 6 times in the NT and not once does it have anything to do with a call to repentance or any distinction between "general call" and "effectual call". See Matthew 11:16-17 where the call was given to those who DID NOT respond.

The fact that popular Calvinist sites themselves have a totally wrong definition of repentance shows the erroneous nature of the Calvinist view of repentance:

"Again, the standard is God himself. Therefore, God will command everyone everywhere repent; that is, stop sinning." Calvinist Corner

NOWHERE in the NT, does repentance mean "STOP SINNING". Cessation from sin can be a RESULT of genuine repentance, but the term repentance itself NEVER means to "stop sinning". That is a perverted heresy.

Revelation 3:3 "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."

If God irresistibly converts the sinner, then there would be no external command for ALL MEN to repent.

I will continue to offer sound logical and Biblical explanations. You can keep offering humanist philosophy if you wish.

 

[The Biblicist]

Typed this response in another thread wherein Calvinists were attempting to argue that since "rain falls on the just and the un-just"...that God "loves" everyone:
I thought this response was warranted:

There are some presuppositions in your post that are not accurate from a Biblicist point of view.

1. Election is TO salvation - 2 Thes. 2:13
2. Hence, the presupposition to election is the need of salvation due to the fall
3. The fall is the basis for just condemnation of all men equally
4. Hence, justice demands damnation of all equally
5. Hence, the temporal consequences of sin upon all mankind is just
6. Therefore, justice calls for the wholesale damnation of all men equally without respect of person.

In contrast to this basis for just condemnation of all mankind equally is the Grace and Mercy of God.

1. Both Grace and mercy presuppose an already fallen condition or else there is no need for mercy or grace - Rom. 9:23 "vessels of MERCY"
2. Hence the lump of clay represents FALLEN mankind in Romans 9:20
3. God's justice calls for the wholesale condemnation of such a lump of clay.
4. Election is of grace - Rom. 11:6 not justice.
5. God can do what he wills with fallen mankind. He can exercise justice upon some and he can exercise mercy toward others as long as he satisfies the just demands against their sin.
6. God is glorified in his justice against the fallen non-elect and he is glorified in his mercy toward those elected to salvation based upon the grace provision of Jesus Christ.
7. Hence, justice calls for wholesale condemnation of all mankind equally and only grace provides for the salvation of any without violation of justice and without injustice toward the non-elect as they are getting exactly what they justly deserve and according to thier own free choice (Rom. 8:7).

Therefore, the real mystery is why God would have mercy on any of fallen mankind as there is nothing in the elect that deserve mercy any more than there is in the non-elect. The only stated purpose for the salvation of any is that it pleased God period. Without election there would be no savlation of any but merely condemnation of all equally and justly.

In regard to the love of God. There are different levels of love. The same Greek word for God's "love" (agape) is the same word used in human relationships. We are to love our enemies but obviously that cannot be the same level of love we have for our friends, for our general family, for our children, for our spouse. Each one of these relationships is agape but different levels.

Likewise God's agape is different in respect to the objects. He loves his creation, the works of his hands, but not in the same sense as he loves his children. His redemptive love is different than his Creative love. His redemptive love is different then his benevolent love whereby he feeds the sparrow, and brings rain and sunshine on the just and unjust alike. His redemptive love is restricted to the Person and work of his Son. This kind of love is found only IN Christ while OUTSIDE of Christ is the wrath of God - Jn. 3:36.

 

[jonathanD]

I can give you quote after quote from Calvinist themselves that show Calvinists do not believe in volitional freedom. And yet you contradict yourself when you say that Calvinists actually DO believe in volitional freedom and in the same breath ask to be shown where contra-casual freedom is involved in repentance. You're equating volitional freedom and contra-causal freedom. They are not the same thing. See DA Carson's Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Does Carson pass your smell test for a "real" calvinist? A VAST majority of Calvinists are compatibilists. Compatibilism holds that an agent is free if he acts according to his volition. Of course, you know that.

Here's a simple clue. Not only is the metanoi itself a clear definition of a personal volitional act (see above), that is what repentance means, an unforced change of mind again, you've equated contra-causal freedom with volitional freedom), but if God merely predetermines mans salvation, then why not simply just save them without repentance? Oh wait..that's exactly what God does in Calvinism. false So although in Calvinism, man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, yet his change of mind (repentance) is required to be saved (or which according to you, it isn't, you can't seem to make up your mind). These last sentences are just silly. IN light of my previous responses, I feel no need to respond to your misrepresentations.

Since God has already determined that you are saved before you are even born in the Calvinist system, you in effect, were saved BEFORE YOU REPENTED, and therefore repentance was not even required in salvation. Non Sequitur Election is causally prior to repentance. That does not mean repentance is not required for salvation. The fact that John Calvin as well as the creeds even argue this for infants proves that there are even some specific class of elect that are saved without ever having needed to repent. Resisting the urge to equate this with age of accountability arguments.

"III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." WC ch 9

So if God regenerates infants, He could merely do the same with those who reach the age of accountability. Yet in Calvinism, it is denied that a person can call upon the Lord to be saved (an entire thread was devoted to that subject alone). What's bolded is false.

And yet here's the real kicker. Calvinists say that repentance and faith is a work, but only that it is a gift from God (a term found NOWHERE in Scripture). Yet if faith is a work, then even if God gives it to you, God is still saving you BY WORKS. I'm not sure where you're getting this. Perhaps you've heard that repentance and faith is a work according to the arminian system. Either way, not really pertinent here...you're just throwing mud and seeing what sticks.

Verses for contra-casual free will repentance:

Acts 8:22 "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Notice that Peter told him to REPENT BEFORE he would pray to God to be forgiven. Contra-causal freedom does not follow from this verse. It is perfectly compatible with compatibilist freedom (see what I did there?)

Mark 6:12. Jesus preached that men SHOULD repent. No mention of Him GIVING them repentance, the decision is ON THEM (that men SHOULD REPENT). Again...not contra-causal.

Luke 13:

2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Jesus makes clear that there is no difference between sinners He is talking to and sinners that died in the OT and He commanded them to repent with a HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT. Note EXCEPT YE repent. Except is a CONDITION that depends on the man's WILL same as above

Matthew 18:3, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Again, an appeal not only to the will but to the humility of becoming child-like. same as above

Revelation 2:5 "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." This shows the definition of repentance is a volitional change of mind and turning to a belief opposite of what you had previously shown. again, you're not making a good case for how these verse show CONTRA-CAUSAL freedom

Acts 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent"
Shows a call to ALL MEN, EVERYWHERE to repent not just "elect". And there is no "effectual" call attached to this. The word "effectual" itself is only used 6 times in the NT and not once does it have anything to do with a call to repentance or any distinction between "general call" and "effectual call". See Matthew 11:16-17 where the call was given to those who DID NOT respond. So the call is not effectual, but the grace is. You're equivocating terms in an effort to make your weak argument stronger. Consider yourself called on it.

The fact that popular Calvinist sites themselves have a totally wrong definition of repentance shows the erroneous nature of the Calvinist view of repentance:

"Again, the standard is God himself. Therefore, God will command everyone everywhere repent; that is, stop sinning." Calvinist Corner

NOWHERE in the NT, does repentance mean "STOP SINNING". Cessation from sin can be a RESULT of genuine repentance, but the term repentance itself NEVER means to "stop sinning". That is a perverted heresy. I've never heard of the site. Repentance is a change of mind or a turning. I don't know that I would put things the way that they did, but I think you're reading too much into this.

Revelation 3:3 "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."

If God irresistibly converts the sinner, then there would be no external command for ALL MEN to repent. Non Sequitur

I will continue to offer sound logical and Biblical explanations. You can keep offering humanist philosophy if you wish.That's just it...your logic is poor and your exegesis is based upon your imported philosophy. If it makes you feel better to act like I'm the only one using philosophy, knock yourself out.

Replies in red.

 

[jonathanD]

Jonathan,

I know that some Calvinists (specifically, I believe, the older Divines) do not argue that God truly "loves" the non-elect:

I feel that that is a very honest and straight-forward position to hold. I would like to know your thoughts on my O.P. if you would care to weigh in.

I do not believe he loves the non-elect in the same way that he loves the elect (just as I do not love all women the same way I love my wife). The text says that he looked on the rich young ruler and he loved him. By all accounts, the RYR was not elect. This leads me to conclude that there must be a form of love that is not salvific, yet is genuine and true.

That said, I don't preach "God loves you, so come to him." I'm more of a "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" type guy myself. I don't have issue with those who lead with God's love, but I feel the helplessness of the sinner is a better place to start.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

There are some presuppositions in your post that are not accurate from a Biblicist point of view.

1. Election is TO salvation - 2 Thes. 2:13
2. Hence, the presupposition to election is the need of salvation due to the fall
3. The fall is the basis for just condemnation of all men equally
4. Hence, justice demands damnation of all equally
5. Hence, the temporal consequences of sin upon all mankind is just
6. Therefore, justice calls for the wholesale damnation of all men equally without respect of person.

What was elected in 2 Thes 2:13 was not salvation but the MEANS of salvation: through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Yet if God predetermines a select group of people of which are equally as undeserving of salvation as those whom He elected to damn, then in fact, God IS a respecter of persons. It is only when God gives men the choice to believe Him of their own free will that He can not be accused of being a respecter of persons because those who are damned take on the responsibility for their own damnation.

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20

In contrast to this basis for just condemnation of all mankind equally is the Grace and Mercy of God.

1. Both Grace and mercy presuppose an already fallen condition or else there is no need for mercy or grace - Rom. 9:23 "vessels of MERCY"
2. Hence the lump of clay represents FALLEN mankind in Romans 9:20
3. God's justice calls for the wholesale condemnation of such a lump of clay

.

Neither vessels of mercy nor vessels of wrath have anything to do with HOW or WHY they were created. If that were true, a vessel of wrath would also be a vessel of child molestation, a vessel of rape, a vessel of murder, a vessel of blasphemy.

This vessel was formed IN TIME, not in eternity. Your status as a vessel of honor or to dishonor depends on YOU:

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. " 2 Tim 2:20-21

The Potter can change his mind as He is forming the vessel and make it into another vessel.

"Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." Jeremiah 18:3-4

These vessels were not marred by the potter himself. But nevertheless the difference between the bad and good vessel is OBEDIENCE.

"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. Jer 18:7-8

The vessel in Jeremiah 19 that is a "vessel of wrath" God disgards because that vessel had FORSAKEN GOD. Jeremiah 19:1-4, 10

4. Election is of grace - Rom. 11:6 not justice.
5. God can do what he wills with fallen mankind. He can exercise justice upon some and he can exercise mercy toward others as long as he satisfies the just demands against their sin.
6. God is glorified in his justice against the fallen non-elect and he is glorified in his mercy toward those elected to salvation based upon the grace provision of Jesus Christ.
7. Hence, justice calls for wholesale condemnation of all mankind equally and only grace provides for the salvation of any without violation of justice and without injustice toward the non-elect as they are getting exactly what they justly deserve and according to thier own free choice (Rom. 8:7).

You have a mistaken view of justice. Justice does not only punish the guilty but vindicates the non guilty. Romans 13 with 1 Peter 2:14 " Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." (a concept forgotten and neglected in ALL legal systems today). Thus a type of election that selects only a certain few and declares them righteous is still a JUDICIAL declaration of sinners made righteous through Christ-justice. It is a matter of justice whether they were determined to be saved or whether salvation was responsive.

It is a complete contradiction in terms to hold that man is predetermined to eternal damnation, and that because he suffers from a total inability which shows that he can not act or believe otherwise, that he is at the same time justly damned of his own FREE choice. You can not at the same time hold that the sinner is given a bona fide offer of salvation which must include the actually ability to be accepted, and then hold that such offer will only be accepted by the elect.

Therefore, the real mystery is why God would have mercy on any of fallen mankind as there is nothing in the elect that deserve mercy any more than there is in the non-elect. The only stated purpose for the salvation of any is that it pleased God period. Without election there would be no savlation of any but merely condemnation of all equally and justly.

So it pleased God to damn sinners before they were even born? Perish the thought. As I have stated heretofore in this thread, such a view makes the demonstration of God's sovereignty DEPEND on evil, and such is a myopic view that the omnipotent God of eternity who needed no demonstration to prove He is God prior to creation that He must needs depend on evil or anything in creation to PROVE and demonstrate who and what He is. When God said "I AM THAT I AM", that was and IS all that is necessary to prove who God is.

In regard to the love of God. There are different levels of love. The same Greek word for God's "love" (agape) is the same word used in human relationships. We are to love our enemies but obviously that cannot be the same level of love we have for our friends, for our general family, for our children, for our spouse. Each one of these relationships is agape but different levels.

Likewise God's agape is different in respect to the objects. He loves his creation, the works of his hands, but not in the same sense as he loves his children. His redemptive love is different than his Creative love. His redemptive love is different then his benevolent love whereby he feeds the sparrow, and brings rain and sunshine on the just and unjust alike. His redemptive love is restricted to the Person and work of his Son. This kind of love is found only IN Christ while OUTSIDE of Christ is the wrath of God - Jn. 3:36

John 3:16 "For God so agapaō the world..." You assertion that there are different levels of AGAPE is not accurate. The Greek and Hebrew have various terms for affection and commitment, but in English the word "love" covers all of them. Yet even in the Greek, the highest form of unconditional love is directed to THE WORLD and the WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH.

Show me one verse in the New Testament where God shows a different usage of the word love in any form from His creation of trees, animals, and humans. I can see an evolutionist using an argument like that, but not any Bible believing Christian. That is akin to ascribing God's treatment of animals no different than His treatment of humans, and if that was the case, animals would be sacrificing humans for sin in the OT, not the other way around.

The end of your argument is EXACTLY what Jovert refuted in his OP, and you pretty much just proved his point.

 

[Aaron]

Ever and anon the cry is "why doth He yet find fault?"

The simple question isn't whether there is "fault" or not. I only really pose one question with this O.P:

Do you consider God to have in a true normative and meaningful sense to have "loved" this hypothetical woman? Would you argue that she was "loved" in the respect that there was "rain upon the just and the unjust" etc...

You're failing to take into account what the girl deserves as a member of corrupt and fallen mankind, and what she got while here on earth, and you have set yourself as a judge of God, Who said without apology that He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

And so, ever and anon, the noncalvinist cries, "why doth He yet find fault?"

 

[DrJamesAch]

I do not believe he loves the non-elect in the same way that he loves the elect (just as I do not love all women the same way I love my wife). The text says that he looked on the rich young ruler and he loved him. By all accounts, the RYR was not elect. This leads me to conclude that there must be a form of love that is not salvific, yet is genuine and true.

That said, I don't preach "God loves you, so come to him." I'm more of a "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" type guy myself. I don't have issue with those who lead with God's love, but I feel the helplessness of the sinner is a better place to start.

Rich Young Ruler Mark 10:21:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἕν σοί ὑστερεῖ ὕπαγε ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ δὸς τοῖς πτωχοῖς καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν"

The highlighted word is AGAPE (egapesen from agapeo). By all accounts, the RYR was not elect, and yet Jesus showed the same expression of love to Him as His children, or "the elect".

And the love you have for a wife can not be compared to the love that God can have towards all. Can you claim that you love your wife PERFECTLY...ALL THE TIME? Yet you can demonstrate AGAPE towards other women, you simply can not demonstrate eros toward other women, but in that respect, neither does God.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You're failing to take into account what the girl deserves as a member of corrupt and fallen mankind, and what she got while here on earth, and you have set yourself as a judge of God, Who said without apology that He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

And so, ever and anon, the noncalvinist cries, "why doth He yet find fault?"

You are making this about justice, and it's not. "Justice" is not the point................and, just to keep you from defaulting to them, I'm not asking about Omnipotence or Sovereignty either.

God posesses more attributes than Justice and Sovereignty (TRUE STORY!!).
I am asking about his LOVE!! I am beginning to believe that that is a particular attribute that you don't care to discuss.

I would be curious to know (the O.P. is clear on it) whether you would argue that God "loves" this woman....not whether he is just in condemning her.

I'll concede any point about justice you want for the time being, if you would be willing to mention his Love (as per the O.P.)

you have set yourself as a judge of God

That statement comes in a Calvin-labeled tuna-can.....I'm not asking about God's justice...you're just defaulting to it because it seems to be the only attribute you care anything about. No-one is "judging" God. That isn't even the point of the O.P. I'm talking about God's LOVE. Do you even know how to differentiate?
Why not answer the question?

DO YOU MAINTAIN THAT GOD "LOVES" the non-elect in any normative or meaningful sense?
A yes or no would do to start with:
See Pink (a smart Calvie)....he just said "NO". <---I can dig that.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You're failing to take into account what the girl deserves as a member of corrupt and fallen mankind, and what she got while here on earth, and you have set yourself as a judge of God, Who said without apology that He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

And so, ever and anon, the noncalvinist cries, "why doth He yet find fault?"

You are being inconsistent in your own theology. God doesn't "elect" in the Calvinist system based upon what anyone DESERVES which even you admit that standard is applied to those He "elects" to eternal life. If election therefore is not based upon what is DESERVED, that would equally apply to the damned who are-according to Calvinism-elected to damnation before they were born or became sinners. All deserve judgment as sinners, but that is not the basis on which God would determine anyones salvation or damnation even if it were true that He used such a deterministic scheme of selection.

And "why doth he find fault" has absolutely nothing to do with God preordaining someone to hell, or preordaining them to heaven. It has to do with question God about why He decided to use vessels that were ALREADY MADE into SOMETHING ELSE. Israel was a vessel that was chosen to be the elect of God (Isa 45:4) they REBELLED and therefore God changed them into a vessel of wrath by putting them under temporary blindness because of their rebellion (Matt 23:37-39, Roman 11:25-26).

EVERY Calvinist skips the entire context of Romans 9-11 which Pauls makes absolutely clear is about Israel AS A NATION, the SEED of ISAAC. "Hath God cast away his people which he FOREKNEW". So who are the people which God foreknew? The church???? The elect?? So you mean to tell me Romans 9-11 is about the elect IN THE CHURCH and Paul is asking if God CAST THEM AWAY? It is absurd to even assume for one second that Paul would posit such a question if Romans 9-11 was about the elect in of the church.

Romans 9-11 from start to finish is Paul answering the question that if Israel was under the covenants, and yet they rejected Christ and salvation is now offered to the Gentiles, what then becomes of Israel? You CAN NOT understand Romans 9-11 without understanding THAT QUESTION.