so, who is the majority here

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Charlie T:
If so then I agree with BobRyan's statement. All men are completely without merit and the very best works of the very best man are but filthy rags to God. We are all equally deplorable before Christ until He changes us.

Charlie

I was addressing it to Bob. And Bob's statement implied the opposite. So I would assume you're disagreeing with Bob, unless Bob corrects me on his position on the matter.

To sum up: Bob repeatedly accuses Calvinism of asserting that election is purely arbitrary, that Calvinists claim God picks people to be saved willy-nilly (on par with tossing darts at the names in the book of life).

As "evidence" of this, Bob said that Calvinists claim that we can in no way merit salvation.

Now the latter does not necessarily imply the former (arbitrary election), but I was so amazed that Bob would object to the assertion that we can in no way merit salvation that I had to do a double-take to make sure he truly objects to that concept.

[ December 18, 2002, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[tyndale1946]

The few the proud the Marines... Of which I am one because I have not belonged to any other military organization... Of the whole world there are only a few that are called Marines out of the whole race of mankind.

Taking that into consideration the children of God that see him face to face by the sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ and his amazing grace are not the few... The elect according to the scriptures are all those that the Father gave the son to save but they are not the few as some seem to imply and wrest the scriptures out of context.

The scriptures state that Gods blood bought grace wrought children are as the sands of the sea and the stars of the sky... An unnumerable host that no man can number... If you can not number them how can they be considered the few?... Or do we use this as a measuring stick to say according to me I'm of the few and your not?

I'm of the Primitive Baptist brethren and proud of it but you will never hear any of our brethren say that or even imply it. We believe that Jesus Christ will save all his people that he died for and will not lose a one sheep... Calvinist and Primitive Baptist brethen do not believe in a few but an elect household of God... That no man can number not even with the most powerful computer!... Then again few is not in our eternal salvation vocabulary

... Brother Glen Of The Primitive Baptist Brethren

 

[BobRyan]

npetreley said
Why do you keep inserting that word ("Arbitrary") into Calvinism? Do you honestly believe that Calvinists know why God chooses one over another, and that they have discovered that the process is purely "arbitrary"?

To which I gave the classic definition of Arbitrary selection within a group.

Bob said

Indeed they have. The claim is that "there IS NOTHING about you that recommends YOU to God for selection over the person next to you"... - nothing about you determines the choice.

And then - switching from the point you were just making about the meaning/definition of Arbitrary and why/how it could possibly apply to the Calvinist view as stated above ... you ask.

npetreley said

So am I to understand that you disagree with the above? You think God chooses us for salvation because we're better or because we show more promise...

#1. Staying "with the point" being asked in the first place - this IS the definition of Arbitrary. In direct answer to your first question - it is why I say "When Calvinism Says God so Loved the "World" - By the term world it means - those "FEW" of Matt 7 whom God arbitrarily selected" (as in the definition above that you and other Calvinists show perfect agreement with) -

#2. Moving to your next question. The Arminian position is that "instead of arbitrary selection" God is "Drawing ALL MANKIND" to Him - John 12:32. But of course, you knew I was going to point that out - as the contrast. It is an entirely different model from arbitrary selection.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 18, 2002, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Charlie T
Jesus words are figurative as you know. The meaning is clear that it is easier to go to Hell and more will be in Hell.

True - He is saying that by comparison the FEW go to heaven and the MANY go to hell. It is HIS Own direct comparison - so I accept it as fact.

And it is those whom HE calls "FEW" that Calvinism claims to be arbitrary selected out of the group "all mankind".

Charlie T
So both of us say that more men will be in Hell than Heaven. I say that this is because God has graciously chosen some. None deserve salvation, but God will save ALL that He has GRANTED.
...
There are MANY in the Elect. Spurgeon went so far as to say that MORE would be saved, but most disagree with that. The Number will be large though in my opinion.
....
But ultimately more will be damned and fewer saved.

Now let's plug your view into the "classic future scenario for Calvinism" when one of the "MANY" turns out to be a precious loved one to see how it plays out in the acid test of real issues that must be faced and explained by Calvinism.

=================================================

When the 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry "Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear - "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Halelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not. (For it IS all about You in the end) Blessing the fact that He chose You - that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's. So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not allowed the "luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the calvinist mind.

All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance". Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too. I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

=================================================

npetreley
You say that God wants to save all, but fails miserably. This is a very sad doctrine.

As I stated above in the scenario's conclusion, many do consider that view of a loving God sending wave after wave of mercy to those whom He has ENABLED with Choice - to be a "sad doctrine".

My conclusion is that each group must come to grips with the view it paints of God while ALL claim "my view is totally biblical - scripture alone".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />npetreley said
Why do you keep inserting that word ("Arbitrary") into Calvinism? Do you honestly believe that Calvinists know why God chooses one over another, and that they have discovered that the process is purely "arbitrary"?

To which I gave the classic definition of Arbitrary selection within a group.</font>[/QUOTE]No, what you simply did was say that your perception of God's election is that it must be arbitrary because Calvinists claim salvation is not based on merit, and that's your definition of arbitrary. That does not in any way make God's election arbitrary. It only reveals that you have a limited imagination about what is arbitrary and limited information about what God knows and does, and have jumped to a conclusion.

I can imagine a number of scenarios where we do not in any way merit salvation without that making election arbitrary. But the key difference between us is that I will gladly admit that what I can and cannot imagine does not constitute truth, so it would be arrogant for me to claim Calvinism or Arminianism is arbitrary simply because I have imagined it to be so.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said

Indeed they have. The claim is that "there IS NOTHING about you that recommends YOU to God for selection over the person next to you"... - nothing about you determines the choice.

And then - switching from the point you were just making about the meaning/definition of Arbitrary and why/how it could possibly apply to the Calvinist view as stated above ... you ask.

npetreley said

So am I to understand that you disagree with the above? You think God chooses us for salvation because we're better or because we show more promise...

#1. Staying "with the point" being asked in the first place - this IS the definition of Arbitrary. In direct answer to your first question - it is why I say "When Calvinism Says God so Loved the "World" - By the term world it means - those "FEW" of Matt 7 whom God arbitrarily selected" (as in the definition above that you and other Calvinists show perfect agreement with) - </font>[/QUOTE]It is a small wonder you want to avoid the second question because it paints you into a terrible corner. If you admit that we are not saved by any merit of our own, then the criteria you used to judge Calvinism as "arbitrary" also applies to the Arminian view. If you claim that we somehow merit salvation, you plainly contradict scripture. So you can and do neither, as is revealed here:

Originally posted by BobRyan:
#2. Moving to your next question. The Arminian position is that "instead of arbitrary selection" God is "Drawing ALL MANKIND" to Him - John 12:32. But of course, you knew I was going to point that out - as the contrast. It is an entirely different model from arbitrary selection.

In Christ,

Bob

You're the one who said that if God does not elect us based on any merit of our own, that is the definition of arbitrary. So to say that the reason Arminianism does not describe arbitrary election is because God draws all mankind simply avoids the issue of merit which you raised as an objection to Calvinism.

So make up your mind. If you agree that we cannot merit salvation, and insist that lack of merit is the definition of arbitrary, then you are also saying Arminianism is arbitrary. If you insist on retaining that definition of arbitrary yet claim Arminianism is not arbitrary, then you are saying we merit salvation.

[ December 18, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[Charlie T]

Bob:

Now let's plug your view into the "classic future scenario for Calvinism" when one of the "MANY" turns out to be a precious loved one to see how it plays out in the acid test of real issues that must be faced and explained by Calvinism.

And what is the purpose of this little scenario? What is the reaction that the father should have? Are you suggesting that he shake his fist at the Creator of the Universe and curse Him for not serving man's desires?

This seems to be an effort to remove scripture and reason from the discussion and to move it to a purely emotional level. Not the best criteria for determining proper doctrine. The above assumes things not known and assumes that man can know God's ways.

Your overall comments of "arbitrary" election is not consistent with the Bible or Reformed Theology.

Charlie

 

[BobRyan]

Charlie TAnd what is the purpose of this little scenario?

The purpose is to "remove the luxury" of a heartless disregard for the lost. To make the application close and personnal where "a heartless disregard" is not an option for the Calvinist by relying on the fact that no matter what our differences on this board - all of us dearly love our precious children.

Charlie T
What is the reaction that the father should have? Are you suggesting that he shake his fist at the Creator of the Universe and curse Him for not serving man's desires?

No I am suggesting that the man in the story is doing everything right in going to God and expressing great anguish and concern for his precious daughter.

Charlie T
This seems to be an effort to remove scripture and reason from the discussion and to move it to a purely emotional level. Not the best criteria for determining proper doctrine.

This scenario is an appeal ON TOP of all the scripture supporting the Arminian view of God as "love".

It is NOT in the "absence" of Peter's statement that "God is not willing for ANY to perish" - or John's statement that "God so loved the WORLD" - or That He convicts the WORLD of sin and rightousness and judgment or in absence of the statement by John that "His is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world" 1John 2:2

There are reams and reams of scripture in support of this.

But you are correct - it does ADD to all that scripture - the real human emotion of the real life and death issues at stake.

Charlie T

The above assumes things not known and assumes that man can know God's ways.

ON the contrary - we DO know that God will exist in the future AND so will the saints AND we know that we WILL have loved ones that don't make it and we KNOW that heartless disregard for our children TODAY is not an "expected" definition of "LOVE", even by corrupted, fallen, human, sinful standards. All the elements of the story are KNOWN today and into that we simply plug in what Calvinism's model "expects" to be the case with regard to God and the lost.

Charlie T
Your overall comments of "arbitrary" election is not consistent with the Bible or Reformed Theology.

Fine - prove it in the form of a well reasoned argument showing that the "FEW" of Matt 7 are selected on some basis that DOES deal with differences IN the global group that is "all mankind - lost humanity".

As it stands now (and as comments from Calvinists have shown in response to that detail) - they DO accept that NOTHING about any individual in that "Group" determines their being "Selected".
(Which is the poster child for the term "Arbitrary selection" by all accounts).

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 21, 2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[KenH]

God is love and He will save everyone whose sins Jesus bore on the cross as God is also just and He will not, indeed cannot, punish a person for sins which He has already punished His Son for.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Charlie T
Your overall comments of "arbitrary" election is not consistent with the Bible or Reformed Theology.

Fine - prove it in the form of a well reasoned argument showing that the "FEW" of Matt 7 are selected on some basis that DOES deal with differences IN the global group that is "all mankind - lost humanity".</font>[/QUOTE]You are the one who claims it is arbitrary. So prove that it is. You cannot, of course. In the first place, you painted yourself into a Biblical corner when you claimed that salvation must be arbitrary because it does not depend upon merit.

But even your challenge betrays your limited thinking. In order to make the argument that salvation is arbitrary without merit, you must assume that salvation can only occur through a linear process where selection for salvation occurs at some point after the process has started. Your view assumes God creates, God interacts, decisions are made, and then God saves. In this case, the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism amounts to who makes the decisions.

But how do you know it works that way at all? What if God creates some for the purpose of saving, and others (who will not be saved) for the purpose of molding and shaping those He created to be saved? If this is how it works, then nobody is selected for salvation at all. They are created for it. There's no free will and no merit, yet there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about the process from God's point of view. God creates with a purpose, and makes His purpose come to pass.

In short, the only thing you've demonstrated so far is that your limited viewpoint on how things work makes salvation seem arbitrary to you if Calvinism is true. But you haven't come within light years of demonstrating that it must be arbitrary.

 

[BobRyan]

But how do you know it works that way at all? What if God creates some for the purpose of saving, and others (who will not be saved) for the purpose of molding and shaping those He created to be saved? If this is how it works, then nobody is selected for salvation at all. They are created for it

Indeed "what IF"?

You are simply playing games and avoiding the point.

The starting pool is the same no matter how you view it. There are only so many people that will be created and God has always known who that is.

In your view He simply chooses to create some for heaven and others for the fires of hell. And "nothing about You" influences/affects the decision.

But if we look at how your "solution" addresses the subject of arbitrary selection - then plug it into the "Calvinist future scenario" we get ....

When the Calvinist father sees his precious daughter writhing in agony in the flames of eternal fire - he rushes to God and cries out "Oh my God! My Lord and Savior - Couldn't you have done Something to save my precious daughter..

God gives the answer that some Calvinist so "expect" to hear ... "WHy of course I Could if had decided to Create her for enjoying eternal life and joy with Me today .. but I actually decided to Creat her for the very writhing and agony in which she now suffers. I not only chose it for her - I Created Her For IT!

It was not failure to notice her as some of your Calvinist bretheren have told you -- rather, I deliberately MADE her for this torment alone!

You may wonder why I did not include your view in my scenarion to start with - I did not include that as an option, since I am hoping that many Calvinists would not agree with your view of God on that point. But as you seem to be happy with it as "a solution to the arbitrary selection process" - I offer it here.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 22, 2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[KenH]

God is perfect love. He creates no one for eternal torment in hell.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
You are simply playing games and avoiding the point.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Are we saved by some merit of our own or not? Why are you having so much trouble answering that question?

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The starting pool is the same no matter how you view it.

No, the way you see it, it's a starting pool. A starting pool leaves open the possibilities that some will be saved and others won't, so you've already reached your conclusion before you made your argument. That's faulty reasoning.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There are only so many people that will be created and God has always known who that is.

You say it as if someone else were doing the creating and God only knows about it.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In your view He simply chooses to create some for heaven and others for the fires of hell. And "nothing about You" influences/affects the decision.

It is not my view. I proposed a hypothesis solely to demonstrate that your reasoning was faulty. Salvation that does not depend on the merit of man is not arbitrary of necessity. You only think it is.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But if we look at how your "solution" addresses the subject of arbitrary selection - then plug it into the "Calvinist future scenario" we get ....

Yes, yes, we've all read your scenario every which way you propose it and most of us have probably memorized several versions.. But it's a ficticious example based on a charicature of Calvanism. So now who is playing games?

In case you forgot, are we saved through any merit of our own or not?

 

[BobRyan]

Ken -- God is perfect love. He creates no one for eternal torment in hell.

That blows npetreley's "solution" for the "arbitrary selection" of the elect from among mankind.

Its hard to have it both ways.

But I agree with you - although God knows exactly who will be born and He creates the system that allows births to happen - even for sinful humanity - still He does not set out to Create Beings for roasting in His fires of hell as much as "doing so" would solve the "arbitrary selection" problem in the minds of some.

Rather "He is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance".

"Creating beings for hell" is not in scripture.

Even in Romans 9 - God is said to "Endure with MUCH PATIENCE" those whom He KNOWS to be condemned and who will never accept salvation - though "ALL MANKIND is DRAWN" to Him.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Saved by Grace through FAith - NOT of works lest any man should boast. Eph 2

TRUE.

"Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the Kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of my Father" Matt 7

TRUE

"For it is NOT the hearers of the Law that are Justified but the DOERS of the Law will be Justified before God" Romans 2:13

"I stand at the door and Knock - if any man hears My voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL Come in and fellowship" Rev 3:20

Also true.

The Bible is TRUE - from front to back.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Saved by Grace through FAith - NOT of works lest any man should boast. Eph 2

TRUE.

"Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the Kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of my Father" Matt 7

TRUE

"For it is NOT the hearers of the Law that are Justified but the DOERS of the Law will be Justified before God" Romans 2:13

"I stand at the door and Knock - if any man hears My voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL Come in and fellowship" Rev 3:20

Also true.

The Bible is TRUE - from front to back.

In Christ,

Bob

Your Romans quote is out of context for the discussion, but otherwise I'm impressed with your ability to cut and paste. Now - will you answer the question? Are we saved due to any merit of our own?

[ December 22, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
the "arbitrary selection" of the elect from among mankind.

I will return the favor and agree with you - there is no arbitrary selection by God.

 

[BobRyan]

npetreley - is it your position that Romans 9, Eph 2, Romans 2, Matt 7, Romans 3 etc are just "random portions of scripture" that have nothing to do with the ANSWER to the question about being saved by "our own merits"?

Do you not notice anything IN the texts that apply here?

Curious.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 23, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[superdave]

I don't know how a student of the scripture can come to any conclusion that the one that Calvin did when he wrote the 5 points

What I can tell you is that I do not have to be able to rationally explain the work of God, it is a mystery. It does not make sense when viewed from a strictly logical perspective.

Is it fair, that God would elect some people to himself, and not others.

I would say to you that if Salvation was expected, or deserved by all, than it would cease to be a gift, it would not be grace.

I am not a hyper Calvinist, I do believe that from scripture, man has the mandate to preach the word to all, I don't know and can't know who God has pre-ordained to himself, and I must spread the Gospel to all, because it is my command. You put the question to people, you explain the truth of the word to them, and you let the Holy Spirit move them to accept Christ, anything else just produces false converts.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
npetreley - is it your position that Romans 9, Eph 2, Romans 2, Matt 7, Romans 3 etc are just "random portions of scripture" that have nothing to do with the ANSWER to the question about being saved by "our own merits"?

Do you not notice anything IN the texts that apply here?

Curious.

In Christ,

Bob

Why do you ask me questions and refuse to answer my simple one?

No, those texts do not apply here for various reasons. If you like, I'll be glad to explain those reasons -- that is, if you will simply answer a yes or no to my question: Are we saved through any merit of our own?

 

[BobRyan]

God's word gives you your answer as stated above.

"It is NOT the hearers of the law that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the Law Will Be Justified" Romans 2:13.

ANd that is Romans 2:16 "According to my Gospel" as Paul states when SHOWING the successful case of Romans 2:13-16 (an extreme case where a gentile has no scripture at all to go on - and YET shows the New Covenant promise of the "law written on the heart".)

As Christ said "Not EVERYONE who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kindgdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father" Matt 7.

That is Faith - that works that Paul showing as functioning IN the context of Rom 2:16 the Gospel and Romans 2:2-4 grace and repentance.

In addition - the works-without-faith scenario of Romans 3 is condemned. There is no works-savior - the Law is not a "means of salvation" - even though the born-again saint is known by their fruit and their faith "establishes the law" Rom 3:31

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 24, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]