What do you believe is required for Salvation?

[Thinkingstuff]

By the way, Calvin's Institutes are not the bible. Sometimes Calvin was right, sometimes he was wrong. People want to restrict grace believers to Calvin's views and act as if we must follow them. How ridiculous! I follow the bible first and foremost, not some fallible man, no matter how good that man was.

I didn't equate all of Calvin's views to you. Note I indicated his view of Election which I believe you adhere to. When election is spoken of it is in the Calvinistic view of that election otherwize it is armenius view which you clearly indicated you do not hold to that position.

 

[RAdam]

I didn't equate all of Calvin's views to you. Note I indicated his view of Election which I believe you adhere to. When election is spoken of it is in the Calvinistic view of that election otherwize it is armenius view which you clearly indicated you do not hold to that position.

What is a Calvinistic view of election? Do all grace believers agree on all points of election? They most certainly do not. Calvin didn't corner the market on election.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Allow me to present you with a scenario regarding choice, since you insist on judging God's election of men in such an unfair manner. This scenario is not meant to depect God's election, but merely to point out the ridiculous stand you have taken regarding choice.

How was I unfair to God? And I don't see how it is ridiculous lets look at your senario.

You are the boss of a company hiring to fill one open spot. You interview two candidates and choose one of them. You chose to hire one of them, and left the other one in the unemployment line still looking for a job. The unemployed man is unable to find a job and ends up going through a downward spiral and committing suicide. Question: did you choose for that to go through such a downward turn and end his own life? Of course not. You simply left him where he was and chose someone else instead.

You rightly said

scenario is not meant to depect God's election

and thus it isn't a good example and I will explain why. God Elected Men before the creation of the world and before the men where created. In this senario the Employer would have had to create the two individuals with the intent of selecting one to the position and denying the other a position. The employer would also have to create the environment in which he was the only employer. He would have had to interview both men knowing which he had already chosen the unchosen one had the interview and the environment stacked against him. Also the Employer would have had to go to his pre-selected employee and give him all the interview questions answers while depriving it from the one already pre-selected to be unemployed. Election is not a matter of men being on a level playing ground. The elect are pre-selected and will always be that way.

It is absolutely ridiculous to insist that because God chose Peter unto salvation before the world began and didn't choose Judas, that God chose Judas unto eternal condemnation.

God chose Peter and the fact that Judas was prophesied to betray Jesus, God selected him for destruction.

Not only is that against the bible, it is against common sense, as well as it is a standard to which you wouldn't dare hold yourself.

Its not against the bible. Take a gander at what is said about Judas in the NT. Also I don't hold myself to that standard but I am held to that standard by God who doesn't apply the same standard for himself.

God didn't choose Judas or any of the wicked unto eternal condemnation, but rather left them alone.

In our country if you are a doctor and see a person not covered by that doctor's group, in medical distress and does not help him is guilty of a crime.
A crime of Choice. He made the decision not to help and thus was negligent. In this same sense God is held to not have elected the world. He made a choice not to save the non-elect. Not because he couldn't but be cause he didn't will it or simply put; he did not want to save these people.

Man put himself under eternal condemnation, and had God never taken a single action towards man every single member of Adam's race would end up in hell.

Remember God set up the test with the possibility of that result and planned for that result. Thus in a sense he's culpable. God didn't have to test man and allow the serpent to tempt him but he did. Why? Because it was his will.; Why? Because it pleased him. However, I'm very unsympathetic to a God who would provide only salvation to a select few and leave the rest of the world ignorant about salvation because faith cannot be percieved saved a person is regenerate. Thus God selected these men to be condemned.

But, had God not chosen His people unto salvation and done that which is necessary to procure such salvation, not a single person would end up in heaven.

So that makes it better does it?

That's the difference and that is why you are wrong in your position on God's choice.

You may believe so how ever nothing has been shown that salvation isn't arbitrary.

Nothing was required from God for man to end up in hell, while every single part of salvation is contingent upon God.

Exactly. Its based on his choice before creation based on his wrath and good pleasure arbitrarily.

God didn't choose the wicked unto everlasting punishment.

As a matter of fact he did by simply refusing to elect them. Remember he set up the trial by which men fell and made it worse by allowing satan to tempt him. Very good bet man wouldn't have touched the tree save satan's involvement. It almost seems as though satan did God's dirty work for him because God cannot tempt and the nature of the test was that Man needed to be tempted to pass the test. As you say

That is election.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What is a Calvinistic view of election? Do all grace believers agree on all points of election? They most certainly do not. Calvin didn't corner the market on election.

Then signify how you differ from Calvin on election. He's certainly the first major proponent of it. And established it doctrinally. Everything else is a derivative of it. Even Armenianism who bases it on foreknowledge which then we must ask seriously if that means salvation is truely merit-less.

 

[Matt Black]

In what way can a god who creates sentient beings for destruction be considered 'moral' or 'good'; surely such an entity would be a worse monster than a Stalin or Hitler or the sort of sick muppets who torture kittens for kicks?

 

[glfredrick]

Then signify how you differ from Calvin on election. He's certainly the first major proponent of it. And established it doctrinally. Everything else is a derivative of it. Even Armenianism [Arminianism] who bases it on foreknowledge which then we must ask seriously if that means salvation is truely merit-less.

Actually, he was not. For that, we have to turn to Augustine, and the doctrine was certainly mentioned even earlier in the writings of the other Fathers of the Church. Let's face facts, Paul fleshed out the doctrine of election based on his reading of the OT (and guided by the Holy Spirit who inspired the text). We can no more escape God's election than we can the atonement of Christ. It is -- period.

First, there is no "view" of God's election that is right or wrong. God elects as God wills. We don't know why. We don't know how. We don't even know who (until we see their fruits). We just know that God in His sovereignty, elects. God elected the line that would lead to Messiah, starting with Adam and his son, Seth. God elected Noah, and from the sons of Noah, Shem. God elected Abraham, and after Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and then Judah. God elected David (of the same family lineage) and then Solomon, but also a non-cursed family line through Nathan. Jesus, Messiah, came from exactly the elected family line ordained before the dawn of history. By human standards, we would often have picked the firstborn son, but God elected otherwise in almost every case.

Second, we cannot number the elect because we don't know who they are. The elect are also not born "saved." They are just elect. Salvation also includes an effectual call, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eventually glorification. If, as is often supposed by those opposed to a biblical theology (I prefer that to "Calvinism" for Calvin was not the sole author of Reformed theology, nor did he get everything "just right.") God's election = salvation, then why on earth would God issue as His primary call, the work of missions? The missional call (often called the Great Commission) is as real as is God's election. It is emphasizing one over the other that begins the confusion. We preach as if man does all the work, but we believe as if God is the sole arbiter of salvation -- because He is, and because that is exactly what He commanded us to do.

 

[glfredrick]

In what way can a god who creates sentient beings for destruction be considered 'moral' or 'good'; surely such an entity would be a worse monster than a Stalin or Hitler or the sort of sick muppets who torture kittens for kicks?

You make the mistake of thinking of God as a sinful human...

The Bible says that God will be a perfect (and just) judge, and that we will agree with Him on His perfect judgment. Do you doubt that, or think that in and of yourself that you have some merit that gives you the right to salvation instead of death?

Are we not all born "dead" and deserving of God's wrath?

While I admit your very human sentiment, God is all good, and all just -- and equally -- all merciful, and all gracious. He sent Jesus to "seek and save the lost." Who are the lost if not the sin-dead ones for whom God made a way?

 

[RAdam]

There are a few problems, thinkingstuff.

1) I said I wasn't illustrating God's election through that scenario but rather your view of the consequences of choice. Therefore, when you began breaking down that scenario by treating God as the employer you were completely ignoring the point of the scenario. The scenario is that choosing one over another is not choosing the other to some fate, but rather is it simply leaving that person where he is. Man leaves himself free to do this all the time not holding himself accountable for what later happens to the individual he passed over, but as soon as God does it or declares He did it, then man is offended. How dare God choose one person over another! Man puts God under an obligation he himself doesn't have to live up to. It's alright for me to favor one person over another, but not for God to do the same. That's a wrong attitude. The fact is the entire bible is a record of God choosing a person, a family, or a nation over another. If God is unfair in election, then God was unfair in dealing with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel as a nation, and David, and Solomon, and Mary, and so forth and so on. God has always been a God who chose one over another, favored one over another, and in the case of Jacob and Esau we have God Himself telling us it wasn't based on anything man did but His own sovereign will.

2) You say God, in order to be fair, must help everyone. What utter nonsense! Who obligates God to do this? You? What I see here is a total lack of understanding the total depravity of man, which is a foundation for everything else. What did God owe man? Nothing. God would have been just, righteous, and holy to leave every single person in sin and eventually eternal punishment. Every single person that ever lived, is living today, or ever shall live deserved hell, including me. I did not deserve a single bit of mercy or grace from God. God didn't have to save me, or bless me, or do anything good for or to me. God was under no obligation towards me whatsoever. I didn't deserve anything good from God. God, in His great mercy and grace, chose to save a large number of people from the eternal punishment of their sins. He was under no obligation to do it. He didn't have to save these people. He chose to do it because it pleased Him. Those whom He didn't choose were just as unworthy as those He chose. They were just as undeserving. Therefore, God had the same obligation to save them - none. When God saves one and passes over the other, He is just and right to do it. Why? Because He is God and everything He does is right. If man doesn't deserve salvation, then God doesn't owe man salvation. God didn't owe Peter salvation, neither is He wrong for not saving Judas. Neither man deserved anything.

Furthermore, you say God is under obligation to help everyone. The problem with this is God is not only able but also sufficient for salvation. God doesn't try to save anyone. God saves, period. If God intends your salvation, God will bring it to pass. God has never tried and failed anything, ever. If He did fail, He wouldn't be God.

I wonder where you type of folks were at the first Passover. Here we have God saving the Israelites from this plague on the firstborn. They didn't deserve such salvation. They have spoken out against His servant already and will repeatedly rebel against Him in the future. They are no more deserving of being spared than the Egyptians. However, God did this to show that He put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. Wait a minute God, that's not fair. Who are you to question God? God chose to bring this plague on all the firstborn of Egypt and spare the Israelites. How did He do it? Through the blood of a passover lamb. Did God tell the Egyptians about the passover lamb? Did He make a passover lamb provision for them? Did He advise them to follow the same ritual as the Israelites? Nope. He left them alone to face the plague on the firstborn. But God made provision for His people, those He purposed to deliver. Was God unfair in this? Of course not. God does as He pleases and everything He does is right.

If you think election is unfair, you have a problem with God all through the bible.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First, there is no "view" of God's election that is right or wrong. God elects as God wills. We don't know why. We don't know how. We don't even know who (until we see their fruits).

I agree with much of what you stated and so I did't quote that part. Having said that, I totally disagree with what you say above. Conditional versus unconditional election are in total opposition to each other in regard to their underlying principle so there is a right versus wrong view of election as they are polar opposites and both cannot be right.

God does elect as He wills but we do know why as the scriptures repeat the same reason over and over again in the clearest langauge:

Eph. 1:5,6 - according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace,

Eph. 1:9 - according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Eph.1:11 - according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory,

Eph. 1:14 - unto the praise of his glory.

2 Tim. 1:9 - but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

If, as is often supposed by those opposed to a biblical theology (I prefer that to "Calvinism" for Calvin was not the sole author of Reformed theology, nor did he get everything "just right.") God's election = salvation, then why on earth would God issue as His primary call, the work of missions? The missional call (often called the Great Commission) is as real as is God's election. It is emphasizing one over the other that begins the confusion. We preach as if man does all the work, but we believe as if God is the sole arbiter of salvation -- because He is, and because that is exactly what He commanded us to do.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 is your answer to missions. God has chosen the MEANS as much as he has chosen the PERSONS to be saved and any view of election "to salvation" that is not "through the sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" is another false "view" of election.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

They are just elect. Salvation also includes an effectual call,

How do you view effectual call? Do you regard it in the same sense as irrestistable grace? Which means God Elected based as you say on unknown factors but by a cursory review we see arbitrarily on God's wrath and God's desires.

regeneration,

Which means God identifies the elect person then gives them grace and a living spirit so the person can identify they need faith which which they are

justification, adoption, sanctification,

in order to

perseverance, and eventually glorification

or receive their heavenly reward. In which case God arbitrarily chose people not to do that for. Note that Augustine did not have quiet this same view.

If, as is often supposed by those opposed to a biblical theology (I prefer that to "Calvinism" for Calvin was not the sole author of Reformed theology, nor did he get everything "just right.") God's election = salvation,

understood.

then why on earth would God issue as His primary call, the work of missions?

Good point.

The missional call (often called the Great Commission) is as real as is God's election

However, this mission call from the perception of election is for every one for two purposes 1) to call the elect. 2) to condemn those not elected.

 

[webdog]

You make the mistake of thinking of God as a sinful human...

I don't see that...he's saying according to your soteriology he would be worse than any sinful human.

The Bible says that God will be a perfect (and just) judge, and that we will agree with Him on His perfect judgment. Do you doubt that, or think that in and of yourself that you have some merit that gives you the right to salvation instead of death?

Nobody has said that there is anything within man that merits salvation.

Are we not all born "dead" and deserving of God's wrath?

No. First, it's an oxymoron as death is the ending of life. You cannot be created dead, it's an impossibility.

While I admit your very human sentiment, God is all good, and all just -- and equally -- all merciful, and all gracious. He sent Jesus to "seek and save the lost." Who are the lost if not the sin-dead ones for whom God made a way?

Man cannot be more just than God...and of course God saves the lost...I don't think you will find anyone here who will disagree.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There are a few problems, thinkingstuff.

1) I said I wasn't illustrating God's election through that scenario but rather your view of the consequences of choice. Therefore, when you began breaking down that scenario by treating God as the employer you were completely ignoring the point of the scenario. The scenario is that choosing one over another is not choosing the other to some fate, but rather is it simply leaving that person where he is.

if this is the case you wanted to make then its like saying there are two men drowning. God has all the time in the world to save both and he has the ability to save both but choses to save one. necissarily then He chose not to chose the other one and left him to his fate to drown. What is God's responsibility in this?

2) You say God, in order to be fair, must help everyone.

I never mentioned "fairness" I ascertained God's character by how he deals with people based on the doctrine of election. This is a big difference. God Knew he would create all the universe and the men and women he would make. He knew he would test man and man would fail. Knowing these things God Chose those who would be elected and chose who would not be elected and would be condemned like Pharoah. God then set things in play by creating the universe.

What utter nonsense! Who obligates God to do this?

I never said anyone obligated God to do this but from what we see in Job we Know that God does not feel obligated to his creation beyond the people he chose. In fact God feels obligated to torture those he did not choose. And thus damns them. What does this insinuate about God? He does not feel he has responsibility for all of his creation only some.

What I see here is a total lack of understanding the total depravity of man, which is a foundation for everything else. What did God owe man? Nothing.

Exactly the argument put forward to Job. I'm God and your not I can do what I want and you just have to deal with it.

God would have been just, righteous, and holy to leave every single person in sin and eventually eternal punishment.

After setting up the conditions of mans failure and stacking the deck against him. Imagine this in man's infancy (purity) He allows for the most intelligent, powerful being apart from himself tempt man. Nice going there. But as you say He knew man would sin thus chose their punishment.

Every single person that ever lived, is living today, or ever shall live deserved hell, including me.

and unborn babies too.

I did not deserve a single bit of mercy or grace from God.

I know God arbitrirly chose you not to suffer. You Got the luck of the draw.

God didn't have to save me, or bless me, or do anything good for or to me. God was under no obligation towards me whatsoever.

that is certainly the argument he gives to Job.

He chose to do it because it pleased Him.

There you go God made is choice arbitrarily. And feels he has no moral obligation for his creation apart from torturing them or blessing them based on an arbitrary decision.

I wonder where you type of folks were at the first Passover.

Irrelevant. You wern't there either. Nor where you at the making of the foundations of the earth. And you weren't part of his decision making process so you are equally at a lost to really say anything related to this.

God does as He pleases and everything He does is right.

All dictators say that. He who makes the rules, rule. No one is in a position to argue with him. what makes him different than a Tyrant?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Based on the view purported here by RAdam God can be seen as arbitrarily chosing those elect by these verses supplied by Dr.Walter.

Eph. 1:5,6 - according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace,

Eph. 1:9 - according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Eph.1:11 - according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory,

Eph. 1:14 - unto the praise of his glory.

2 Tim. 1:9 - but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

It proves my point about the arbitrary nature of God's decision.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A lot depends on your starting point in this discussion on election. If you start with a holy God incapable of committing evil but creates the option for evil in order that free choice with responsibility for that choice is a reality then we are talking about free will being the primary cause of evil within angels and men while God is the secondary cause. The secondary cause provides the ability to choose sin without being responsible for sin whereas the primary cause and responsibility for sin is with the angel/man who exercises that ability.

Second, if we view the garden as the trial of mankind/human nature as summed up in Adam to see if he will exercise that ability responsibly in view of forewarning of dire consequences for the abuse of free choice then sin and its consequences are clearly the responsibility of mankind rather than God's.

Third, if we view the whole human race acting as ONE MAN in Adam and by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE MANY WERE MADE subject to all the consequences of that disobedience then we "all have sinned" in Adam as one inseparable human nature that is subdivided through reproduction manifested in sin and death of the individuals of Adam's race.

Fourth, if we have "election to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) rather than to damnation but damnation the consequence of the exercise of free will in Adam and thus confirmed by coming into the world "condemned already" (Jn. 3:17-19) then election is simply the choice by God to save some out from among the fallen who are condemned already to destruction by free choice in Adam and further confirmed by individual choice (Rom. 8:7).

Finally, this being the case, God is perfectly just to allow any of those condemned already by their choice in Adam which choice is further confirmed by the manifestation of that same choice individually to go right on in that choice. That is perfect justice.

However, the choice to save any out of such rebellious fallen mankind is pure mercy and grace.

Hence, nothing is the cause of the condemnation and final destruction of the non-elect but their own free choice to sin and nothing is the cause of the salvation and final glorification of those chosen out from among such fallen mankind to salvation but the pure mercy and grace of God.

 

[RAdam]

It's utter blasphemy to claim that God stacked the deck against man. Did God make man sin? No. Did God tell man not to sin? Yep. Did God express to Adam the consequences of his sin? Yep. How in the world can you blame God for man's current situation? People love free will until the fact that man's condemnation comes from him exercising his own free will is declared.

 

[RAdam]

What makes God different than a tyrant? Oh, the fact that He is the holy, just, righteous, sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe. Who make the rules? God. God defined sin. God defined righteousness. God defined the punishment for sin. God gave man a law and defined the punishment for breaking this law. Does that make Him a tyrant? Good grief, some people have a real problem with the sovereignty of God.

He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, what doest thou? Pretty simple. God does as He pleases and noone can question Him or stop Him.

 

[RAdam]

You say God's choice was arbitrary. Well, were these choices of God arbitrary?

Seth
Noah
Shem
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Nation of Israel
Judah
David
Solomon
Mary

How about Paul? He was a chosen vessel.

 

[Matt Black]

You make the mistake of thinking of God as a sinful human...

Well, if He behaved like that, He would be. Fortunately, I don't believe He does.

The Bible says that God will be a perfect (and just) judge, and that we will agree with Him on His perfect judgment. Do you doubt that,

No, I don't doubt that; what I doubt is the heinous idea that He deliberately destined some to be damned.

While I admit your very human sentiment, God is all good, and all just -- and equally -- all merciful, and all gracious.

So He wouldn't create people for damnation, then.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Matt if your going to start using human logic & feeling on God, your sure to come away frustrated & confused....remember Job.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's utter blasphemy to claim that God stacked the deck against man. Did God make man sin? No. Did God tell man not to sin? Yep. Did God express to Adam the consequences of his sin? Yep. How in the world can you blame God for man's current situation? People love free will until the fact that man's condemnation comes from him exercising his own free will is declared.

BTW RAdam.... the term free will isnt even in the NT when discussing salvation.