Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by canadyjd:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
I would like to know from a calvinist's perspective how God could create a man for hell...
When you frame a question in such a way that grossly misrepresents another's views, don't expect a whole lot of responses.
peace to you
</font>[/QUOTE]Explain which view was misrepresented...that by default unconditional election teaches that men were created with the sole purpose of spending eternity in hell, or God elects arbitrarily giving some no chance of spending eternity with Him? </font>[/QUOTE]That's a misrepresentation.
A. Men that are reprobated are left in their sins.
B. Election is not "arbitrary."
C. Arminianism agrees with Calvinism that some are created with the sole purpose of spending eternity in hell.
There is a sense in which mercy is arbitrary in a way that justice is not, for mercy, by definition, is undeserved, and not, therefore, obligatory. Reformed theology does not teach there is no selection criterion at all. It is merely hidden and undisclosed. We do not tell God He is arbitrary for what not disclosing His reasons. Is a storm that God causes “arbitrary?”
To say that it is arbitrary in the above sense is not to say that it's unjust or unfair, for inequality of treatment is only unjust when it denies a party his just claims to something. But, by definition, no one has a just claim on the "mercy" of God. All are condemned as sinners and deserve death. (cf. Romans 3).
If the purpose of reprobation is to manifest the mercy and justice of God (Romans 9), then how is that arbitrary? By attacking the doctrine of reprobation and election, your own assertion has just supplied a reason for reprobation. Something would only be arbitrary if it had no rationale, no overarching aim.
What is arbitrary has no reason or criterion and therefore no purpose. Scripture declares in Ephesians 1 that we have been predestined according to the kind intention of God’s will, and Romans 8 says that part of the reason has to do with God’s intention that Christ be the firstborn of many brethren and that part of this purpose extends to us being conformed to Christ’s image. Therefore, election/predestination is in no way “arbitrary” because it is not random or purposeless.
On the contrary, in the Arminian view, damnation is completely arbitrary. The Calvinist says that God creates the damned as a means of manifesting his attribute of justice. By contrast, Arminians can't give any reason for why God would make men knowing they would sin and fall under condemnation and never believe and be saved.
Moreover, since God is not actively foreknowing and predestinating people, in the Arminian system, we see real impersonal determinism working itself out by way of real fatalism. Their definition of free will is "indeterminate" free will, and thus chance alone and impersonal forces can sway the will, not the desires of the heart or even God; in fact such things are deemed "unjust" and "unmerciful," if they determine our choices. Thus the free will position that seeks to preserve man’s freedom of choice is, in reality, impersonal and fixed, thus being both deterministic and fatalistic. The only way to make it less fixed is the way of Open Theism, which denies the omniscience and omnipotence of God! The Calvinist position is personal, and God is active in the lives of people who make real choices with real moral boundaries. Calvinism is thus inherently personal for both God and man! We agree with Arminians that real, impersonal determinism and fatalism are repugnant to God and man and perversion of the gospel. We thank them for pointing this out. Why then, we ask, do they believe that very thing themselves?
Also mainstream Calvinism affirms unconditional election, but it denies unconditional reprobation that is brought to pass in the same manner (equal ultimacy). For Calvinism says that sin is a necessary, albeit insufficient, condition of reprobation. No one deserves salvation whereas everyone deserves damnation. The reprobates are also sinners. Election is a result of direct intervention. Reprobation is passive.
Salvation as election and reprobation as preterition are unconditional, meaning they find their ground in God, not in foreseen faith or wickedness. In Romans 9, we are told, 11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.” However, election as justification requires effectual calling (Romans 8:29-30, John 6:37-45, 65). Men are regenerated and believe (1 John 5:1) as a result, and they are justified as a result. Reprobation as condemnation requires only men sin, which they do according to their own natures. No matter whether one accepts the imputation of Adam’s sin or not, it is undeniable that men are all guilty of sin on their own. God simply passes the reprobate over, and all of them willfully sin.
If God hardens them, He is not violating their wills in the process. He is only giving men what they desire. Isn’t the Arminian doctrine of the will designed to say that God is only justified if he acts according to men’s free will decisions? Since rejection of Christ is the de facto position of all men apart from grace (John 3:18) electing and calling them, then how can the Arminian object to reprobation or hardening, since God is giving men what they already desire and honoring their “free will” decision?
Calvinists deny that men who want into the kingdom are kept out and those who do not want in are "dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom." To allege otherwise is a straw man.
How is it unmerciful or unjust for God to elect some and pass by others? In fact, I would say, your position is the unmerciful one. Mercy and justice are separate categories in ethics. To be merciful something must be undeserved. To be “just” either a standard of justice must be satisfied or something must be deserved. Mercy can satisfy justice if somebody else takes the penalty for a wrong act so that the Judge can extend mercy to somebody else. The Arminian, by grounding election in foreseen faith ultimately makes God unjust, because all people believe for different reasons. In fact, it is the same kind of favoritism that James condemns, because this faith arises as an intrinsic foreseen characteristic in those persons. This is not true equality. Calvinists believe the ground, or anchor, the reason for electing (choosing) (by the way, “elect” is another Bible word, thus election is a doctrine taught in Scripture) some and allowing others to continue in sin is found only in God and is not done with respect to either foreseen faith or foreseen wickedness. (Eph. 1, Romans 9). This is truly "just" because people are all in the hands of a God who alone is perfectly just and loving and does nothing arbitrarily and will always do the right thing.
Calvinism is unfair. So is Arminianism. If God was fair, everybody would go to hell. We do not want God to be fair!
Additionally, since the cross is the place where justice for sins is satisfied for Christians, justice is satisfied for them there . . . in hell for unbelievers. This makes every part of salvation, from beginning to end, a matter of pure mercy that God extends to every sinner as He so chooses. If people are somehow owed a chance to hear the gospel and accept or reject Christ, then how is this merciful? Thus, the free will position, not the Calvinist position, is the one grounded in justice alone but not in mercy at all. Salvation, by definition, is not about justice. It is about mercy.
Therefore, in Calvinism, salvation is about mercy. In Arminianism it is the result of God responding to men’s wills and thus in the category of justice not mercy. Arminianism is thus unmerciful, because it puts salvation out of the category of mercy altogether. Mercy is about what you do not deserve. Justice is about obligation, e.g. what you deserve. If regeneration is a response to faith, then this is the beginning of salvation by merit, which is in the category of justice, because God has responded to your free will choice and given you the fruit of your labor. This is in the category of justice, not mercy. If regeneration is monergistic and precedes faith, then God has acted unilaterally to save a person and convert them, a person, remember, who deserves only damnation in hell, he does not deserve this. This is, therefore, an act of pure mercy. It is the free will argument that makes God unjust, unloving, and unmerciful, not the predestinarian argument.
)