Does God discriminate with election and salvation?

[Jay Buitoni]

Why would God teach us to not discriminate on who we love, forgive, help and do good and not practice that with election and predestination (Calvinistic sense)? Is God the biggest hypocrite out there? Didn't He emphatically condemn hypocrisy? Why would God "hate" someone when He teaches us to not have any hate in our hearts? Ever heard the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner"? Jesus said, "If you love those who love you, what merit is there in that?". The Calvinist system completely perverts that. It creates a system where only God can only love those who love Him back (the elect), and those who cannot love Him (non elect) are completely shunned and rejected. The elect are the only objects of His love whereas the non elect don't get any love. But Jesus said that that type of love lacks in any merit. Is God preaching against Himself? I can be "elected" to president but if I don't act presidential, will I jeopardize my election? If I made a mockery of the presidency do I still deserve to be president?

 

[Albion]

Why would God teach us to not discriminate on who we love, forgive, help and do good and not practice that with election and predestination (Calvinistic sense)? Is God the biggest hypocrite out there? Didn't He emphatically condemn hypocrisy?

My thinking would be that Jesus taught us to love even sinners, but he never taught that sin itself was acceptable to God. So I don't see any conflict here, let alone anything that could be called "hypocrisy."

 

[Toneri Otsutsuki]

I'm not very expert on Calvinism, but I think their doctrine of predestination flows from this logic process:

A) God is omniscient
B) men have free will, and the usage they make of it will grant them salvation or damnation
C) these two premises refute each other. If God is omniscient He already knows what our destiny will be, therefore free will just works for our earthly life.

Now I think this claim has already dealt with before, and I think it assumes that God's omniscience means that if God has knowledge over something, He will automatically intervene in it, and I believe this is utterly false and incompatible with Christianity

 

[Albion]

Item B, however, isn't in accord with their doctrine, so correcting that point should make the whole thing more understandable.

 

[Greg J.]

God is not like us, and besides has more than one role. One is to encourage us to behave like he does ("Godliness"), but he also says there are some things we shouldn't do, such as take vengeance. Jesus is our example as one who lived and taught perfect love. But he did not come to judge the world, but to save it (John 12:47). He did not give us an example of how to judge perfectly (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19), and there are very good reasons God gave us commands many times telling us not to judge. We have a sinful nature and God does not.

We learn from Scripture that there are people known as "the elect." However, Scripture commands, demonstrates, and emphasizes how we are to treat every kind of person—and is has nothing to do with a person's potential election. We have no capability to determine who the elect are. It's like saying you can see through all time just like God does. Just as there are a lot of examples of fallen, sinful behavior by people in Scripture, there are demonstrations of such people repenting and turning to God. The fact that there are elect should not affect anyone's behavior toward anyone. It is more productive to think of the elect as an attribute of those whose sins will be shown forgiven on Judgment Day. We can't even say it is an attribute of people who are saved, in a practical sense, because we can't absolutely tell if someone (else) is saved or not.

When God "hates" in Scripture, it is an anthropomorphism for our benefit, and we do not use the word "hate" with its deeper meaning, but rather as a reference to superficially summed up attributes, or to behaviors regardless of what a person is like deep down. God judges those he does not hate, for example (such as the Jewish people, many times). Jeremiah 12:8-9 shows that God hated the Jews he loved at the same time. In Psalm 5:5 says God hates all those who do wrong. Romans 3:23 tells us that includes every human who ever lived. However the bulk of Scripture tells us that He loves us. Can a God who is love (1 John 4:8, 4:16) "hate?" 1 John 1:5 and other verses tell us that God does not have hate in him at all. Verses like Leviticus 19:17 imply the same thing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

God discriminates insomuch that calvinism only exists in countries with seminaries.

 

[bling]

God is not like us, and besides has more than one role. One is to encourage us to behave like he does ("Godliness"), but he also says there are some things we shouldn't do, such as take vengeance. Jesus is our example as one who lived and taught perfect love. But he did not come to judge the world, but to save it (John 12:47). He did not give us an example of how to judge perfectly (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19), and there are very good reasons God gave us commands many times telling us not to judge. We have a sinful nature and God does not.

We are not to be taking vengeance or doing the sentencing , since that is God’s job. But the Bible gives us lots of examples of judging (good and bad) and we must Judge fairly/justly so God has explained what justly and unjustly is. God to be “unjust” by the biblical examples and teaching on justice would be contradictory.

We learn from Scripture that there are people known as "the elect." However, Scripture commands, demonstrates, and emphasizes how we are to treat every kind of person—and is has nothing to do with a person's potential election. We have no capability to determine who the elect are. It's like saying you can see through all time just like God does. Just as there are a lot of examples of fallen, sinful behavior by people in Scripture, there are demonstrations of such people repenting and turning to God. The fact that there are elect should not affect anyone's behavior toward anyone. It is more productive to think of the elect as an attribute of those whose sins will be shown forgiven on Judgment Day. We can't even say it is an attribute of people who are saved, in a practical sense, because we can't absolutely tell if someone (else) is saved or not.

Is everyone “potentially” part of the elect?

Jesus tells us in parables that: “the master (God) has a very compelling “draw” with an invitation to a huge wonderful banquet, but not everyone will accept the invitation. The Master does not kidnap his guests, but strongly persuades them with words to come, but they still have the free will to refuse to go.

Everyone at the banquet was invited first by the master (God) to be there.

When God "hates" in Scripture, it is an anthropomorphism for our benefit, and we do not use the word "hate" with its deeper meaning, but rather as a reference to superficially summed up attributes, or to behaviors regardless of what a person is like deep down. God judges those he does not hate, for example (such as the Jewish people, many times). Jeremiah 12:8-9 shows that God hated the Jews he loved at the same time. In Psalm 5:5 says God hates all those who do wrong. Romans 3:23 tells us that includes every human who ever lived. However the bulk of Scripture tells us that He loves us. Can a God who is love (1 John 4:8, 4:16) "hate?" 1 John 1:5 and other verses tell us that God does not have hate in him at all. Verses like Leviticus 19:17 imply the same thing.

Are we told to “hate” our family and yet we are also told to Love them, so can we both Love and “hate” the same person?

 

[Greg J.]

Thoughtful comments, thanks.

We are not to be taking vengeance or doing the sentencing , since that is God’s job. But the Bible gives us lots of examples of judging (good and bad) and we must Judge fairly/justly so God has explained what justly and unjustly is. God to be “unjust” by the biblical examples and teaching on justice would be contradictory.

The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment: (1 Corinthians 2:15, 1984 NIV)

We have a lot of commands from God because our hearts are hard. We are forced to make judgments as a consequence of living in the world, but we are not to "pass judgment" on anyone, except when God has given us the responsibility and his authority to do so (i.e., legitimate government jurisprudence). Jesus demonstrated what is best with his life. Even when he spoke against the teachers of the Law and Pharisees, he was not "passing judgment" on them, although he was making a judgment on their hypocritical teaching/behavior (Matthew 23:3).

Is everyone “potentially” part of the elect?

Jesus tells us in parables that: “the master (God) has a very compelling “draw” with an invitation to a huge wonderful banquet, but not everyone will accept the invitation. The Master does not kidnap his guests, but strongly persuades them with words to come, but they still have the free will to refuse to go.

Everyone at the banquet was invited first by the master (God) to be there.

In a practical sense (how we behave toward people), everyone is potentially one of the elect.

Are we told to “hate” our family and yet we are also told to Love them, so can we both Love and “hate” the same person?

I was just addressing why God "hates." ("Why would God "hate" someone when He teaches us to not have any hate in our hearts?" in the original post) The issue you raise requires a deeper examination of what Jesus meant when he said hate your family. It never meant something like "be evil to your family." Hating yourself didn't mean "be evil toward yourself."

 

[LeeD]

God discriminates insomuch that calvinism only exists in countries with seminaries.

Can you provide proof of this statement? That is quite the assertion especially in light of the Reformation's resurgence of Calvinistic doctrine coming out of the thought of Roman Catholicism (both synergistic and non-reformed).

 

[Shempster]

Why would God teach us to not discriminate on who we love, forgive, help and do good and not practice that with election and predestination (Calvinistic sense)? Is God the biggest hypocrite out there? Didn't He emphatically condemn hypocrisy? Why would God "hate" someone when He teaches us to not have any hate in our hearts? Ever heard the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner"? Jesus said, "If you love those who love you, what merit is there in that?". The Calvinist system completely perverts that. It creates a system where only God can only love those who love Him back (the elect), and those who cannot love Him (non elect) are completely shunned and rejected. The elect are the only objects of His love whereas the non elect don't get any love. But Jesus said that that type of love lacks in any merit. Is God preaching against Himself? I can be "elected" to president but if I don't act presidential, will I jeopardize my election? If I made a mockery of the presidency do I still deserve to be president?

Here you have touched upon the quandry going on. It is not far removed from the notion that we are commanded to love our enemies and to treat them kindly when God plans on eternal torture for His.

 

[Albion]

IMO, the problem here is that most people automatically link "being good" with "being rewarded."

There is absolutely nothing unthinkable about God commanding us--and Jesus teaching and showing us--to do the right thing vis-à-vis our fellow man and our Creator....quite apart from whether or not he intends to save some of us.

When you think about it (and I assure you that the Calvinists have thought about it), everyone has a moral obligation to do what God considers to be righteous, whether we're among the Elect or the reprobates. And that's because of a very fundamental principle: it's right to do what's right, period.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Can you provide proof of this statement? That is quite the assertion especially in light of the Reformation's resurgence of Calvinistic doctrine coming out of the thought of Roman Catholicism (both synergistic and non-reformed).

Since pre-destination versus free will focus is a neo-platonic idea from the renaissance, without western education outlets, (such as seminaries) it is impossible to come to that conclusion. Kindly provide proof of a population within a country without a seminary that became calvinist on its own.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Discrimination, by definition, is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." I quote this because discrimination is always based on something within the one discriminated for/against. This is not the way God chooses. His basis for choosing is in himself—his purpose, will, and love—not in the one chosen.

Since pre-destination versus free will focus is a neo-platonic idea from the renaissance, without western education outlets, (such as seminaries) it is impossible to come to that conclusion.

Interesting. I have never studied neo-Platonic Renaissance thought. I just got the doctrine straight from Scripture.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Discrimination, by definition, is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." I quote this because discrimination is always based on something within the one discriminated for/against. This is not the way God chooses. His basis for choosing is in himself—his purpose, will, and love—not in the one chosen.



Interesting. I have never studied neo-Platonic Renaissance thought. I just got the doctrine straight from Scripture.

I used to agree with some of the points of calvinism until I deconstructed what was taught to me through the education system and allowed my mind to be transformed further both calvinism and the armin guy ism take the focus off of Jesus and make it about our perspective. So not only is the perspective divisive, it seems to have a bad fruit as well.

 

[TaylorSexton]

So not only is the perspective divisive, it seems to have a bad fruit as well.

I am sorry you have had a bad experience with this. However, the goodness or badness of a doctrine can never be based upon the reaction it receives from people, but from its faithfulness to Scripture. The fact is, people in Paul's time hated election (Rom. 9:19), and people today hate it. That is unfortunate, but Scripture plainly teaches it, so I will continue to believe and preach it, no matter if the whole world stumbles because of it.

 

[Geralt]

unfortunately God is like us, but unlike us. God's will is consistent with the rest of his attributes and character. i'm actually amazed God decided to save some, rather than not save anyone at all.

the calvinist "system" doesn't pervert anything but expresses clearly what God had revealed himself through His word.

Why would God teach us to not discriminate on who we love, forgive, help and do good and not practice that with election and predestination (Calvinistic sense)? Is God the biggest hypocrite out there? Didn't He emphatically condemn hypocrisy? Why would God "hate" someone when He teaches us to not have any hate in our hearts? Ever heard the phrase "hate the sin not the sinner"? Jesus said, "If you love those who love you, what merit is there in that?". The Calvinist system completely perverts that. It creates a system where only God can only love those who love Him back (the elect), and those who cannot love Him (non elect) are completely shunned and rejected. The elect are the only objects of His love whereas the non elect don't get any love. But Jesus said that that type of love lacks in any merit. Is God preaching against Himself? I can be "elected" to president but if I don't act presidential, will I jeopardize my election? If I made a mockery of the presidency do I still deserve to be president?

 

[bling]

I am sorry you have had a bad experience with this. However, the goodness or badness of a doctrine can never be based upon the reaction it receives from people, but from its faithfulness to Scripture. The fact is, people in Paul's time hated election (Rom. 9:19), and people today hate it. That is unfortunate, but Scripture plainly teaches it, so I will continue to believe and preach it, no matter if the whole world stumbles because of it.

All mature adults have faith in something, but it is up to the unbelieving individual to trust in a benevolent creator enough to humbly accept Hid charity.

God is like the father in the prodigal son parable (Luke 15: 11-32).

The extremely wise father (representing God in the Prodigal Son story) would know what would happen if He gave his young son his inheritance and where the son would wind up. The son did not need someone to come after him since he knows the father’s Love, it was up to the young son to come to his senses because his own actions would drive him to that point and the son could than make a free will choice to be a man take his deserved punishment, not disturb his father further and starve to death in the pigsty or wimp out trust his father’s love and be willing to accept his father’s charity.

God is doing all He can to help those that are just willing to accept His help. The problem is with accepting God’s help since a person has to humbly accept pure charity since God’s help would be pure charity.

Is the Father in the prodigal son story a monster for allowing his son to make his own choice?

1. The Calvinists I have spoken with; stops with Eph. 1: 11 yet if we read further for better context we find: 12 we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. There are things we have done that were not done for us by God: “Hoping and believing”. Everything in Eph. 1: 3-11 is addressing Christians (we/us) and not non-Christians that will become Christians. Those that become Christians have these blessings.
   
   
2. The Bible does not talk about nonbelievers being given to Christ, but believers being given to Christ, so the only question is: “how does a person become a believer”?
   
   
3. The Calvinist will say: “…the ultimate goal of election is the glory and praise of God”, but that means the “election system” of choosing a few for salvation and allowing other to go to hell glorifies God, so everyone is glorifying God no matter what they do? Does the “reprobate” bring “glory” to God by being a reprobate?
   

I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9 which is used to support “election to salvation, but it really supports election of those that believe with the bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be with everyone. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The bottom line is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:

1. Was there a time when Jewish Christians (elect) taught that a good Christian also had to be a good Jew (following especially the dietary requirements, Sabbath and circumcision)?

2. Was there at the same time these Jewish Christians teaching you a good Jew, Christians (elect) teaching you did not have to follow the old Jewish Laws (esp. Sabbath, circumcision, and food)?

3. Was this a significant issue in the first century church, did Paul address this problem in his letters, and when did this problem cease to be a problem?

4. Could there have been and were there Jewish Christians (elect) in Rome at the time of Romans teaching other Gentile Christians (elect) they had to (be circumcised, obey the Sabbath, and/or fool the Old Jewish dietary requirements)?

5. Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written to non-Christians and/or to some non-Christians (non-elect) or to both elect Jew and Gentile Christians?

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) giving support for the wrong answer before or after asking a logical questions and giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born. Again this is typical of all diatribes.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual and this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

Those that will be destroyed come from both the common and special vessels that fail to meet their objective.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

This section is mainly for the Gentiles Christians, but the Jewish Christians also needed to hear it.

How could there be a choice and yet not have any conditions to the choice, unless you are saying God is arbitrary in making His choice and randomly selects a “group” of people? Is being arbitrary fair?


Is it fair for the father to mercifully choose to “save” some of His children when the father could just as easily save all His children?

 

[TaylorSexton]

"Bling,"

While I appreciate the lengthy post, I simply do not have time to reply, as I have much school work to finish in the next two weeks. In reading through your post, all I can say is that your questions have been answered more than adequately by many, many Reformed authors. I would suggest picking them up and read them for a better understanding.

As for me, I choose to believe Scripture regarding what it says about 1) God's nature, 2) man's current state, 3) what salvation is, and 4) what God's purpose is. I will not wrangle texts beyond recognition to fit my theology, as you have done with Romans 9 (see White vs. Flowers on YouTube), but rather read them, believe them, and preach them.

As for your post, it would take me volumes to address the mischaracterizations and misunderstandings of Reformed theology contained in virtually every paragraph, and I simply have no interest in or time for doing so. I tire of having to repeatedly do that in the online setting, as it is terribly time consuming. I end up talking to brick walls because people insist to keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting.

Again, please pick up some solid Reformed literature to gain basic understanding of the view you are trying to refute. They will say things far better than I ever could.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am sorry you have had a bad experience with this. However, the goodness or badness of a doctrine can never be based upon the reaction it receives from people, but from its faithfulness to Scripture. The fact is, people in Paul's time hated election (Rom. 9:19), and people today hate it. That is unfortunate, but Scripture plainly teaches it, so I will continue to believe and preach it, no matter if the whole world stumbles because of it.

I think that was repeating my point. I don't disagree with the scriptures. I disagree with the application of scriptures inclusive of the interpretation itself. Scriptures speak of both free will and predestination, to pit them against one another in a false dichotomy comes off as opportunistic.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Scriptures speak of both free will and predestination, to pit them against one another in a false dichotomy comes off as opportunistic.

I do not know of anywhere where Scripture describes our will as free. It everywhere gives us a choice, and we are free to make genuine choices, but our will is by no means free. Calvinists do not pit free will and predestination against each other, as Calvinists do not teach a free will, so that is a mischaracterization. Rather, Calvinists affirm that divine meticulous sovereignty does not negate the human being's ability to genuinely make choices, and therefore it does not negate culpability for the actions we take.