Does God discriminate with election and salvation?

[Gregory Thompson]

Then you know nothing, absolutely nothing, about Reformed theology—its history or its doctrine. of course, that was apparent at the beginning of this "discussion."



Then words are meaningless, and so therefore is the truth. I can now say Pope Francis is a Calvinist because, according to you, the definitional standards do not matter.

This is just plain silly.

So why then continue the discussion?

This discussion has persisted because you insisted on having one.

 

[TaylorSexton]

So why then continue the discussion?

This discussion has persisted because you insisted on having one.

That's a really good question. It is clear that you have no interest in having an honest one. It is very convenient for you to believe that you can just change definitions of terms and whatnot. It means you don't have to deal with what I am saying. It's impossible to have a conversation (at least one that is fruitful and honest) with someone like that. I wish it were otherwise.

I guess the reason I persist is because the truth is that important to me, whether or not it is important to anyone else here; that it is not is becoming increasingly apparent.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's a really good question. It is clear that you have no interest in having an honest one. It is very convenient for you to believe that you can just change definitions of terms and whatnot. It means you don't have to deal with what I am saying. It's impossible to have a conversation (at least one that is fruitful and honest) with someone like that. I wish it were otherwise.

I guess the reason I persist is because the truth is that important to me, whether or not it is important to anyone else here; that it is not is becoming increasingly apparent.

I just see things differently, that's all it is. I have neglected to correct your gross generalizations of my arguments, just because, I recognize that you see things differently ... and only God will change your mind .. if He feels like it.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I just see things differently, that's all it is.

That's the very issue. You and many others here are claiming that you are the ones who get to define what you think Reformed theology teaches, regardless of the fact that truth is objective, and Reformed theology is a defined set of beliefs. My goodness, that's the point of everything I have said today. You people are operating on straw men. Of course, you have to, otherwise your "arguments" fall apart.

...your gross generalizations of my arguments...

Interesting. Care to cite an example of where I do that?

 

[toLiJC]

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?

there is an eternal circle of existence and positions of the souls, because there is an inevitable transition for God, for His life also has a span, though He never disappears (completely) and never stops being active, so He has to organize the placement of the souls, because it would not be fair if He didn't make every soul be in the place of any other in the course of the rotations/revolutions of eternity - circle really means circle after all, and there is no other feasible way of organizing things in the inevitable circumstances of the fact that the eternity has a beginning and an end, a transition that is inevitable even for Him (Revelation 21:6), so He has made there be a circle of the souls' positions, they are logically arranged in a circle(logical circle) which is turned one step ahead of every successive rotation/revolution of the eternity..., so He is not hypocritical, but just has no other(better) choice

Blessings

 

[Hank77]

What are you talking about? Nobody ever asked or posited that Calvinists believe that God loves only Calvinists. Are you reading the thread at all?

I thought we were discussing this in relationship to the questions and statements in the OP. (see below quote from the OP)

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.

Of course. Reformed theology does not deny this. Whoever chooses Christ chooses him freely, and whoever rejects him rejects him freely. No objection there.

Not if the drawing of God is Irresistible. What does Irresistible mean to you?

I suppose that maybe you believe that one is regenerated before they hear that Irresistible call, so that means that they are freely choosing. Even though the call can't be rejected because without them, even knowing or agreeing, they have already been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I thought we were discussing this in relationship to the questions and statements in the OP. (see below quote from the OP)

Yes. The OP is a mischaracterization of Reformed thought, which I am trying to address. However, notbody, not even the OP, said that Calvinists believe God only loves Calvinists. You do know that every Christian believes in election and the "elect " (at least in some fashion), don't you?

Not if the drawing of God is Irresistible. What does Irresistible mean to you?

Irresistable grace is not at odds with choosing Christ freely. Can you demonstrate that it is? You act as if God picks a person up and shoves them into Christ. That is not the case scripturally, and no Reformed confession or theology teaches that.

I suppose that maybe you believe that one is regenerated before they hear that Irresistible call, so that means that they are freely choosing. Even though the call can't be rejected because without them, even knowing or agreeing, they have already been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely. Regeneration precedes faith. It is clearly taught in Scripture in numerous places.

 

[Hank77]

Yes. The OP is a mischaracterization of Reformed thought, which I am trying to address. However, notbody, not even the OP, said that Calvinists believe God only loves Calvinists. You do know that every Christian believes in election and the "elect " (at least in some fashion), don't you?

The OP has related 'election' to Calvinism. So that is what I am discussing.

Irresistable grace is not at odds with choosing Christ freely. Can you demonstrate that it is? You act as if God picks a person up and shoves them into Christ. That is not the case scripturally, and no Reformed confession or theology teaches that.

Absolutely. Regeneration precedes faith. It is clearly taught in Scripture in numerous places.

If one is already regenerated by the Holy Spirit, without them agreeing to be regenerated, so that they WILL not be able to resist the Irresistible call, then yes, as you put it, God has pick a person up and shoved them into Christ.

imo...
This was the only way that Calvin could explain why some people did not get saved when hearing the Gospel. He didn't like the fact that God is Sovereign and yet would allow man to make their own decision about following Him. If he were the Sovereign God he would control man and man's response to him. He seemed to believe that no man could choose to follow God when the Holy Spirit draws them and they hear Gospel message of grace, mercy, and love. He thought that God must be doing something to some people and not to others.

This leaves God holding the bag for the evil deeds of people like Adam Lanza. But God makes it very clear in Jeremiah 19 and in 32, that He is not always controlling what men do.
God is Sovereign in that He can do whatever He chooses to do, and no one has the authority to or can constrain Him.

 

[TaylorSexton]

If one is already regenerated by the Holy Spirit, without them agreeing to be regenerated, so that they WILL not be able to resist the Irresistible call, then yes, as you put it, God has pick a person up and shoved them into Christ.

Where in Scripture does it say that we have to "agree to be regenerated," or that the fallen heart even wants to be regenerated? Your modern sensibilities are blinding you from reading and believing what Scripture plainly states.

This leaves God holding the bag for the evil deeds of people like Adam Lanza.

Nope. Read the stories of Joseph's brothers (Gen. 50), Assyria attacking Israel (Is. 15), and Herod, Pilate's and the Jews' actions against Christ (Acts. 4:27-28). These directly contradict your assertion. Again, it is clear that you, as well, do not understand Reformed thought.

God is Sovereign in that He can do whatever He chooses to do, and no one has the authority to or can constrain Him.

This statement is bewildering, as it annuls everything you just said prior.

 

[Received]

With virtually every statement you are only showing that you don't even know what the doctrines you so despise even say or teach. You are not refuting Reformed theology. I do not know what system you are refuting, but it certainly is not Reformed theology. Virtually nothing you said in the above statement is something that Reformed theology teaches—not even in the slightest.

If we are going to disagree with a doctrine, we need to at least represent it honestly, according to what it actually teaches, not what we think it teaches. Have you read any Reformed literature?

So do you think that natural man has it in his own capacity to come to faith by his own power?

 

[TaylorSexton]

So do you think that natural man has it in his own capacity to come to faith by his own power?

"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation (Rom. 5:6, 8:7) so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin (Eph. 2:1, 5), is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44)."

—London Baptist Confession of Faith, ix.3

 

[TaylorSexton]

So do you think that natural man has it in his own capacity to come to faith by his own power?

In case your wondering which statements in particularly I was referencing in my initial response to you, see the three statements below...

...God creates human beings who are born without faith (original sin)...

...he's condemning people who can't help but be in the sin they're in...

...according to total depravity, sinfulness is a necessary nature...

These could not be farther from what the Reformed standards or the Scriptures teach. It is a gross dishonesty and blatant lie. None of these statement can be proven from Scripture, and they certainly are not found in the Reformed doctrinal confessions.

 

[Received]

"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation (Rom. 5:6, 8:7) so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin (Eph. 2:1, 5), is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto (Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44)."

—London Baptist Confession of Faith, ix.3

In case your wondering which statements in particularly I was referencing in my initial response to you, see the three statements below...





These could not be farther from what the Reformed standards or the Scriptures teach. It is a gross dishonesty and blatant lie. None of these statement can be proven from Scripture, and they certainly are not found in the Reformed doctrinal confessions.

If the London Baptist Confession of Faith is true, then people are born in a state of sin. I don't see how this is anything crazy, given that this is basic doctrine for anyone who accepts original sin, so the first of three statements by me that you quoted aren't problematic.

Moving to the third point, man being dead in sin means just that -- he's captivated by sin, incapable of not sinning. This is especially apparent when we unveil that sin is the opposite of faith (Romans 14:23). So again, I'm not seeing how it's incorrect to claim that sinfulness is a necessary nature, man being dead in sin and according to irresistible grace is drawn only by God. Irresistible grace is specifically against the non-Calvinist idea that man has some sort of role in attaining his salvation (which isn't at all to say that he created his own salvation, only that he reached for the hand that would save him from drowning by his own power). Therefore, sinfulness is a necessary condition for unredeemed man; without God's help, he's necessarily stuck in a state of sin.

Moving back to the second point on God condemning people who can't help but be in the state of sin they're in: if the reasoning above is correct and man is necessarily sinful given irresistible grace connoting the incapacity to attain salvation (by grace) through man's own powers, it follows that if there are any passages where sinners are condemned for being in the state of sinfulness they're in, and a portion of these sinners won't be granted salvation by irresistible grace, it follows that condemnations are made toward people who can't help but be in the state of sin they're in.

These are all the implications of Reformed theology. On its face it looks like a gross dishonesty and blatant lie, but once you start unwinding the logical implications of this theology, these are the conclusions you're left with.

 

[TaylorSexton]

If the London Baptist Confession of Faith is true, then people are born in a state of sin.

This is correct. However, you said originally that "God creates human beings who are born without faith." That is the blatant falsehood, an entirely different statement than the one quoted here.

I'm not seeing how it's incorrect to claim that sinfulness is a necessary nature...

As Calvin himself put it, not nature, but the corruption of nature. Yes, it is necessary, but in the way so that we desire the good, but inevitably do evil. No, we are born with the corruption propagated by our own doing in Adam. This is the teaching of Rom. 5. Furthermore, Paul says to the Ephesians that all people are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). Calvin comments: "Obviously, Paul does not mean 'nature' as it was established by God, but as it was vitiated in Adam. For it would be most unfitting for God to be made the author of death" (Institutes, II.i.6.).

Besides, it not like we are victims. We did all this to ourselves.

Irresistible grace is specifically against the non-Calvinist idea that man has some sort of role in attaining his salvation...

Exactly, which is why Calvinism is the scriptural system. How in the world can you say that like it's a bad thing?

Therefore, sinfulness is a necessary condition for unredeemed man; without God's help, he's necessarily stuck in a state of sin.

Yes, by our own doing. Read Eph. 2.

...condemnations are made toward people who can't help but be in the state of sin they're in.

No, they are made toward people who willingly and gladly sin. They're corrupted natural state doesn't remove the freeness with which they sin. Again, they (we) are sinful by their (our) own doing. You act as if people sin against their will, which is a preposterous notion.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That's the very issue. You and many others here are claiming that you are the ones who get to define what you think Reformed theology teaches, regardless of the fact that truth is objective, and Reformed theology is a defined set of beliefs. My goodness, that's the point of everything I have said today. You people are operating on straw men. Of course, you have to, otherwise your "arguments" fall apart.

Well, this is more of a case of new wine in old wine skins, it is not uncommon for two paradigms to not mesh with one another. So I don't see it as an issue.

Interesting. Care to cite an example of where I do that?

No, I do not care to cite an example. I let those misconceptions pass by because our paradigms are too far apart for it to be a productive conversation.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Well, this is more of a case of new wine in old wine skins, it is not uncommon for two paradigms to not mesh with on another. So I don't see it as an issue.

The issue is that what is being branded as Reformed theology here just simply isn't. I don't know how much plainer I can make that for you.

No, I do not care to cite an example.

You won't because you can't. Just yet another attack on my character and unremorseful dishonesty. Shameful.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The issue is that what is being branded as Reformed theology here just simply isn't. I don't know how much plainer I can make that for you.

It isn't according to you. That is all that has been established.

You won't because you can't. Just yet another attack on my character and unremorseful dishonesty. Shameful.

Not playing this game today.

 

[TaylorSexton]

It isn't according to you. That is all that has been established.

No, according to the Reformed doctrinal standards. Is my English confusing?

Not playing this game today.

Then don't sin against me.

 

[Received]

This is correct. However, you said originally that "God creates human beings who are born without faith." That is the blatant falsehood, an entirely different statement than the one quoted here.

So you think people are born with faith (and are therefore saved) and they lose this faith (and salvation) later on?

As Calvin himself put it, not nature, but the corruption of nature. Yes, it is necessary, but in the way so that we desire the good, but inevitably do evil. No, we are born with the corruption propagated by our own doing in Adam. This is the teaching of Rom. 5. Furthermore, Paul says to the Ephesians that all people are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). Calvin comments: "Obviously, Paul does not mean 'nature' as it was established by God, but as it was vitiated in Adam. For it would be most unfitting for God to be made the author of death" (Institutes, II.i.6.).

Besides, it not like we are victims. We did all this to ourselves.

So yes, we have a sinful nature. And yes, we are victims; a person who is in sin is a slave to sin, and furthermore dead to sin. We did this to ourselves only if we're born in a state of salvation or faith whereby we're free to lose this state (or if we're free to reject salvation, which isn't what Calvinism holds); if, on the other hand, we're born in sin (dead in sin, slaves to sin), we're not doing this to ourselves in any free way, and doing something involuntarily doesn't jive with responsibility.

Exactly, which is why Calvinism is the scriptural system. How in the world can you say that like it's a bad thing?



Yes, by our own doing. Read Eph. 2.



No, they are made toward people who willingly and gladly sin. They're corrupted natural state doesn't remove the freeness with which they sin. Again, they (we) are sinful by their (our) own doing. You act as if people sin against their will, which is a preposterous notion.

See above. Slaves to sin, dead in sin. Secondly, even if the previous sentence wasn't true, you seem to think there's some neutral middle ground between faith and sin, where a person doesn't sin but isn't in faith. This isn't scripturally true; faith is the opposite of sin (Romans 14:23). Sin is a state of being written into the spiritual genetic code of any person being born, which according to Calvinism is necessarily so unless God provides salvation through irresistible grace.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, according to the Reformed doctrinal standards. Is my English confusing?

I don't take doctrinal standards as an authoritative answer. I base my observations on how people actually act. Your language is clear, I simply disagree with you.

Then don't sin against me.

I'll just make it a point of telling you less in the future, you took offense when I meant none.

What are some good Calvinist preachers, in your opinion?