Chosen for Life: The case for divine election

[worshipjunkie]

I just got done reading Chosen for Life by Sam Storms. This book focuses on the doctrine of unconditional election, but to do so also covers total depravity. It was very well written, easy to follow, densely packed with Biblical evidence, and the author has some excellent philosophical points to make as to why election is Biblical, why it is not only consistent with God's character but glorifies it, and answers common objections to the doctrine. This is my favorite quote, which the author freely admits was inspired by a quote of John Piper, and which really helped put the whole thing in a whole new light for me.

"It can only be because there is something God wants more then whatever benefits might otherwise be gained by choosing all. But what could possibly be more important to God than delivering all hell-deserving sinners from their plight? The Arminian would say: the preservation of human free will. According to Arminianism, God won't save all because to do so would require that He intrude upon and override the rebellious will of many unbelievers. God so values the purported dignity of libertarian freedom that he choose to save only those who believe, although it would be possible to save those who don't believe as well.
The Calvinist answers the question in a different way. Again, what could possibly be more important to God than delivering all hell-deserving sinners from their plight? The answer is: the display of the glory of all His attributes for His delight and that of those with whom He has chosen to share His glory." (Kindle location 3537)

Note: I'm aware the author isn't Reformed, but he is Calvinist and has done an excellent job in breaking down this subject for us newbies.

 

[GodsGrace101]

How could two persons read the same stuff (not this book) and come up with two different ideas?

I don't want to turn this into a calvinist thread, so don't answer if you don't care to....

However, I'd love to know why you believe God created us beings unless He really had the intention to love us.

If He's sovereign and all-knowing, He certainly knew that we would sin and be deserving of death.

So if Calvin is right, it seems to me that God's intention was not loving, merciful, OR JUST.

 

[worshipjunkie]

How could two persons read the same stuff (not this book) and come up with two different ideas?

I don't want to turn this into a calvinist thread, so don't answer if you don't care to....

However, I'd love to know why you believe God created us beings unless He really had the intention to love us.

If He's sovereign and all-knowing, He certainly knew that we would sin and be deserving of death.

So if Calvin is right, it seems to me that God's intention was not loving, merciful, OR JUST.

If you want to move this off the book thread and into its own thread under debate a calvinist I'm sure others would discuss it with you. I'm still very much new, very much studying, and am not comfortable debating Calvinism yet. I could give you my opinions, which would probably make the Reformed here turn green.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you want to move this off the book thread and into its own thread under debate a calvinist I'm sure others would discuss it with you. I'm still very much new, very much studying, and am not comfortable debating Calvinism yet. I could give you my opinions, which would probably make the Reformed here turn green.

Calvinism really isn't that bad, they really only get defensive when they encounter something that seems legalistic or demeaning to the authority of Scripture.

 

[Silverback]

How could two persons read the same stuff (not this book) and come up with two different ideas?

I don't want to turn this into a calvinist thread, so don't answer if you don't care to....

However, I'd love to know why you believe God created us beings unless He really had the intention to love us.

If He's sovereign and all-knowing, He certainly knew that we would sin and be deserving of death.

So if Calvin is right, it seems to me that God's intention was not loving, merciful, OR JUST.

it is completely loving, merciful, and just.

To accept Unconditional Election, you must accept Total Depravity.

providing you can do that, then it's simple:

Some people receive mercy, some are passed by and receive justice, but no one receives injustice.a

Total Depravity, and Unconditional Election are tied at the hip.

If salvation is our decision, then know one would be saved, an Christ would have died for nothing.

our names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

These two doctrine are clearly taught in scripture, they could not be any more clear. We may not like them, but that does not matter.

If you have to make a decision for salvation, then you are simply saving yourself, and it just works righteousness. Salvation is 100% God's work, our role is passive.

 

[worshipjunkie]

Calvinism really isn't that bad, they really only get defensive when they encounter something that seems legalistic or demeaning to the authority of Scripture.

Oh, no!- that's not what I meant. Everyone here has been extremely helpful and I've learned a lot. I just meant that my ability to articulate what I've learned so far would probably not be good.

 

[GodsGrace101]

it is completely loving, merciful, and just.

To accept Unconditional Election, you must accept Total Depravity.

providing you can do that, then it's simple:

Some people receive mercy, some are passed by and receive justice, but no one receives injustice.a

Total Depravity, and Unconditional Election are tied at the hip.

If salvation is our decision, then know one would be saved, an Christ would have died for nothing.

our names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world.

These two doctrine are clearly taught in scripture, they could not be any more clear. We may not like them, but that does not matter.

If you have to make a decision for salvation, then you are simply saving yourself, and it just works righteousness. Salvation is 100% God's work, our role is passive.

I don't want to derail...but yes, I do not accept total depravity either. I accept that man is born with a sin nature and is serving satan,,,but is not so depraved as to be unable to accept the gospel of his own volition.

We could end it here. I'll see you around.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How could two persons read the same stuff (not this book) and come up with two different ideas?

Simple, we're not all at the same point in our understanding or learning. It's not like we're immutable and full of wisdom and all knowledge at the moment of regeneration. If the seed and soil are good, we grow in Christ.

I don't want to turn this into a calvinist thread, so don't answer if you don't care to....

This is a Calvinist section of Semper Reformedanda, the Book review section, NOT the debate a Calvinist section. Why are you working to sow division here? Is that a central tenant of Catholicism? Divide the naughty protesters?

However, I'd love to know why you believe God created us beings unless He really had the intention to love us.

Simple, the first question of the larger Westminster Confesion is:

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?

A. Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God,[1] and fully to enjoy him forever.[2]

If He's sovereign and all-knowing, He certainly knew that we would sin and be deserving of death.

If God is sovereign and all-knowing? Really? What is orthodoxy? All orthodox Christians affirm these two truths, neither are up for debate. God certainly had a plan of salvation from all eternity. God certainly ensured His plan would not fail to accomplish all that He willed.

So if Calvin is right, it seems to me that God's intention was not loving, merciful, OR JUST.

Where did Calvin enter into this? Oh that's right use your misunderstandings and confusion to smear Calvin and the God of Scripture in one swoop. How loving of you.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Simple, we're not all at the same point in our understanding or learning. It's not like we're immutable and full of wisdom and all knowledge at the moment of regeneration. If the seed and soil are good, we grow in Christ.



This is a Calvinist section of Semper Reformedanda, the Book review section, NOT the debate a Calvinist section. Why are you working to sow division here? Is that a central tenant of Catholicism? Divide the naughty protesters?



Simple, the first question of the larger Westminster Confesion is:

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?

A. Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God,[1] and fully to enjoy him forever.[2]



If God is sovereign and all-knowing? Really? What is orthodoxy? All orthodox Christians affirm these two truths, neither are up for debate. God certainly had a plan of salvation from all eternity. God certainly ensured His plan would not fail to accomplish all that He willed.



Where did Calvin enter into this? Oh that's right use your misunderstandings and confusion to smear Calvin and the God of Scripture in one swoop. How loving of you.

I did say I didn't want to derail and not to answer.
I hope our conversation ends here.

In the old Catholic Catechism I learned that we're here to Love, Honor and Obey God. Sounds about the same as what you have.

And re "IF God is sovereign"....it's an idiom,,,It's meant in the positive.

The real reason I'm writing is to ask you why you think I'm catholic?

I'm protestant now and have been for many years.