U/C Unconditional election vs. Conditional election

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
*** Okay this is the 2nd of 5 threads about Calvinism vs. Arminism that I promised in the Round Table. I want to offer a few reminders though before we get started.

1. This is an in house debate. Non Christ-like behavior and name calling like "You are not a Christian" or "All Arminians or Calvinist are not Christians" will not be tolerated. Both sides are Christians. We can disagree and tell each other that the other is wrong but in a Christ like way and always rembering that both sides are Christian brothers and sisters. So do not be surpised if your post is deleted if it contains any of the above or anything in that same vein.

2. In my titles I might overemphasizes what each one teaches. For example both Arminism and Calvinsim teach Total depravity but Arminsism also teaches that God gives you only enough grace so that you can make a choice. so there is a human element although God does the saving. so I chose to overempahize that side in my titles to make it easy to distiguish between the 2 different sides.

3. There is a lot of misinformation about Calvinsim and especially Arminism. Web pagees are a bad source many times for information. So just watch out.

4. I will try to be as objective as possible but I will fail to some extent. So know that I come from a particular point of view. But again I will try to be as objective as possible.

5. I hope these threads will be a encouragement and a learning experience for everyone. If not then I will delete them myself. So if these turn into name calling matches like they can I will delete them. So no one ruin it for everyone else. okay?

BH6(this will be the first post in every thread)
 

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Calvinsim
Unconditional election- God chose certain individuals to be part of the elect before the beggining of time. This choice is solely His own and has nothing to do with what we do. God changees the desires of those He chooses to save and leaves the others in the fallen state. He does not hate the ones He does not save but He only has full mercy and grace on some. So repentance, faith, belief, etc. are a result of God acting in the heart of the believer not the reason why He made them the elect. So it is completely unconditional. There is nothing we can do to be saved if God does not will it.

Arminainism- Conditional election- God did choose before the foundation of the world people to become the elect but this choice was based upon foreknowledge of those that He knew would choose Him. So He knew i would choose to be a Christian so i am part of the elect. So God's choice is based upon what I would later freely do.
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I turn to Romans for my answer...

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE. For those God foreknew He ALSO PREDESTINED to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those HE PREDESTINED, HE also CALLED; those he called, HE also JUSTIFIED; those he justified, HE also GLORIFIED.

As you can see here in v.29 it says "For THOSE GOD FOREKNEW..." Now wait a minute. Didn't God foreknow everyone? The inconsistancy is because foreknew doesn't mean "know ahead of time." It means "those God selected for His Son" not based on their merits but rather for the purpose of glorifying His Son. Hence, unconditional election unto salvation. It wasn't about us. It was about God's glory.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay this is the hard one for me. I believe in Unconditional election. i do not think god has to look and see what I will do in the future to know if i a mgoing to be in the elect or not. Why? Because if He does wouldn't that mean that God has to learn? that would mean that He is not all-knowing. He is not perfect. So I think that God has to somehow know what we will choose without having to see what we will choose although He does see it. I would really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this one especially.

BH6
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by blackhaw6
So I think that God has to somehow know what we will choose without having to see what we will choose although He does see it. I would really like to hear everyone's thoughts on this one especially.

BH6

What you say here makes me think of the hypothetical people, the ones whom God might have thought about, but never created. I suspect God could have thought about such a person and been able to figure out what the person would have done. But since he never actually created the person, it would not really be by His looking into the future (being in the eternal now so he sees it all at once) that he would have the knowledge. So, if I think he could do figure it out for a hypothetical person, then why not a real person?
 
Upvote 0

BigEd

an adopted child of God
Feb 15, 2002
1,090
4
58
connecticut
✟9,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jn. 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

This is one verse, that does chalenge the idea of unconditional election. If The Son came to save the world, why would only a few be selected without any choice of their own?
 
Upvote 0
The problem I see, with CONDITIONAL Election is how it fits in with GRACE, the position appears to be flawed.

Perfect GRACE, crys out for a sovereign GOD, to accomplish his pefect will thru election.

The Election in view here has to be Unconditional, for the following reason:

Known unto God are all his works from the begining. This is true.

However the impartation of GRACE to an undeserving people can only be accomplished by GOD excercising his sovereignty.

If we believe that it is God who works in us to will and to do of his good pleasure after salvation, then, it only stands to reason, this is also true before salvation.

The scriptures make it perfectly clear that we in the natural state, are spiritually dead, a dead man has no interest in anything, especially the things of God
"receives not....neither can he know them" is what the word tells us.

I have to beleive that GOD has elected the sheep, without looking into the future, to see anything about how they would have reacted at the moment the of shepherds calling
, for he says "he calls them out by name".

Otherwise, Grace is not Grace, but reckoned a reward, for performance.

He even gives us the hearing to hear and the faith to believe to the saving of the soul.

I ask, How good is that? That is SOVEREIGNTY, No.

I know this hard on the pride of man, but our confidence is not in us who are called but in him who calleth.

A few verses concerning his sovereignty;



Ex 32
33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.


Isa 43
4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.

Rom 9
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil , that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.




Stay in Word,,,Thats where the Blessings are Found.




RICHARD
 
Upvote 0
Final thought;

The verse above Rom 9:11

"....... that the purpose of God according to election might stand,...."


In both, Conditional and Unconditional Election;
when God calls his people from the dead they all hear his voice and come forth into newness of life.

This is undisputably true....





Praise God,


RICHARD
 
Upvote 0

Caedmon

kawaii
Supporter
Dec 18, 2001
17,359
570
R'lyeh
✟49,383.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Blackhawk
He does not hate the ones He does not save but He only has full mercy and grace on some.

Are you sure about that? :scratch:

The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. - Psalms 11:5, NASB

Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." - Romans 9:13, NASB

Even if you say that these passages don't really mean that God hates some people, you have to admit that God does have a different attitude toward the Reprobate. But if God does have a different attitude toward the Reprobate, how would you describe it: as love, or as hate?

Let's compare it to effectual call. Does God ever use "half" an effectual call? No, His Holy Spirit either calls or it does not; it either regenerates a person or it does not. I remind you, to say a person "rejects" the effectual call of the Holy Spirit is Arminian, a system to which I do not ascribe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"But if God does have a different attitude toward the Reprobate, how would you describe it: as love, or as hate?"

I definitely think that it is different. I also think that we can describe it as love. I could love a man who just killed my son but I will still make sure that he is punished justly for his actions. I think that God hates the sin in the man but does not hate the sinner himself. That is what he calls for us to do also. Jesus showed this in His mininstry on earth. He loved all.

I also think that if God is not loving towards all then we can't say that God is love. God then becomes just like a greek god who likes those who likes Him but hates those who does not care for Him. I see the Bible as being very clear that God loves all but will justly punish those that do not believe in Him.

"Let's compare it to effectual call. Does God ever use "half" an effectual call? No, His Holy Spirit either calls or it does not; it either regenerates a person or it does not. I remind you, to say a person "rejects" the effectual call of the Holy Spirit is Arminian, a system to which I do not ascribe."

Of course this is what I do not believe in and one of the main points in which I part ways with the reformed tradition. I think that man can resist the Holy Spirit. But I think love vs. hate is not that simpleas I think this is not that simple. There are other factors in play in both situations like God's justness. So I see that there is no problem with saying that God loves us all but still let's some go to hell.

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Blackhawk
I think that God hates the sin in the man but does not hate the sinner himself.

God does not just hate the sin:

Ps 5:5
You hate all workers of iniquity.

I also think that if God is not loving towards all then we can't say that God is love.

God's righteousness is not determined by our limited view of God's purpose in His actions. His actions concerning the non-elect are righteous because His purpose in their condemnation is righteous. That purpose is the sactification of His chosen and that His glory is shown in their (the non-elect) destruction.

God then becomes just like a greek god who likes those who likes Him but hates those who does not care for Him.

The inconsistancy in this view is seen when you examine those that God does save. We are all sinners and fall short. We are all children of wrath. None are righteous, nor do any seek Him. He elects unto salvation from a people who are unrighteous and are enemies of Him.

I see the Bible as being very clear that God loves all but will justly punish those that do not believe in Him.

When God judges one to eternal torment it's not like a spanking. The purpose of punishment for a loved one is correction. That is not the purpose of God's judgment on the wicked. It is eternal. He does not love those He eternally condemns.

I think that man can resist the Holy Spirit.

There is where you confuse me Blackhawk. You say you believe in God's sovereignty yet you say that man, God's creation, can stave off God's Will for them. If God is omnipotent what He Wills comes to pass, period. If it doesn't then He is nothing more that someone who can see the future but has no power to direct it's course. This doesn't speak of an omnipotent God.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"God does not just hate the sin:"
Okay I think we have two differnt issues here.

1. Is God lal loving?

I say yes. I do believe He is and does not want any to go to hell.

"God does not just hate the sin:"

Ps 5:5
You hate all workers of iniquity

Then God hates us both. (Romans 3:23)

BTW I am not judging God. I am judging your view of God. I think the God of the Bible is not like you say. Jesus said that He loved the whole World (John 3:16) I know that God is love and loves all. When I give an example of me spanking a child I am not saying my spanking is like hell. I am trying to show how someone can love someone yet still punish them righteously. So I would then say that it entirely consistent for God to punish men with hell. now this punishment is everlasting but that fits the crime. This view goes back to Tertullian.

2. How cna God be Sovereign if we have a free choice?

Let me turn this around. Why can't God be sovereign and man have free choice? Is that too tough for God? I do not think so. I think that He can have His plan that He knows and executes no matter what choices I make.

God made a world in which He knew only some would be saved but this is by man's free choice not God dictating that I not be saved. For example in the world that He made I am saved but another guy in Iraq is not. We both had a chance to be saved but only one of us chose God. Now possibly if God would of made me an Iraqian then possibly
I would not be saved also but He did not. He chose to put me in a better psosition then my other friend. But I think that all have enough reason to be saved and can't go to God and say that He was unfair.
But let's get back to His sovereiegnty. God knew who would be saved an who would not be saved. He knew how we would chose to make the world in the way He did. He planned every action no matter what we chose. I think that He did not want us to sin but that He let us sin. That He knew about it and could of stopped it but He did not. So sin is in God's will but it is not soething that He causes. Do you understand the difference?

Here is an example again. I can let my child make a choice but be fully in control of the situation. i limit the choices also I could make it so she does not have a choice at all and I can make the reaction to what she chooses. I just do not cause her choice. I do not cause her to sin.
So God is sovereing but still allows us to sin and make chocies.

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Blackhawk
Jesus said that He loved the whole World (John 3:16)

You and I have had numerous conversations about this and I have shown you viable grounds for my interpretation of this passage. You don't have to accept my interpretation but, bear in mind, that I can, and have, shown you numerous places where God speaks of His abhorrence for the unrighteousness and wickedness of those whom He has not adopted into His family. With that in mind, the conclusion that God loves everyone but still eternally condemns some of them hell seems contradictory. In any case, the word "world" in John 3:16 IS NOT the word for the planet earth. The word is "kosmos" and it has many different meanings. One accepted meaning of this is the "world of believers" or, the elect. I think the issue many people have with the concept that God can hate is that it causes them to consider God in terms of the human emotion hate. In God's benevolence I don't think He delights in the death of the wicked. Their death does, however, serve a purpose, His purpose. And, that purpose is righteous, therefore their death is a righteous act on His part.


I am trying to show how someone can love someone yet still punish them righteously.

I have never disputed this. However, punishment is different than condemnation.


So I would then say that it entirely consistent for God to punish men with hell.

And I would say, as hell is an eternal punishment, that it is not an act of love, it is judgment, and it's final.

Why can't God be sovereign and man have free choice? Is that too tough for God? I do not think so. I think that He can have His plan that He knows and executes no matter what choices I make.

I never said He couldn't. In fact, that's what I've been saying all along. The difference is that if God's plan is not affected by our decisions He is sovereign. If our decisions are affected by God's plan we don't have "free choice." And they are. Where we differ is whether or not God determines the salvitic choices we will make. He doesn't determine the color of car we'll choose, or whether we like dogs or cats. What He does determine is whether we are saved. And, that determination is not based on any merit found in decisions we would ever make.

For example in the world that He made I am saved but another guy in Iraq is not. We both had a chance to be saved but only one of us chose God.

Not that I think you'll consider what I'm saying but I'll try anyway. The reason you "chose" God is because HE HAD ALREADY CHOSEN YOU. Before He did, you would never have chosen Him. I'm sure there are some Iraqis that are Christian. But, do you think it's just a coincidence that Christianity is not the dominant religion in the middle east? God has planned for His people, wherever they are, to see the godlessness of that group of people. It is to show us the extent that God does love us and from what He has rescued us.

But let's get back to His sovereiegnty. God knew who would be saved an who would not be saved. He knew how we would chose to make the world in the way He did. He planned every action no matter what we chose. I think that He did not want us to sin but that He let us sin. That He knew about it and could of stopped it but He did not. So sin is in God's will but it is not soething that He causes. Do you understand the difference?

I agree with this. And, yes, I know the difference. I would add that the actions God planned are in accordance with His Will as are our actions because our actions are dictated by our nature, be it fallen or regenerate.

Here is an example again. I can let my child make a choice but be fully in control of the situation. i limit the choices also I could make it so she does not have a choice at all and I can make the reaction to what she chooses. I just do not cause her choice. I do not cause her to sin.
So God is sovereing but still allows us to sin and make chocies.

I've never said any different. Along with this, though, is the understanding that the decisions we are able to make are determined by our nature.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Part of the difficulty with unconditional election is that it stands at one end with free will on the other. Joshua specifically said that the Israelites could choose who they would serve. Christ commanded many to follow - not all of them did, some of them left.

The Romans 8-11 passage speaks of the church being elected as a group, not as individuals - see the soteriology thread for that one.

Taking a step further shows that if God elected a few, then he damned others, creating them solely for the purpose of being destroyed...now before anyone throws out the vessels of destruction, it is important to see that the Greek there is in the middle tense - these people destroyed themselves. Let's not even get into the sin issue if unconditional election was true.

What do you say to all the times that God says one thing and then the Israelites did something, and God changes his mind? What are we to say to that? If God is not affected by our actions, then how do we explain when he is, such as when God acquieces to Moses, when he says in no uncertain terms in several of the prophecies book that, "I expected you to do this, and instead you did this, so I will do this instead..."

As to blotting out names in the book of life, this seems much more likely to refer to those losing their salvation than anykind of prooftext for election.

Just some thoughts... I'm not Arminian either! :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by ScottEmerson
What do you say to all the times that God says one thing and then the Israelites did something, and God changes his mind? What are we to say to that? If God is not affected by our actions, then how do we explain when he is, such as when God acquieces to Moses, when he says in no uncertain terms in several of the prophecies book that, "I expected you to do this, and instead you did this, so I will do this instead..."

Please provide the scriptures for these instances so I know what you're referring to.

Thanks,
God bless.
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
As for kosmos and use of the world - using only the believers is a HUGE error and is a presupposition.

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

kosmos, kosmou, ho; (NT:2889)

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order
2. ornament, decoration, adornment: 1 Peter 3:3
3. the world, i. e. the universe Acts 17:24; Rom 4:13
4. the circle of the earth, the earth Mark 16:15
5. the inhabitants of the world: 1 Cor 4:9
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ John 7:7
7. worldly affairs; the aggregate of things earthly; the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which, although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ: Gal 6:14
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort James 3:6

From Rick Young:

". Now there are 189 uses of this word in the NT, 79 of which occur in John's gospel and 27 of which occur in John's epistles. This means that 56% of all occurrences of this word in the NT is by John. John has a very distinct writing style. The way in which he uses various words is also distinctive and characteristic. Certainly John used this word with a variety of shades of meaning. However, I could find none where he uses kosmos to indicate "only believers." That is, to do so, one must first presuppose the meaning and then impose it on the text. So, when John says:
: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Jn 3:16-18).

: How do we understand "world" (Gr, kosmos, NT:2889)? Could it mean "only believers" as Ken says or all humanity as most Christians have understood for millennia? Well, John also writes,
: "and [Christ] Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

: It seems to me that John has settled this issue for us. That is, the parable of the hidden treasure:
: "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." (Matt 13:44)
: The believer has been extracted from the world and is no longer part of the world, even though he is still in the world. This corresponds with the writings of John and his use of the word "kosmos."
 
Upvote 0

ScottEmerson

I Like Traffic Lights
May 9, 2002
366
0
45
Ocala, FL
✟682.00
Faith
Christian
Jeremiah 3:6–7

Regarding Israel, the Lord says “I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me’; but she did not return.”

Jeremiah 3:19–20

“I thought how I would set you among my children...And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife...you have been faithless to me...”

Ezekiel 12:1–3

The Lord has Ezekiel symbolically enact Israel’s exile as a warning and remarks, “PERHAPS they will understand, though they are a rebellious house” (vs. 3).

Hosea 11:8–9

After plotting severe judgment against Israel (vs. 5–7) the Lord says,

“My heart recoils within me;
my compassion grows warm and tender.
I will not execute my fierce anger...
I will not come in wrath.”

Joel 2:13–14

“Return to the Lord your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
and relents from punishing.
Who knows whether he will not turn and relent,
and leave a blessing behind him...?”

Amos 7:1–6

The Lord revealed a judgment he was planning to bring on Israel to Amos in a vision. Amos prayed “O Lord God, forgive...” Scripture declares that, “The Lord relented concerning this; ‘It shall not be,’ said the Lord.” The Lord then showed Amos another fierce judgment he was planning against Israel. Amos again intercedes, “O Lord God, cease, I beg you!” Again Scripture says, “The Lord relented concerning this.”

And of course, we have Jonah, where God says "I'm gonna destroy Ninevah!" and after they repent, God changes his mind...

Just a few to get started...
 
Upvote 0

Blackhawk

Monkey Boy
Feb 5, 2002
4,930
73
52
Ft. Worth, tx
Visit site
✟22,925.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"I think the issue many people have with the concept that God can hate is that it causes them to consider God in terms of the human emotion hate. In God's benevolence I don't think He delights in the death of the wicked. Their death does, however, serve a purpose, His purpose. And, that purpose is righteous, therefore their death is a righteous act on His part."

I think that we are speaking different theological languages. I will take the blame for that. But I think we believe close to what each other believes yet ther are some very important differeneces.

no I do not believe that Kosmos in this passage and others refers just to some. But I think we look at God in some of the same ways. But we word it differently.

"Not that I think you'll consider what I'm saying but I'll try anyway."

this was just not right. I consider all that you say. Just because i do not believe as you do gives you no reason to say this.

I think that our discussion though is causing more harm than good. I think that it is best if we just stop it here. But BTW you have given me many things to chew on and so has RC Sproul who I am reading right now.

blackhawk
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
51
✟37,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by Blackhawk
this was just not right. I consider all that you say. Just because i do not believe as you do gives you no reason to say this.

I apologize. I did not mean this in a malicious way even though as I re-read it I see how it could easily be construed that way. Please accept my humblest apologies. To clarify, I just meant that most people, including myself at times, on this board don't truly consider another's view if it is in direct conflict of their own so we end up with people just basically giving their opinions with no real exchange of ideas. Again, I am truly sorry.

I think that our discussion though is causing more harm than good. I think that it is best if we just stop it here. But BTW you have given me many things to chew on and so has RC Sproul who I am reading right now.[/B]

I would ask that you do not bail out of this discussion. Your thoughtful insights and exemplary attitude bring things to the table that are sorely lacking in most arenas. If it was my comments please forgive me and do not leave.

God bless,
Don
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.