Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????

heymikey80 · Jun 8, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
[FONT=&quot]Hammster also said, No active participation.

I stand corrected concerning no one of the SE camp saying that there was no active participation involved in the salvation process . I hardly know what to say to such a statement by a Calvinist. This is the first time I've ever heard such a statement by any evangelical - Calvinist, Arminian, or otherwise..

I guess the idea here is to keep from thinking of the salvation process as being somehow of "works". Talking about some action by God that allows the will to make the right choice in the matter is one thing. But to say that there is no choice or act of the will involved in the process of salvation is downright wrong.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]People of all camps will say the strangest things to keep from giving the "other side" any ammo. It isn't becoming in either camp IMO. .

I'm going to try to stay out of this for a couple of days and see how things develop. But I'm quickly becoming convinced that both sides are so polarized that they can't even stay to the consideration of a simple concept without breaking out into childish side bars.
[/FONT]

Heh! There're clearly a number of places where there is no active participation in one or another step of salvation. Election comes to mind: we weren't there at the foundation of the world to be participating.

I remember what Calvin said about this, I believe it was in Predestination, that passivity in the reception of grace looks like powerful activity to other people. Which it is, is a matter of perspective.

Hammster · Jun 8, 2014

stan1953 said:
an assertion you have never been able to support, but feel free to try.

I didn't think anyone's theology questioned that. I guess this means that you think that the elect are believers before they are believers. I don't hold to that.

That assertion is NOT in evidence. It was a normal field but the PARABLE is meant to be read as such. The ground differences allude to different people not how the ground is prepared.
v15
But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

How exactly does this SE work if these people have what it takes to retain the word of God.

So you think there are good-hearted people out there just waiting to believe the gospel. Wow. Your theology is decided unbiblical.

Hammster · Jun 8, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
[FONT=&quot]Hammster said, The elect are unbelievers before they are believers.[/FONT]

Common sense would tell you that Paul was an unbeliever before he was an unbeliever. What a silly thing to ask for proof concerning.

If there isn't a particular scripture that tells you that unbelievers become believers somewhere along the line, it is only because it so silly to think otherwise. Otherwise why would we even preach the gospel to the world so that they can become believers and be saved? No one is a believer before he believes. That's like saying the universe existed before it existed. That's nonsensical.

Let's stay on point here and not get silly and cloud the issues.

[FONT=&quot]Hammster also said, No active participation.

I stand corrected concerning no one of the SE camp saying that there was no active participation involved in the salvation process . I hardly know what to say to such a statement by a Calvinist. This is the first time I've ever heard such a statement by any evangelical - Calvinist, Arminian, or otherwise..

I guess the idea here is to keep from thinking of the salvation process as being somehow of "works". Talking about some action by God that allows the will to make the right choice in the matter is one thing. But to say that there is no choice or act of the will involved in the process of salvation is downright wrong.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]People of all camps will say the strangest things to keep from giving the "other side" any ammo. It isn't becoming in either camp IMO. .

I'm going to try to stay out of this for a couple of days and see how things develop. But I'm quickly becoming convinced that both sides are so polarized that they can't even stay to the consideration of a simple concept without breaking out into childish side bars.
[/FONT]

Please understand what I said. The context was the parable. Those who bore fruit were those of the good soil. There's nothing we do to prepare our hearts.

Marvin Knox · Jun 8, 2014

heymikey80 said:
Heh! There're clearly a number of places where there is no active participation in one or another step of salvation. Election comes to mind: we weren't there at the foundation of the world to be participating.

I remember what Calvin said about this, I believe it was in Predestination, that passivity in the reception of grace looks like powerful activity to other people. Which it is, is a matter of perspective.

Of course there are phases of the salvation process that are monergistic. In addition it may be said that God is the power behind every phase of the process. But that is not the same as saying that there is no active participation byus in the salvation process.

It is God's work from start to finish. We work because He works. But that doesn't say that we don't work in the process at all. To the contrary. We do believe and we do confess. The fact that He operated in a way that allows us to do so doesn't change that.

God wrote the book of acts. But that doesn't mean that Luke didn't participate. The providence of God in running His creation is a big subject best tackled elsewhere. I think we probably agree in this.

stan1953 · Jun 8, 2014

Hammster said:
I didn't think anyone's theology questioned that. I guess this means that you think that the elect are believers before they are believers. I don't hold to that.

Well you think wrongly on both counts.
I clearly said the elect aren't the elect until they are saved. I also said many believe in God before they are saved, AND I backed it up with scripture.

Hammster said:
So you think there are good-hearted people out there just waiting to believe the gospel. Wow. Your theology is decided unbiblical.

Typical retort from you when you don't really have any valid response.
Just continue to ignore scripture in light of your own dogmas, instead of actually looking at what the scriptures are saying.

If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

Ignoring clear scripture only makes one more insensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Marvin Knox · Jun 8, 2014

Hammster said:
Please understand what I said. The context was the parable. Those who bore fruit were those of the good soil. There's nothing we do to prepare our hearts.

Fair enough! That's different than what I thought I heard.

Marvin Knox · Jun 8, 2014

stan1953 said:
Reading the Bible claiming common sense is a dangerous practise. The issue goes to what the NT means when it uses the word 'elect' and it is not the same as what it is in SE. Hammster knows exactly what I mean. The elect is ONLY a title for believers, never unbelievers. It connotes a privileged position in God's eyes over those who don't believe, not a position based on His sovereign choice but based on their simple free will choice.

I know your position concerning when someone becomes elect. I disagree with you. Since we seem to disagree on the grounds of our predestination - I'm thinking that is the root of our disagreement.

Of course elect is a title bestowed on believers by God and not on unbelievers. You say He bestows it because they have believed. I say they are the elect and therefore are brought to belief.

Apparently because of your view you feel it proper to say that Paul was a believer before he was a believer. Or perhaps you are saying that SE say that by their theology. Not sure which. I don't care which. Either way it seems silly. It just seems a nonsensical way to talk to me.

The bottom line to me is that it is all a fundamental difference based on a difference in the concept of predestination. That difference in the way we see predestination stems from a difference in our fundamental view of the providential activities of God vis-a-vis His creation IMO.

I doubt if we can overcome those differences here.

stan1953 said:
Paul believed in God before he accepted Jesus. I always have believed in God even before I confessed Jesus as my savior. Paul teaches us in Romans 1 that IF we are open to His creation we will know Him and not deny Him. Unbelief is simply denying God for selfish self centered reasons.
The point is SE is it not?

I don't understand much of this at all. The devil believes in God. God's existence is a given. Believing in God simply transfers one out of the category of "fool" in God's eyes. Not a very big leap really.

I'm not sure what that last question means.

Hammster · Jun 8, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
Fair enough! That's different than what I thought I heard.

Sometimes my brevity will do that.

stan1953 · Jun 8, 2014

Hammster said:
Please understand what I said. The context was the parable. Those who bore fruit were those of the good soil. There's nothing we do to prepare our hearts.

That would be an assumption because you believe God prepared the soil, which is NOT in evidence in this parable.

stan1953 · Jun 8, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
I know your position concerning when someone becomes elect. I disagree with you. Since we seem to disagree on the grounds of our predestination - I'm thinking that is the root of our disagreement.

Of course elect is a title bestowed on believers by God and not on unbelievers. You say He bestows it because they have believed. I say they are the elect and therefore are brought to belief.

Apparently because of your view you feel it proper to say that Paul was a believer before he was a believer. Or perhaps you are saying that SE say that by their theology. Not sure which. I don't care which. Either way it seems silly. It just seems a nonsensical way to talk to me.

The bottom line to me is that it is all a fundamental difference based on a difference in the concept of predestination. That difference in the way we see predestination stems from a difference in our fundamental view of the providential activities of God vis-a-vis His creation IMO.
I doubt if we can overcome those differences here.

I don't know what you believe about predestination, but this thread is about SE.

So if they are not elect before they believe, then their belief is not based on election. It's based on their salvation.

He was. He was a Pharisee so he believed in God and was zealous for God.
If you don't care and think everything I say is silly then why bother posting and asking?

Again Predestination is not the topic here, SE is. Maybe you should have included it in your OP, but it appears you wanted to keep the issue simple?

Marvin Knox said:
I don't understand much of this at all. The devil believes in God. God's existence is a given. Believing in God simply transfers one out of the category of "fool" in God's eyes. Not a very big leap really.
I'm not sure what that last question means.

I responded to YOUR post. If your own logic escapes you how can I do anything about that?
Is this thread about SE or not? You're the OP.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 8, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
So called Calvinists see Gods supreme grace in His election of some and a corresponding effectual call to those elect. They see that in scripture. Some may disagree. Calvinists see that that effectual call somehow opens the hearts of the elect to the truth and they are saved through faith. Special grace or special calling some call it.

This concept seems to be particularly offensive to many. Im not sure why.

We all believe that God extends more grace to some than others. If you dont see that in scripture and in the world in general you are simply in denial.

If we leave out the dreaded word ELECTION, we still have all of those special examples of grace to believe in the scriptures. God extended special grace to some in scripture and passed by others. He did not extend that special grace to everyone. It shouldnt be necessary to prove that point. Lydia, Paul and for that matter all of the apostles come to mind just to name a few.

If we leave out the dreaded word ELECTION again, we still have real life to show us these truths. Surely we all can agree that God gives more clear and compelling chances at believing to be saved to some than to others in this world. I wont give examples. If you dont see that youre living in a different world than the one I am living in.

In addition we all know that God didnt need to save anyone. And even if He chose to do so He could have done it without requiring faith or anything else above and beyond Christs work at Calvary. Presumably He could have just died and then whisked everyone on earth to Heaven the same day if He had wanted to.

Whether you are a Catholic, Orthodox, , Calvinist, Arminian, fee grace, or whatever else there may be (excluding universalists of course) you cant get around the fact that God created people and God treats those people in what we humans can only call an unequal manner.

It seems that most people will probably go to Hell for eternity. God knew who would and who wouldnt and then created them all anyway. He even says that it would have been better for those who wont believe had they never been born.

For that matter He could have only created people who would believe. Universalism could well have been true had God done things that way.

Some say that the God of the Calvinist would be a monster. But if that is your assessment of the Calvinist God how is your God any less so?

So whats the beef with some of you when it comes to this special grace being defined by the word election rather than just calling it something like special and highly effective grace to believe for some and not for others? Is it the word election itself? Is it that you find it more palatable to think that God is just doing these things on the spur of the moment rather than believing that He planned to do them all along?

Some people try to get God off the hook as it were by picturing Him as just somehow allowing these things. It is as if they cant see the clear teaching from scripture that our God not only creates everything but upholds and orchestrates everything as well that we live and move and have our being in Him.

Ive thought many times that those who do that kind of thing seem to be worshipping a different God entirely than the one I see in scripture. Maybe you do see God as not omni-present and upholding everything by the Word of His power. Maybe you disagree that God has always planned the working of everything in this universe and beyond after the wise council of His will.

I guess if you believe in this different God we could hear from you here also.

But again assuming you havent completely created God in an image you can handle how is your God that much different than the God of the Calvinist just because you dont use the word ELECTION?

If you dont like the Calvinists way of explaining Gods selectivity what is yours and how is yours better or more kind?

[FONT=&quot]Im not looking for arguments concerning regeneration before faith or the definition of the words election vs. the word choosing or even talking about the doctrine of limited atonement here. Im not even looking to prove or not prove here that the Bible teaches election/reprobation in any particular passage.

It may be too much to ask. But leave those arguments for other threads please.

It wouldn't be very exciting if Calvinists don't jump in as well. And you know how we all like excitement.
[/FONT]

The "problem" of election would evaporate if people would just realize that election was never about being chosen or selected for salvation.

Election is God's selection of various individuals and groups for special privilege and service. There are 6 categories (for lack of a better word).

1. Jesus Christ Isa 42:1
2. angels 1 Tim 5:21
3. ethnic Israel Amos 3:2 Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17
4. NT believers Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 2:9
5. the 12 disciples, and yes, Judas included Jn 6:70
6. Paul chosen to go to the Gentiles with the gospel Acts 9:15

As can be seen, none of these elections involve being chosen for salvation.

We cannot apply the idea of salvation either Jesus Christ or angels. Obviously there were many unbelievers among ethnic Israel. NT believers are already saved. Judas was not saved, yet was elected along with the 11. And Paul's election was not to salvation, but for ministry to Gentiles. As a believer.

Until this is realized, there will not be any productive discussion about election.

Does God choose who He will save? Certainly, but that is not an election.

The problem with reformed election is that it leads to the conclusion that God chooses who will believe, which cannot be supported by Scripture.

2 Thess 2:13 clearly says that God chose the Thessalonian believers for salvationthrough belief of the truth.

iow, God chooses to save those who believe.

Which is clearly stated elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

The parenthetical phrase "through the foolishness of the message preached" is not necessary to understand the verse. Removal of this parenthesis does not change the meaning of the verse.

Which is: God is pleased to save those who believe.

What God is pleased to do is what He chooses to do. So, He chooses to save those who believe. And it pleases Him.

bling · Jun 8, 2014

You are asking a lot of good questions but some would take a lot of words to respond to, since like you have shown already picking verses that say something different are brushed off as not applying.

The non-Calvinist talk about Gods election of those that believe and some Calvinist talk about election to believe.

Marvin Knox said:
Some say that the God of the Calvinist would be a monster. But if that is your assessment of the Calvinist God how is your God any less so?

The non-Calvinist 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 know the fathers 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 fathers love and be willing to accept his fathers charity.

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

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

That brings up another issue concerning those that never know the Father (like the prodigal son did), but the Bible does not specifically address this group:

Those that never become mentally mature enough, also have not sinned yet (their wrong doings are not counted against them). So from what we do know of Gods mercy and fairness these individuals would go to heaven never fulfilling their earthly objective.

Those that do become mental mature yet never learn specifically about Christ, do still have a law written on their hearts. They would also have to be a fool not to believe in a Creator. At some point in their lives they will come to their senses (like the prodigal son) and either be too proud to humble themselves or humbly seek help from their creator, surrender to him. God is right there literally at their elbow want and waiting to help (like the father in the prodigal son story).

So whats the beef with some of you when it comes to this special grace being defined by the word election rather than just calling it something like special and highly effective grace to believe for some and not for others? Is it the word election itself? Is it that you find it more palatable to think that God is just doing these things on the spur of the moment rather than believing that He planned to do them all along?

God planned to help people that would accept His help all along, but God is not going to force people to Love Him.

If you dont like the Calvinists way of explaining Gods selectivity what is yours and how is yours better or more kind?

Explained above, but to add how it is better:

Godly type Love is mans objective:

There are some things that God just cannot do like create a being that was never created and the one important to us is instinctively create us with Godly type Love since that would be robotic type Love. God will also not force his love on us (a shotgun wedding) since that would be unloving on Gods part (there has to be reasonable alternatives to make it a choice [the perceived pleasures of sin]). The easiest way for us to get this Love is through accepting it as a pure charitable gift. The problem being humans (due in part to the needed survival instinct) do not like accepting Charity from a Giver that paid a huge price for the gift.

The easiest way for humans to accept Gods charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting Gods forgiveness we accept Gods Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) he that is forgiven much will Love much Luke 7: 36-50.

Once we accept Godly type Love, we can truly Love and have the privilege and honor of Loving God (the forgiver) and others (Gods children) with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

heymikey80 · Jun 8, 2014

stan1953 said:
I don't know what you believe about predestination, but this thread is about SE.

Sovereign election is the initial step in Calvinistic Predestination.

Marvin Knox · Jun 8, 2014

stan1953 said:
So if they are not elect before they believe, then their belief is not based on election. It's based on their salvation.

I'm the one who believes they are elect before they believe. Everyone who believes is made capable of believing because they are elect.

stan1953 said:
He was. He was a Pharisee so he believed in God and was zealous for God.
If you don't care and think everything I say is silly then why bother posting and asking?

You are classifying Paul as a believer because he was a Pharisee and believed in God and was zealous for God? According to your logic it seems that Caiaphas was also a believer. I strongly disagree with that concept.

I'm sorry! I didn't mean to call you silly. It is the things you say that I find silly. Fine distinction. But it will have to do.

Silly wasn't a good word to use.
I just find calling someone a believer before they believe to be illogical.
What else can I say about it?

stan1953 said:
I don't know what you believe about predestination, but this thread is about SE.
Again Predestination is not the topic here, SE is. Maybe you should have included it in your OP, but it appears you wanted to keep the issue simple?

Their election is joined at the hip with their predestination to be adopted and conformed. That is why ones view of predestination is a big part of ones view on election. Ones view of predestination is in turn rooted in ones view of God's providential control of His entire creation.

stan1953 said:
I responded to YOUR post. If your own logic escapes you how can I do anything about that?
Is this thread about SE or not? You're the OP.

Perhaps we are getting to the root of our problem.

Hopefully this one last long post will get us back on track.

In my OP I said,
"So called Calvinists see God’s supreme grace in His election of some and a corresponding effectual call to those elect. They see that in scripture. Some may disagree. Calvinists see that that effectual call somehow opens the hearts of the elect to the truth and they are saved through faith. Special grace or special calling some call it.
This concept seems to be particularly offensive to many. I’m not sure why."

I then went on to lay out in great detail why it seems strange to me that you are so offended and preoccupied with this doctrine when there are more offensive doctrines that you yourself would have to face without the Calvinist beliefs to kick around.

I specifically said,
[FONT=&quot]"I’m not looking for arguments concerning regeneration before faith or the definition of the words election vs. the word choosing or even talking about the doctrine of limited atonement here. I’m not even looking to prove or not prove here that the Bible teaches election/reprobation in any particular passage.
It may be too much to ask. But leave those arguments for other threads please."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This was prompttly ignored as the anti Calvinists pulled out their doctrinal guns and trained them on election. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The question I was getting at was how do non-Calvinists deal with the "monster" god they have left to deal with in their own theology after they have done away with the monstrous god of the Calvinists.

Seems to me that spending all your time refuting those evil Calvinists is a little like whistling through a grave yard in an attempt to stave off your own theological questions that go bump in the night.

The tune you whistle is an anti Calvinist tune. If the tune was no longer around to whistle the questions you'd likely have to ask about your own beliefs might be eye opening.

What if that tune ceased and you were forced to realize that the God of the Bible knew people would sin and suffer Hell forever and did it anyway? What if He was still there when the Calvinists were no more? What if every Calvinist simply refused to talk or even recanted his theology? What if there was no one to point a finger at and claim they were the ones defaming God with their theology?

You've still got all the same thorny issues to contemplate and figure how you would deal with this God of ours. There would still be the question of evil and God's allowing it to happen and still creating and punishing people who He says would be better off if they had never been born.

You might not like predestination. You might not like election. You might not think the Bible teaches SE. You might not like Calvinistic theology in any of it's aspects.

My question is, "What's the big beef with election as an issue when the really big issues wouldn't go away even without that word being in the Bible?"

What's the reason for your preoccupation with those pesky Calvinists and their ideas concerning God when you've still got a God who seems cruel and uncaring and who plays games with people's lives and eternities?

So you don't like election. So you hate Calvinists and you know they are wrong in their doctrines. OK -tell me about your own doctrines. Tell me how they present a nicer God than the Calvinist's God.

Re-read the opening post first and then talk about it some. I'm wondering if you can face the issues of an all powerful God who seems to be involved deeply in sin and wrath when He didn't need to do it anyway.
Bottom line is - What do you have that is so much less offensive than the Calvinist's formula. Free will? Doesn't solve IMO. But let's hear about it.

Maybe this thread can get back on track now that we've had a little SE bashing to relieve all the Arminian/free grace tensions.
[/FONT] [/FONT]

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

heymikey80 said:
Sovereign election is the initial step in Calvinistic Predestination.

OK so you don't actually believe in the Biblical principle of predestination.

Rom 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.

Don't know how this would be the initial step in SE, when it is based on God's foreknowledge of those that would accept His son as their savior?
The initial step is accepting Jesus, then comes the plan of God to be conformed or be like Jesus. God can't implement His plan until one confesses His son as their savior.

Hammster · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953 said:
That would be an assumption because you believe God prepared the soil, which is NOT in evidence in this parable.

Why would you think that man prepares his own heart? What do you think is good in man that he would do so?

FreeGrace2 · Jun 9, 2014

Marvin Knox said:
I'm the one who believes they are elect before they believe. Everyone who believes is made capable of believing because they are elect.

I am interested in the verses that clearly teach that one is elected before they believe. btw, Eph 1:4 (the usual proof text) actually refutes that notion. The "us" is a reference to believers. That's who is elected.

I've given a over-view of election in post #31. Can it be refuted from Scripture?

You've still got all the same thorny issues to contemplate and figure how you would deal with this God of ours. There would still be the question of evil and God's allowing it to happen and still creating and punishing people who He says would be better off if they had never been born.

So what's the problem? Only Calvinism has the problem with evil. For non Calvinists, the issue is easily solved with man's freedom to choose and think freely, AND being held accountable for his free actions.

You might not like predestination. You might not like election.

What isn't liked is the RT spin on them. The Biblical doctrine is quite nice.

You might not think the Bible teaches SE.

Because it doesn't teach it the way Calvinists teach it.

You might not like Calvinistic theology in any of it's aspects.

My question is, "What's the big beef with election as an issue when the really big issues wouldn't go away even without that word being in the Bible?"

Click to expand...

So, what would those big issues be?

Bottom line is - What do you have that is so much less offensive than the Calvinist's formula.

Click to expand...

The truth. Non truth is offensive. Esp when trying to be passed off as truth.

Free will? Doesn't solve IMO. But let's hear about it. [/QUTOE]
The problem is your refusal to hear and believe the truth. That's all. Actually, man's freedom to think and choose freely DOES solve the issues, and quite nicely. But to understand that and accept that, means to leave RT. Which you're not willing to do.

Maybe this thread can get back on track now that we've had a little SE bashing to relieve all the Arminian/free grace tensions.

Click to expand...

I'd be very interested to see what the free grace tensions are, in your opinion. Because I can't think of any. Really.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bling · Jun 9, 2014

In my previous post I did not address two of your statements that show a lot of wisdom and truth:

Marvin Knox said:
It seems that most people will probably go to Hell for eternity. God knew who would and who wouldn’t and then created them all anyway. He even says that it would have been better for those who won’t believe had they never been born.

For that matter He could have only created people who would believe. Universalism could well have been true had God done things that way.

Your logic is good and this does present God as a monster and/or doing all this for some sick entertainment.

Your problem is with the “facts”, some facts are known today which Calvin in his time could not realize. We have shown experimentally over the last 100 years that: “Time is Relative”. In our little finite world that relativity of time is limited by the speed of light, but since information would have to flow faster than the speed of light for God, “time” would be different for God and we sometimes suggest God created time and exists outside of time. Most people agree with this concept and yet like yourself turn around and say: “God knew (before they were created) and yet created them anyway.”

If God is outside of time the “before they were created” would not exist in God’s time frame.

By suggesting there is a “before” and “after” for God is to limit God to time.

God does exist in our time frame and communicates to us for our understanding, but that does not mean we have to “limit” God’s knowledge of our future to it being God’s future also.

You believe God is omni-present, so would that also include throughout all of time?

Does God exist both in our past and our future right now as we exist in our present time?

Could the God of our future communicate with Himself in the beginning of our time?

Yes, God in the beginning could know all human free will decisions that will ever be made, from His existence way out beyond the future of man. It would all be “history” for the God way out in the future.

Here in lies the reason why God: “could not just make individuals that will accept His help and thus has to make some that will refuse to accept God help.” If “someone” is never to exist, than there is nothing to know about a non-existent person. God could make up the free will choices of a non-existent person the same as you could. As soon as a person will exist God can know everything about that person, so does that mean God is not all knowing, since God knows all there is to know past/ present/ future?

Marvin Knox · Jun 9, 2014

stan1953

I realize I did a disservice to you and everyone here when I titled this thread. My title gives the distinct impression that I am looking to debate SE.

Obviously after reading the body of my OP that isn't the case. But not everyone reads the body of the first post and I can't expect them to I suppose.

I probably should have named it something like, "Railing against election is a little like whistling through a grave yard." That would have gotten everyone's attention without the confusion.

My intent was to find some way to get the non-Calvinist camp to quit railing against Calvinism constantly. The same arguments are stated over and over again.

The Calvinist see the other guys redefining predestination and election because they don't like them. Their big gun is "show me a silver bullet scripture" or I won't believe the way the Calvinists believe it. To the Calvinists it seems that they end up saying things like, "God elected us after we elected Him." or some such thing. The Calvinists aren't buying it and obviously they never will.

I won't go into the view from the other side. You know that already being on that side apparently.

When I began to see that everyone was zeroing in on SE and not on the concepts I had intended - I realized my mistake. It was too late.

I've tried to correct what is going on and get on the track I had intended. I can't do any more and the posts get long and wordy when I try. I gave it my best shot.

I wanted this discussion to take place in soteriology because this is where all of the arguing goes on.

I seems that everyone will likely revert to the old stuff in this thread just as in all the others in soteriology.

My apologies again for confusion I caused concerning the intent of the thread.

My bad!

stan1953 · Jun 9, 2014

Hammster said:
Why would you think that man prepares his own heart? What do you think is good in man that he would do so?

I did NOT say man did, and obviously Jesus recognized the good that men are capable of, as he pointed it out. Maybe you should pray about it an query your savior?

Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Whats the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????