stan1953
Well-Known Member
- Mar 23, 2012
- 3,278
- 64
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
I'm the one who believes they are elect before they believe. Everyone who believes is made capable of believing because they are elect.
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?
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.
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 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."
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="]"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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]It may be too much to ask. But leave those arguments for other threads please."[/FONT]
[FONT="]This was prompttly ignored as the anti Calvinists pulled out their doctrinal guns and trained them on election. [/FONT]
[FONT="][FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]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? [/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]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?"[/FONT]
[FONT="]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? [/FONT]
[FONT="]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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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. [/FONT]
[FONT="]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]
Which is why I qualified my first post by stating that we should stay on SE on NOT go to the other four points, which apparently is hard for those of RT to so seeing as it is an all encompassing dogma.
Yes the key word you voiced is IMO, and as I said I prefer God Word to man's opinion.
Upvote
0