Calvinists do not really affirm "the purpose of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever"

TheSeabass said:

It means that God does not choose for men where each man will be in eternity. If God chose "Joe" to be saved and not "Jack" then God showed respect of person to Joe. But the fact God has allowed both Joe and Jack to choose for themselves to believe or not, then both can be saved, or both be lost based on their OWN choices and not a choice God made for them against their will.

Click to expand...

Romans 9:21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

TheSeabass said:

Those in Acts 2 who chose to obey God's command to repent and be baptized are the ones that God added to the church, the elect. Those that refused to repent and be baptized remained lost in their unremitted sins. Since God allow man to choose, God is not being a respecter of persons.

Click to expand...

Acts 10 shows Gentiles saved prior to baptism. That points out your error.

TheSeabass said:

The Bible does speak of those who are worthy, 2 Thessalonians 1:5; Revelation 3:4.

The issue is what is the basis God uses to determine if one is worthy or not?
Does God solely, unconditionally, capriciously determine some to be worthy and others not?

It is those who have a faithful obedience to God that are counted by God as worthy to walk with in Him in white and man chooses for himself to be obedient or not.

Therefore since God is not doing the choosing for man, man is doing his own choosing, then God is not a respecter of persons when it comes to who will or will not be counted worthy.

Click to expand...

You still miss the point that no one would choose God if left to their own volition. We are all dead in trespass and sin and therefore don't want God to begin with.

The choice of who were the elect was made from the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4) So therefore God's "choosing someone" could not be a result of a choice they made in this life.

That's also covered in Romans 9 when Paul talks about Jacob and Esau having been elected or not prior to birth.

Kate30 said:

Bling you do write so very much. That must have taken you quite a time to write. As to the book of Roman’s it does cover many subjects beginning with all of humanity being in a court room on trial and thus being found guilty and without excuse from the many witnesses of God. It continues on with the Jewish Gentle question of which there are a number of interpretations some do say two branches whereas traditional belief says that we are all the Israel of God or the universal church if you like. The example I used of a employer having to choose one applicant for a required position probably did not fully explain what I meant. What is being challenged in this post is whether mere man can demand of God that he be saved. Bling you do make much of the potter and the clay. It seems with you, that it’s the clay that tells the potter or the Creator how things are going to be and who is going to be saved. And with what the clay demands the Creator must obey. I don’t think so. You simply haven’t fully comprehended the gravity of what you are saying against the sovereignty of God.

Click to expand...

I am trying to be as brief as possible, but this is no small subject and there is good reason why it is controversial.

No one is saying: “mere man can demand of God that he be saved” or suggesting that. Salvation is a free unconditional gift from God. The question is: can the recipient offered the gift refuse to accept the gift, something like what happened in the parables of the ruler/master inviting people to the party and having some refuse the invitation. You are not “demanding or deserving” anything from God, but you can accept or reject it. God is not kidnapping guests, so it is truly an invitation (gift) and like anything truly changing ownership the person can refuse.

I am not suggesting the clay makes the choice the same as those Christians (Jewish and Gentile Christians) in Rome did not choose if they were born Jewish (those created with a special purpose) or if they were born Gentile (those born with a more common purpose). Both left the shop (were born) with the Potter’s mark on them and like any ceramic pot can become cracked over time and thus become unworthy of the Potter’s mark (and made for destruction). The Potter does not make clay pigeons leaving his shop made to be destroyed.

What I was pointing out with 2 Tim. 2:20 is Paul is using the same Greek word τιμὴν can mean honorable or special and the Greek word ἀτιμίαν can mean dishonorable or common, but Paul is using the same Greek words in both Ro. 9:21 and 2 Tim. 2:20 conveying similar ideas, but in 2 Tim. 21 he shows even the dishonorable can become honorable, “Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.”

Paul is saying: the individual over time can himself change his value to the Master.

God is still sovereign, but makes the vessels so they can change themselves to become worthy of destruction or worthy of honor.

The Righterzpen said:

Your analogy here though misses the fact that it's God who is actively working in the heart to change that person. This still does not make God a respecter of persons because the persons He's actively working to change are still unworthy of that change.

If you turn around and now say "Well some act of individual nature or will of themselves made them want that change; so therefore God gave them that change." That then makes God a "respecter of persons" based upon who "wants" the change. The truth of the matter is though that no one wants the change. That's what it means to be dead in trespass and sin. No one wants God.

Click to expand...

I will let Christ define and use His definition of “dead” (in trespass and sin) since Christ could use any word He wanted, yet chose to describe the prodigal son as “dead” twice while the son was in the foreign land. That son while dead was able to come to his senses (on his own, no servants were sent to him) and decide to turn to his father (repent), all while being in a dead state.

If God is working in the heart of some that are unworthy and could just as easily and safely work in the hearts of all who are unworthy and all are unworthy, then God is being less than the epitome of Love.

I see God doing and allowing everything He can to help those who are willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective. The willingness to accept or reject God’s help (like the prodigal son being willing to accept his father’s charity) is the determining factor for who is helped by God. God is not going to force His Love on you like some shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.

You can be macho, hang in there, be willing to accept the punishment you fully deserve, be willing to pay the piper and not disturb your Father again or you can wimp out, give up and surrender to your enemy while God is still your enemy. This is not something they really “want” to do, but are just willing to do it. You just have to be willing to “accept” your enemy’s undeserving charity. They do not “want” to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity, but are just a big enough wimps to do it.

-57 said:

God chooses you, you don't choose God.

Click to expand...

And this is your error. God CHOOSES saved people for service. He does not choose people for salvation.<<<<<<<You cannot and will not site one verse that says He chooses some for salvation or damnation.

We are eternally secure/ forever saved the MOMENT we believe/trust in Him. Acts 16:31,John 3:16.

THEN we are chosen for service.John 15:16......Chose us for SERVICE. Not salvation. Salvation is a FREE gift the moment we believe.

Site ONE verse that specifically states we are chosen for salvation or damnation. You can't.

TheSeabass said:

Yes, God does not unconditionally, capriciously chose certain men to miraculous infuse faith into them apart from the word. Such would make God a respecter of persons with God doing the choosing. Yet God allows men choose to believe or not when man hears the word. Those that choose to believe are the ones that will be saved.




God cannot lie, He is immutable.



So your position is that God can lie, that is, He can go back on His word that He has given to man?

The Bible would be completely worthless if God can change it. And if God did change it how could we know the changes He made?


You and I are about as far apart as two people can be.

Click to expand...

Seabass God does never lie. It has never been my position that he does. Yes God does surely choose. Maybe you should take a journey down Damascus road sometime. It be the reason why we are reading a large portion of New Testament today simply because God chose the Saul Paul. We be poles apart you think. I’m not so sure. Seabass are rather popular here. I do like mine well grilled : )

TheSeabass said:

God has allowed man to choose for himself as to where man will be in eternity, Romans 2:6-11...….man chooses the type of work he will do in this life, whether righteousness in doing as God says or unrighteousness, wickedness. All God will do on judgment day is hand out the sentence that fits the type of work man chose for himself to do. Therefore as Paul says "For there is no respect of persons with God."

Since God has allowed man to choose then God is not being a respecter of persons. For if God solely did all the choosing Himself then He would be showing respect of persons, in choosing one over another.


If God must turn a person's heart, then one can choose God, then you have God being a respecter of persons of those whose heart He turns.


God has cut off the Jews from being His chosen people (Romans 11)and in Romans 9 Paul is refuting the arguments he knew the Jews would have in claiming God acted unrighteous towards the Jews by cutting them off. Paul is not giving a dissertation on Calvinism in Romans 9.

Click to expand...

Where, exactly, are you trying to say that God is saying we choose God or have the wherewithall in our unsaved state to choose God, without God first changing our hearts to incline toward Him?

I never once said we aren't responsible for our sin.. We are very much responsible for our sin..

What I said is that when given a choice for evil we will choose it every time because our very nature is sinful. We don't have to teach a child to lie, to sin. We are dead in our sin, enemies of God, as Jesus said there are none good, no not one.

what's the opposite of good? the opposite of righteous?

Can that man choose God? Really?

Any good in us is Him, His Spirit, and not our own. Any righteousness is Him, and not our own..

We are depraved.. He is Good, He is righteous.

Gr8Grace said:

And this is your error. God CHOOSES saved people for service. He does not choose people for salvation.<<<<<<<You cannot and will not site one verse that says He chooses some for salvation or damnation.

We are eternally secure/ forever saved the MOMENT we believe/trust in Him. Acts 16:31,John 3:16.

THEN we are chosen for service.John 15:16......Chose us for SERVICE. Not salvation. Salvation is a FREE gift the moment we believe.

Site ONE verse that specifically states we are chosen for salvation or damnation. You can't.

Click to expand...

here's the deal; your seeing this as God choosing some for damnation - that is incorrect. All mankind chooses for their own destruction.

Tell a man to stop sinning, repent, and become a Christian and see the result. They see following God as an absurdity compared to the things of this world... just look around.

What God does, to show His great mercy, is pluck some of us out of the muck and the mire we love so much, and show us a better way - for no reason other than He loves us and is merciful.

Why not every single person on earth?

my personal opinion? If all are saved we don't know/learn about God, we don't gain the concept of mercy in the first place, and we begin to feel as if we deserve being saved, as if God owes it to us and we stop caring about sin at all.. His mercy in such a situation would have no depth of meaning.

We aren't robots, we do choose, but it requires God drawing us to Him to make the right choice in the first place...that regeneration is why we pray for the lost.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Ill end with a quote to sum:

Why God intervenes to save one and not another, when all are equally undeserving; why the things of God are revealed unto babes while hidden from the wise and prudent, can only be answered in the language of our Lord, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Matthew 11:26.)

— Charles Hodge (1797-1878) excerpt from: Systematic Theology3.4.3

Click to expand...

Why Does God Save Some and Not Others? by Charles Hodge | Monergism

-57 said:

I don't think that's the way it would have worked. That is every thing is "just fine"....living in the garden where when an individual disobeys God they get kicked out. I see Adams time in the garden as probational. If Adam said no to the serpent and didn't eat the probation would have been over and things would have been different.

Click to expand...

The question you asked was: “Then why did your Armenian God create Adam knowing he would fall?”

Where do you find in scripture anything about a “probational period”?

How could there be such a thing, since God knows everything or do you feel God did not know what Adam would do?

You answer with an “If”, so do you feel God did not realize Adam would eventually sin?

Adam did not talk to the serpent but Eve did, so would Adam have had to say “no” to Eve?

In the Garden there is: A tree of knowledge is in the center (easy access), the fruit looks good (desirable), fruit which provides knowledge (something also desirable and lacking), satan is there and can communicate with man (freely roaming around), a command is given (obedience will be required), consequences for disobedience (a high value is placed on sin), Eve is there (someone to love other than God), Adam will not be kept from sinning, and lots of really great stuff.

SO:

Is Adam being set up to fail, because he did sin and this does look like a set up for sinning? OR

Is Adam being set up to eventually fulfill his objective while here on earth?

Knowing God (God is Love), He would do everything possible for Adam and Eve to be successful and that is what I am seeing with all this, but even though God did everything possible does not mean Adam and Eve were successful in completing their earthly objective, they had free will.

-57 said:

Fallen people don't "accept" Gods charity. By that I assume you mean salvation. People are dead in their sins and trespasses and can't accept Gods charity. What has to happen? God has to quicken the person, regenerate them...God has to give that person the ability to come to Christ (John 6:65)...Open their heart Lydia style. God chooses you, you don't choose God.

Click to expand...

“Accepting Charity” is not something worthy of anything, honorable, righteous or noble and can be done for selfish reasons. Can a dead in their sins, person do stuff including sinning? Does “Dead in their sins” keep the sinner from doing stuff for selfish reasons?

The father did not send servants after the prodigal son, but the son while in a dead stay (“dead” according to Christ’s own words) came to his senses and for selfish reasons turned to the father.

What kind of rescuer would arbitrarily “choose” to save a few people out of a burning house when he could just as easily and safely save everyone and what esteem would you have for such a rescuer?

The same thing that can “open the heart” of one person can shut the heart of another person, but that depends on the person’s free will choice to accept or reject help of God.

Hazelelponi said:

Where, exactly, are you trying to say that God is saying we choose God or have the wherewithall in our unsaved state to choose God, without God first changing our hearts to incline toward Him?

I never once said we aren't responsible for our sin.. We are very much responsible for our sin..

What I said is that when given a choice for evil we will choose it every time because our very nature is sinful. We don't have to teach a child to lie, to sin. We are dead in our sin, enemies of God, as Jesus said there are none good, no not one.

what's the opposite of good? the opposite of righteous?

Can that man choose God? Really?

Any good in us is Him, His Spirit, and not our own. Any righteousness is Him, and not our own..

We are depraved.. He is Good, He is righteous.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you are saying and a person does not “Choose” to be part of God’s family until after God showers him/her with gifts, but there is a previous step sinful man can take.

“Accepting Charity” is not something worthy of anything, honorable, righteous or noble and can be done for selfish reasons. Can a dead in their sins, person do stuff including sinning? Does “Dead in their sins” keep the sinner from doing stuff for selfish reasons?

The father did not send servants after the prodigal son, but the son while in a dead stay (“dead” according to Christ’s own words) came to his senses and for selfish reasons turned to the father.

What kind of rescuer would arbitrarily “choose” to save a few people out of a burning house when he could just as easily and safely save everyone and what esteem would you have for such a rescuer?

The same thing that can “open the heart” of one person can shut the heart of another person, but that depends on the person’s free will choice to accept or reject help of God.

Kate30 said:

Seabass God does never lie. It has never been my position that he does. Yes God does surely choose. Maybe you should take a journey down Damascus road sometime. It be the reason why we are reading a large portion of New Testament today simply because God chose the Saul Paul. We be poles apart you think. I’m not so sure. Seabass are rather popular here. I do like mine well grilled : )

Click to expand...

Did you personally have a Damascus Road experience?

I see lots of good logic and reasoning why God allowed Saul (Paul) to torture, persecute and kill Christians before Christ approached Saul on the Damascus road, but it all has to do with Saul having to make a free will choice, so why do you see God needing to wait?

The reason we do not all have a Damascus Road experience is because we are not in a Saul like state:

1. Fanatical about our believes to the point of being willing to kill others.

2. Dedicating our lives to the work and study of our religion.

3. Extremely knowledgeable of the doctrine of our religion.

4. Esteemed by the top religious leaders and most everyone in our religion.

5. Rapidly moving up in hierarchy of our religious.

For Saul to “change” his religion, is going to be a huge hard step, with lots of good carnal reasons not to.

Saul is going to have to go from being what he saw himself as being (sinless in the eyes of all whom he esteemed) to being the chief of sinners.

Saul will be given three days without sight or food to think about what had happened and what he would do. A person in his lofty religion position could easily have reasoned: I must have had heat stroke, fell from my horse, stared at the sun to long, imagined lots of stuff and wound up in Damascus. Which would allow him to return to his position.

Rubiks said:

…Which is what the Westminster Catechism states, which was written by Calvinists.

If Calvinists were logically consistent, this would be true of the elect, but not mankind in general.

In case some wise guy wants to argue that the statement is technically correct because "glorifying God" is was intended for all people (which would include both accepting and rejecting him, whereas enjoying him would be intended for only the elect; A statement like "the purpose of man is to enjoy God or reject him forever" would be much more appropriate. That is obviously not how it was originally intended to be understood.

Click to expand...

This is God's intended purpose for man. All men will not do this. Only those who are truly born again.

Hazelelponi said:

my personal opinion? If all are saved we don't know/learn about God, we don't gain the concept of mercy in the first place, and we begin to feel as if we deserve being saved, as if God owes it to us and we stop caring about sin at all.. His mercy in such a situation would have no depth of meaning.

Click to expand...

Are you saying: We can understand “mercy/Love” better from a “Rescuer” who arbitrarily saves a few people from hell when He could just as easily and safely save all the people, than understanding mercy/Love from a Rescuer who sacrificially does everything He can to bring people to Love heaven, but will not forcefully kidnap people to go to a place they which will not bring them happiness?

bling said:

The question you asked was: “Then why did your Armenian God create Adam knowing he would fall?”

Where do you find in scripture anything about a “probational period”?

How could there be such a thing, since God knows everything or do you feel God did not know what Adam would do?

You answer with an “If”, so do you feel God did not realize Adam would eventually sin?

Adam did not talk to the serpent but Eve did, so would Adam have had to say “no” to Eve?

In the Garden there is: A tree of knowledge is in the center (easy access), the fruit looks good (desirable), fruit which provides knowledge (something also desirable and lacking), satan is there and can communicate with man (freely roaming around), a command is given (obedience will be required), consequences for disobedience (a high value is placed on sin), Eve is there (someone to love other than God), Adam will not be kept from sinning, and lots of really great stuff.

SO:

Is Adam being set up to fail, because he did sin and this does look like a set up for sinning? OR

Is Adam being set up to eventually fulfill his objective while here on earth?

Knowing God (God is Love), He would do everything possible for Adam and Eve to be successful and that

Click to expand...

bling said:

Did you personally have a Damascus Road experience?

I see lots of good logic and reasoning why God allowed Saul (Paul) to torture, persecute and kill Christians before Christ approached Saul on the Damascus road, but it all has to do with Saul having to make a free will choice, so why do you see God needing to wait?

The reason we do not all have a Damascus Road experience is because we are not in a Saul like state:

1. Fanatical about our believes to the point of being willing to kill others.

2. Dedicating our lives to the work and study of our religion.

3. Extremely knowledgeable of the doctrine of our religion.

4. Esteemed by the top religious leaders and most everyone in our religion.

5. Rapidly moving up in hierarchy of our religious.

For Saul to “change” his religion, is going to be a huge hard step, with lots of good carnal reasons not to.

Saul is going to have to go from being what he saw himself as being (sinless in the eyes of all whom he esteemed) to being the chief of sinners.

Saul will be given three days without sight or food to think about what had happened and what he would do. A person in his lofty religion position could easily have reasoned: I must have had heat stroke, fell from my horse, stared at the sun to long, imagined lots of stuff and wound up in Damascus. Which would allow him to return to his position.

Click to expand...

Did Kate have a Damascus experience. Most certainly not. For the God did like what he saw straight away. Others like Paul did come to know the God later: Everything in Gods time. There was no reasoning for Paul when God met the Paul. God simply revealed himself and did convert him straight away. As to your 5 points except for maybe the first. Well nothing wrong with those points for that is what respectable and law abiding Christians do. It be how one learns. So what about the Bing is he on that list . Or does he have his own seperate little list ???? It be some late. Now must sleep.zzzzz

Hazelelponi said:

Where, exactly, are you trying to say that God is saying we choose God or have the wherewithall in our unsaved state to choose God, without God first changing our hearts to incline toward Him?

I never once said we aren't responsible for our sin.. We are very much responsible for our sin..

What I said is that when given a choice for evil we will choose it every time because our very nature is sinful. We don't have to teach a child to lie, to sin. We are dead in our sin, enemies of God, as Jesus said there are none good, no not one.

what's the opposite of good? the opposite of righteous?

Can that man choose God? Really?

Any good in us is Him, His Spirit, and not our own. Any righteousness is Him, and not our own..

We are depraved.. He is Good, He is righteous.

Click to expand...

Man is not born totally depraved, that is a man made idea.

Acts 2, Peter preached to those who were lost. IN their lost, spiritually dead sate they were willing and able to hear and understand Peter's words, have those words prick their hearts to the point of asking what they must do and obey what Peter commanded them to do, that is able to choose to obey what God commanded them to do all while I that lost, dead spiritual state.

Calvinism's idea of God having to firsts 'regenerate' a nd change a man's heart before that man is able to hear, understand and obey puts God in the position of picking which men will be 'regenerated' and saved and those not 'regenerated' and lost making God a respecter of person

Kate30 said:

Seabass God does never lie. It has never been my position that he does. Yes God does surely choose. Maybe you should take a journey down Damascus road sometime. It be the reason why we are reading a large portion of New Testament today simply because God chose the Saul Paul. We be poles apart you think. I’m not so sure. Seabass are rather popular here. I do like mine well grilled : )

Click to expand...

If God can change His word, then what would He being doing? Can He change the promises He made to man without lying? If God can change His word, then why/how should a man have faith in a god who keeps changing what He says?

God chose Saul for the office of an Apostle, it still took obedience on the part of Saul to choose to obey God Acts of the Apostles 22:16 by submitting to baptism to have his sins washed away. Saul could have chosen to disobey (Acts of the Apostles 26:19) but he chose to obey and for that choice he made, he was added to the elect group Christian.

Did God foreknow what choice Saul would make? Of course, God does not leave things up to chance, and foreknowledge doe not require predetermination. God used a free will choice Saul made to further His own will and purposes.

John 15:16 cf John 6:70 some erroneously think John 15:16 is about God choosing some men to be saved but the verse is about God choosing men to fill the office of an Apostle. Yet all those men chosen still had to choose to obey God to be saved, God did not choose that for them, God did not force salvation or the office of an Apostle on them by choosing for them. They all willingly chose to obey God and be saved.