Doubting God’s goodness in unconditional election

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
376
255
Vancouver
✟45,742.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
While there is a way in which the OP's question applies more to SLD [supralapsarianism] than ILD [infralapsarianism], it still applies to ILD. The merit of ILD is that it accounts for reprobation better than SLD, but the question of election, which the OP raises, applies to both views. That is, the question of the OP remains relevant to ILD.

Well, as an infralapsarian, I found his question practically impossible to answer. It was the term "irrespective" in conjunction with "hell" that tripped me up. I thought to myself, "God does not send people to hell irrespective of their beliefs or behavior, but rather precisely because of them." Yet I had to pause and consider, "Wait a minute, a supralapsarian ordo salutis holds that he does." So, I composed my response accordingly, noting that his question is inapplicable to most people of the Reformed faith who are infralapsarian.

But now, if we remove the supralapsarian element, what is left of his question?

"If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven ... irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior, or spiritual belief?"

So, maybe it is relevant to infralapsarianism, and the answer would be, "Since it is by the grace and mercy of God that any sinners are saved at all, that is how it is good. They did not deserve his salvation nor could they ever earn it. What we have earned and deserve is the judgment of hell for our countless sins. And yet, by such amazing grace, he chose to save a countless throng made up of people from every nation, tribe, people, and language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
376
255
Vancouver
✟45,742.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I suppose it's possible that God grants unconditional election to some. But if that is the case, then divine creation, justice, and mercy are arbitrary, not free. In other words, there is no more reason for creation, justice, or mercy than divine fiat. This is the problem with the Augustinian/Calvinist emphasis on divine sovereignty. It is arbitrary because sovereignty looks to no other value except power. Goodness and mercy are not even necessary so long as nothing surpasses divine power.

It does not follow from election being unconditional that it is arbitrary or without any other reason than divine fiat. God may have any number of reasons why he chose as he did—let us not forget the inscrutable pactum salutis affirmed in Reformed covenant theology—it's just that none of those reasons are found in us, who we are or what we have done. This was something that took place between the Godhead in eternity past. His reasons or motives are his own, and he has not revealed it to us.

But Reformed theology is much, much deeper than your caricature gives us credit for. Maybe we believe in the cruciform nature of reality. Maybe we believe that creation is a continuous Christological event, that the creation by God of all reality that is distinct from God took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. Maybe God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Thus, creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be. There is a complex and sublime redemptive-historical hermeneutic at work in Reformed theology under which nothing is arbitrary or a matter of bare divine fiat.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well, as an infralapsarian, I found his question practically impossible to answer. It was the term "irrespective" in conjunction with "hell" that tripped me up. I thought to myself, "God does not send people to hell irrespective of their beliefs or behavior, but rather precisely because of them." Yet I had to pause and consider, "Wait a minute, a supralapsarian ordo salutis holds that he does." So, I composed my response accordingly, noting that his question is inapplicable to most people of the Reformed faith who are infralapsarian.

But now, if we remove the supralapsarian element, what is left of his question?

"If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven ... irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior, or spiritual belief?"

So, maybe it is relevant to infralapsarianism, and the answer would be, "Since it is by the grace and mercy of God that any sinners are saved at all, that is how it is good. They did not deserve his salvation nor could they ever earn it. What we have earned and deserve is the judgment of hell for our countless sins. And yet, by such amazing grace, he chose to save a countless throng made up of people from every nation, tribe, people, and language.
Yes, this is a good answer. I think it is the proper answer from a legitimately Reformed perspective, which is obviously the perspective that the OP was interested in.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not sure it does. Your position seems to be that election is unconditional (correct me if I'm wrong), which means
it solely rests in divine sovereignty
As does the new birth (Jn 3:3-5) by act of the sovereign Holy Spirit, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8)
and is not based in any "conditions" anyone can meet to secure one's own election. So divine righteousness/justice (same Greek word) is divine sovereignty.
You rely on Romans for your position, but that is not what Paul teaches in Romans. He teaches that divine justice is revealed through faith in God's grace given through Jesus Christ. For Paul, then, there appears to be at least one condition a person must meet to become one of the elect: faith. Hence, election is not unconditional.
To keep your position, I think you will have to argue that faith is a also a gift of grace based solely in divine sovereignty (arbitrariness).
Agreed. . .and that is precisely what I see in Php 1:29, Ac 13:4, Ac 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3.
So be it; now, we're back where we started. God desires the salvation of all but arbitrarily chooses not to save all. Strange God, that is.
I think he may be aware of man's perception of him when he says, "Your ways are not my ways," and further says, "my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is 55:8-9)

Repentance is likewise granted (2 Ti 2:25, Ac 11:18, Ac 5:31).

Our "strange God" is addressed in post #10.

Moment of truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
BUT! According to what you are saying some get their “due” and others do not get their “due”, so that describes an unjust judgement.
Previously addressed.

"And who has given to God that God should owe him?" (Job 41:11)
Again! God choosing to have mercy on some, when He could just as easily, justly and safely have mercy on all, would be unjust on God’s part (He would not be justly treating everyone equally). God would be like: A rescuer who could just as easily and safely rescue everyone in a burning building, but only chose to save a few, will be rightly harshly thought as being unjust, so that cannot be the way God is.

In Eph. 2:3, Paul is addressing the mature adult Christian
Contraire. . .

We are "by nature" objects of wrath. We are all born with our fallen, corrupt nature.
in Ephesus who were very involved in lustful sinning, but this is not address what these Christians “did” to allow themselves to avoid God’s wrath, while others will still be victims of God’s wrath.

OK, What the New Testament teaches: one group refuses to humbly accept God’s pure undeserved charity (forgiveness) as charity and the other group was just willing to humbly accept God’s charity (in the form of forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity.
Previously addressed. . .

You must Biblically demonstrate my Biblical error there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Previously addressed.
Where???
"And who has given to God that God should owe him?" (Job 41:11)

Contraire. . .

We are "by nature" objects of wrath. We are all born with our fallen, corrupt nature.

Previously addressed. . .

You must Biblically demonstrate my Biblical error there.
You did not previously address who Paul was addressing in Eph. 2:3.

Eph. 2: 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Eph. 2 1-5 is addressing mature adult Ephesian (Christians who gratified the flesh, desired (lusted) and coveted), so it is not addressing babies. Christ made them alive while they were dead in transgressions (babies are not transgressing).

The “nature” in verse 3 is not referring to our sinful “nature”, but the wrath of God being the natural deserving result of disobedience.

We have been through the doctrine of “original sin”, before, but we can go through it again.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It does not follow from election being unconditional that it is arbitrary or without any other reason than divine fiat. God may have any number of reasons why he chose as he did—let us not forget the inscrutable pactum salutis affirmed in Reformed covenant theology—it's just that none of those reasons are found in us, who we are or what we have done. This was something that took place between the Godhead in eternity past. His reasons or motives are his own, and he has not revealed it to us.

I have sympathy with the notion that God is ultimately inscrutable and might have reasons that are not known to us. I am certain that is the case. If we were discussing the problem of evil, I would accept that claim because the assumption is that God has reasons for allowing evil; nonetheless, evil will one day be overcome/defeated by good. However, if the argument were that God allows evil because evil is somehow also good, then the whole "inscrutable" claim becomes useless since God allows evil because it's not really evil, it's good. Of course, that's an absurd conclusion. So when we accept proper epistemic humility regarding divine reasons, that does not include making God culpable for evil as if it were a good end in itself. Given the framework within which unconditional election is maintained, it's not clear that evil is also not-good.

God is the only source of all God creates, and God is the only end of all that God creates. There are no other ends that would bring about different reasons or purposes. So whatever reasons God has for whatever God does, those reasons come from one divine will. Obviously, I don't believe divine inscrutability entails divine arbitrariness. But I'm not sure arbitrariness is a mere caricature of the position, either, because I do believe a certain understanding of divine power does entail arbitrariness. As I pointed out, the emphasis on divine sovereignty ensures that divine choices will be arbitrary because there is no value to which power must adhere. It's not like love is equal to power in emphasis for the Augustinian/Calvinist tradition. Calvin insisted God only loves those who are saved, which is at least consistent with his notion of the primacy of divine sovereignty. Power is always arbitrary if it is not in order to goodness.

In my opinion, the idea that the Son and Father made some eternal agreement is too anthropomorphic for serious consideration. Agreements are needed where there are disagreements. The divine persons have one unified will when it comes to the divine telos. It's not like there was a discussion whether or not to save humanity and it was decided, eternally, to do so. That would assume there was some new (eternal) knowledge that needed to be eternally resolved. I mean, it is not a serious notion of God, and it puts us in a quagmire worse then whatever prompted the idea. God is one and the divine will is one. The question is what drives the divine will? If we say the arbitrariness of power, then what is evil might be good and what is good might be evil-it's really up to whatever God does. Hence, God can decide to create creatures that will forever be reprobate, thus ensuring the persistence of sin, rebellion, and evil for all eternity. What is the reason? The reason cannot be God's goodness; goodness is relative to power....for reasons. It can only be fiat, whereby, God decides it's good that sin and evil should persists because God says it is. And, perhaps, when we enter into the divine presence we will realize God was right and what was evil really was good all along. I think this is an absurd position, but I also think this is what one must embrace if God's power is not in order to God's love and goodness.

I think the more important observation is that the doctrine of unconditional election and the framework of five-point Calvinism from which it is usually defended leads to concerns like that expressed in the OP title. It undercuts our very intuitions about what is good and just, as if God has deceived us so that we really have no idea what is evil and what is good. I think that result is enough to question the whole framework.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Where???

You did not previously address who Paul was addressing in Eph. 2:3.
Read it again.
Eph. 2: 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
Eph. 2 1-5 is addressing mature adult Ephesian (Christians who gratified the flesh, desired (lusted) and coveted), so it is not addressing babies. Christ made them alive while they were dead in transgressions (babies are not transgressing)
The “nature” in verse 3 is not referring to our sinful “nature”, but the wrath of God being the natural deserving result of disobedience.
Grammar error. . .
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is the consequence of believing in Calvinist/Reformed theology, which is why Calvinism is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, IMO. It represents a completely different view of God, the view you described above.
An unconditional election is not truly unconditional.
Both your and their objections are addressed in posts #9 and #24.
 
Last edited:
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

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure it does. Your position seems to be that election is unconditional (correct me if I'm wrong), which means it solely rests in divine sovereignty and is not based in any "conditions" anyone can meet to secure one's own election. So divine righteousness/justice (same Greek word) is divine sovereignty.

You rely on Romans for your position, but that is not what Paul teaches in Romans. He teaches that divine justice is revealed through faith in God's grace given through Jesus Christ. For Paul, then, there appears to be at least one condition a person must meet to become one of the elect: faith. Hence, election is not unconditional.

To keep your position, I think you will have to argue that faith is a also a gift of grace based solely in divine sovereignty (arbitrariness). So be it; now, we're back where we started. God desires the salvation of all but arbitrarily chooses not to save all. Strange God, that is.
How is faith understood in this scheme?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have sympathy with the notion that God is ultimately inscrutable and might have reasons that are not known to us. I am certain that is the case. If we were discussing the problem of evil, I would accept that claim because the assumption is that God has reasons for allowing evil; nonetheless, evil will one day be overcome/defeated by good. However, if the argument were that God allows evil because evil is somehow also good, then the whole "inscrutable" claim becomes useless since God allows evil because it's not really evil, it's good. Of course, that's an absurd conclusion. So when we accept proper epistemic humility regarding divine reasons, that does not include making God culpable for evil as if it were a good end in itself. Given the framework within which unconditional election is maintained, it's not clear that evil is also not-good.

God is the only source of all God creates, and God is the only end of all that God creates. There are no other ends that would bring about different reasons or purposes. So whatever reasons God has for whatever God does, those reasons come from one divine will. Obviously, I don't believe divine inscrutability entails divine arbitrariness. But I'm not sure arbitrariness is a mere caricature of the position, either, because I do believe a certain understanding of divine power does entail arbitrariness. As I pointed out, the emphasis on divine sovereignty ensures that divine choices will be arbitrary because there is no value to which power must adhere. It's not like love is equal to power in emphasis for the Augustinian/Calvinist tradition. Calvin insisted God only loves those who are saved, which is at least consistent with his notion of the primacy of divine sovereignty. Power is always arbitrary if it is not in order to goodness.

In my opinion, the idea that the Son and Father made some eternal agreement is too anthropomorphic for serious consideration. Agreements are needed where there are disagreements. The divine persons have one unified will when it comes to the divine telos. It's not like there was a discussion whether or not to save humanity and it was decided, eternally, to do so. That would assume there was some new (eternal) knowledge that needed to be eternally resolved. I mean, it is not a serious notion of God, and it puts us in a quagmire worse then whatever prompted the idea. God is one and the divine will is one.
The question is what drives the divine will? If we say the arbitrariness of power, then what is evil might be good and what is good might be evil-it's really up to whatever God does. Hence, God can decide to create creatures that will forever be reprobate, thus ensuring the persistence of sin, rebellion, and evil for all eternity. What is the reason? The reason cannot be God's goodness; goodness is relative to power....for reasons. It can only be fiat, whereby, God decides it's good that sin and evil should persists because God says it is.
Let me propose a pathetically weak illustration which I will not defend, only present for the sake of thinking outside the box of just fiat.

So for his pleasure and according to his infinite graciousness, God chooses to create beings and matter.
He creates spirits and material humans according to a staggering plan of his infinite wisdom and love.
Because he has created finite human beings of matter, the effective and complete accomplishment of this plan requires accommodation to these created limitations, that accommodation being a foil.

The staggering plan is to prepare a material bride for his Son, which bride will share in the eternal glory of his Son.
The preparation of this finite bride and her grasp of the infinite goodness of this plan cannot be accomplished in a neutral environment.
In working understanding and appreciation in the finite and material bride, a measure is needed against which to measure this infinite goodness, to serve as a foil, to facilitate realization of its magnitude, thereby effectively and completely accomplishing his plan for her.

This measure is indicated in Ro 9:22-23:
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath who have fitted themselves for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?"

Ro 9:19-21:
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? Who can resist his (sovereign) will?"
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' (Isa 29:16, 45:9)" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble use and some for common use (human waste)?

It is not just fiat, it is fiat for a purpose.
And, perhaps, when we enter into the divine presence we will realize God was right and what was evil really was good all along. I think this is an absurd position, but I also think this is what one must embrace if God's power is not in order to God's love and goodness.

I think the more important observation is that the doctrine of unconditional election and the framework of five-point Calvinism from which it is usually defended leads to concerns like that expressed in the OP title. It undercuts our very intuitions about what is good and just, as if God has deceived us so that we really have no idea what is evil and what is good. I think that result is enough to question the whole framework.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
376
255
Vancouver
✟45,742.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I have sympathy with the notion that God is ultimately inscrutable and might have reasons that are not known to us. I am certain that is the case. If we were discussing the problem of evil, I would accept that claim because the assumption is that God has reasons for allowing evil; nonetheless, evil will one day be overcome/defeated by good. However, if the argument were that God allows evil because evil is somehow also good, then the whole "inscrutable" claim becomes useless since God allows evil because it's not really evil, it's good.

This framework within which unconditional election is maintained also understands and defends from Scripture that evil is not good (wherein good is defined by the nature and character of God). I am not aware of any framework which maintains both that election is unconditional and that evil is good or a good end in itself. Such a view would seem absurd, indeed.

We are in complete agreement that a "proper epistemic humility regarding divine reasons ... does not include making God culpable for evil as if it were a good end in itself." To emphasize the point: A person who strongly affirms a Reformed covenant theology is agreeing with you. If it is truly not clear to you that, under this theological system, evil is "not good"—by definition!—then I suspect you might not properly understand the system.


God is the only source of all God creates, and God is the only end of all that God creates. ... [W]hatever reasons God has for whatever God does, those reasons come from one divine will.

Such is the case in Reformed theology, too, so we are still in complete agreement. I said rather the same thing, but using Christological terms because we view Scripture as a tapestry woven together by the narrative threads of redemptive history that consistently point toward Christ.


Obviously, I don't believe divine inscrutability entails divine arbitrariness. But I'm not sure arbitrariness is a mere caricature of the position, either, because I do believe a certain understanding of divine power does entail arbitrariness.

And such an understanding would not fit Reformed theology, which is why it is a caricature at best. You have to ignore nearly everything I said in my response to you in order to maintain that divine power entails arbitrariness. And since you are maintaining that belief and have not engaged what I said, feeling ignored comes rather easily.


As I pointed out, the emphasis on divine sovereignty ensures that divine choices will be arbitrary because there is no value to which power must adhere.

That would follow if divine sovereignty were being isolated from the God who exercises it, which is not done in Reformed theology. I would invite you to pick through our confessional standards to make a case otherwise, but I am afraid it would be in vain. Power is not arbitrary precisely because it is in order to goodness, namely, God himself.


In my opinion, the idea that the Son and Father made some eternal agreement is too anthropomorphic for serious consideration. ... I mean, it is not a serious notion of God, ...

Then you are choosing to overlook or dismiss (for reasons) more than just the points I had raised in my response. I don't think this is the thread for debating the pactum salutis, but there is no doubt about its crucial relevance to Reformed theology and especially this dubious charge of arbitrariness.


The question is: What drives the divine will?

"If we say the arbitrariness of power"—then we are no longer discussing Reformed theology, and I am left to wonder what we are talking about. If you want to argue against an arbitrary divine power, then I would be happy to join you. We share in common the rejection of such a view. But then, at the end of the day, Reformed theology is being left unaddressed.


Hence, God can decide to create creatures that will forever be reprobate, thus ensuring the persistence of sin, rebellion, and evil for all eternity.

That would involve getting into the weeds of hell being a place of eternal conscious torment. If it is, then you have a point. Thankfully, my heterodox view escapes this criticism because I believe God's wrath can be spent and that, eventually, there will not be any trace of sin anywhere in all of his vast creation.


I think the more important observation is that the doctrine of unconditional election and the framework of five-point Calvinism from which it is usually defended leads to concerns like that expressed in the OP title.

—concerns that I addressed in Msg #22. Such concerns are understandable but not unanswerable.


It undercuts our very intuitions about what is good and just, as if God has deceived us so that we really have no idea what is evil and what is good.

We are fallen sinners and therefore I am hesitant to trust our intuitions. God, however, is not only loving and good but perfect and holy, so I am much more inclined to believe and trust his definition of what is good and evil. I am not left to wonder or speculate about good and evil. It is enough that Adam ate from that tree; I am content to trust what God says. If my intuitions align with Scripture, then all the better. But because of the enscripturated word of God, we do know what is good and thus what is evil.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,308
-
✟678,372.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I have sympathy with the notion that God is ultimately inscrutable and might have reasons that are not known to us.
There is much that we do not know about God's purpose. For example, from the beginning of Christianity, discussions have taken place regarding the soul's origin. Wikipedia reminds us:

"The 'origin of the soul' has provided a vexing question in Christianity. The major theories put forward include soul creationism, traducianism, and pre-existence. According to soul creationism, God creates each individual soul directly, either at the moment of conception or some later time. According to traducianism, the soul comes from the parents by natural generation. According to the preexistence theory, the soul exists before the moment of conception."

We need to remember the possibility of the pre-existence of the soul. Pope Benedict XVI, on page 356 of his book "Introduction to Christianity" states:

"If the cosmos is history and if matter represents a moment in the history of spirit, then there is no such thing as an eternal, neutral combination of matter and spirit; rather, there is a final “complexity” in which the world finds its omega and unity."

If this is true, and our spirits existed before our birth in this material world, then the following statements make sense:

Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love;

2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not by our works, but by His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

We are dealing with a mystery, no doubt. Nevertheless, if matter represents a moment in the history of spirit, then we may begin to understand God's foreknowledge and predestination.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Balkan

New Member
May 20, 2023
4
6
32
Doboj
✟9,300.00
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Private
Thanks to everyone for such detailed responses. It’s taken me time to properly consider them and I know I still have much to fully understand!

I think I need to comprehensively articulate (at least to myself) once and for all why I can’t support Calvinism then examine what the alternative/s are (Arminianism?). Perhaps this is my Reformed/Calvinist upbringing speaking, but through all of the research I’ve done it seems the Bible does affirm Calvinism. The first verse that comes to mind is Romans 9:21 where God creates some vessels for dishonour.

So if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism but I believe (so far) the Bible supports Calvinism more than any other other kind of theology…I hope you can see how I feel very stuck. I feel like I need to believe I have genuinely free will and in other conditions before I can be comfortable in my belief, but I don't get to decide the terms of reality - I can only accept or reject the Bible and God on its/His terms.

Earlier Clare73 said: “The sovereignty of God requires our trust, not our understanding.”

If it is so: I find it very disheartening to see the answer to my question of “how is this framework of reality good?” be in Romans 9 “as a mortal man, you shouldn’t have the audacity to even question God on his morals”. Especially when I consider 1 Thessalonians 5:21 telling me to “test everything”.

If I cannot comprehend the goodness of God and his plans with the intelligence and critical thinking He has provided me, what reason or motivation do I have to follow him?
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: zippy2006
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

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,308
-
✟678,372.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
through all of the research I’ve done it seems the Bible does affirm Calvinism. The first verse that comes to mind is Romans 9:21 where God creates some vessels for dishonour. So if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism but I believe (so far) the Bible supports Calvinism more than any other other kind of theology…
Rom 9:20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Can something that is made say to its maker, “Why did you make me like this?” 21 Surely, the potter can mold the clay as he wishes. Does he not have the right to make out of the same lump of clay one vessel for a noble purpose and another for ordinary use?

Please do not think that the Bible supports Calvinism. The following long quotation is from St John Chrysostom's Commentary:

"For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which followeth the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone.

"As, for instance, when he says, "He couched, he lay down as a lion;" (Numbers 24:9) let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, "I will meet them as a bereaved bear" (Hosea 13:8), let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, "our God is a consuming fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24; and Hebrews 12:29), the wasting power exerted in punishing.

"So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" do not suppose that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, divers incongruities will follow, for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor upon free choice.

"There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleaseth, and no one forbids it; thus also when God, of the same race of men, punisheth some, and honoreth others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it followeth the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so ordereth things. For He worketh nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant of the secret of His Wisdom.

"Yet thou allowest the other of the same lump to make divers things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors, and will not allow Him to know who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same [1479] lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is! And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice.

"Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God, but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For the examples ought to be greater than the subject, and than the things on account of which they are brought forward, so as to draw on the hearer better. Since if they were not greater and did not mount far above it, he could not attack as he ought, and shame the objectors. However, their ill-timed obstinacy he silenced in this way with becoming superiority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?"


Change my heart oh God
Make it ever true
Change my heart oh God
May I be like You

You are the potter
I am the clay
Mold me and make me
This is what I pray


We are a work in progress, and the potter is still working on us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thanks to everyone for such detailed responses. It’s taken me time to properly consider them and I know I still have much to fully understand!

I think I need to comprehensively articulate (at least to myself) once and for all why I can’t support Calvinism then examine what the alternative/s are (Arminianism?). Perhaps this is my Reformed/Calvinist upbringing speaking, but through all of the research I’ve done it seems the Bible does affirm Calvinism. The first verse that comes to mind is Romans 9:21 where God creates some vessels for dishonour.

So if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism but I believe (so far) the Bible supports Calvinism more than any other other kind of theology…I hope you can see how I feel very stuck. I feel like I need to believe I have genuinely free will and in other conditions before I can be comfortable in my belief, but I don't get to decide the terms of reality - I can only accept or reject the Bible and God on its/His terms.
If it is so: I find it very disheartening to see the answer to my question of “how is this framework of reality good?” be in Romans 9 “as a mortal man, you shouldn’t have the audacity to even question God on his morals”. Especially when I consider
1 Thessalonians 5:21 telling me to “test everything”.
In context, that is referring to testing all doctrine against the Scriptures, which it seems you have decided supports "Calvinism."
Forget about the "ism's," and take your understanding from Scripture.
If I cannot comprehend the goodness of God and his plans with the intelligence and critical thinking He has provided me,
what reason or motivation do I have to follow him?
The same reason you follow the law of the land. . .authority.
But it is our choice to accept or reject it.
I would hope that instead of rejecting it, you would just neutrally put it all on the shelf, forget about it and get on with your life, but not closing yourself off to it in case there is more there than you can see or understand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thanks to everyone for such detailed responses. It’s taken me time to properly consider them and I know I still have much to fully understand!

I think I need to comprehensively articulate (at least to myself) once and for all why I can’t support Calvinism then examine what the alternative/s are (Arminianism?). Perhaps this is my Reformed/Calvinist upbringing speaking, but through all of the research I’ve done it seems the Bible does affirm Calvinism. The first verse that comes to mind is Romans 9:21 where God creates some vessels for dishonour.

So if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism but I believe (so far) the Bible supports Calvinism more than any other other kind of theology…I hope you can see how I feel very stuck. I feel like I need to believe I have genuinely free will and in other conditions before I can be comfortable in my belief, but I don't get to decide the terms of reality - I can only accept or reject the Bible and God on its/His terms.



If it is so: I find it very disheartening to see the answer to my question of “how is this framework of reality good?” be in Romans 9 “as a mortal man, you shouldn’t have the audacity to even question God on his morals”. Especially when I consider 1 Thessalonians 5:21 telling me to “test everything”.

If I cannot comprehend the goodness of God and his plans with the intelligence and critical thinking He has provided me, what reason or motivation do I have to follow him?
I have taught Romans 9 many times to adults and will spend hours on it. You have to keep it in context of not only Ro. 9-11, but also all of Romans and what Paul is teaching. We like to pull verses out to support a point, but do not address why that verse was written to that place at that time.

Vessels of mercy did not have to be specifically “named” when God decided to glorify them and shower them with gifts.

You really need to put every verse in Ro. 9 in the context of at least all of Ro. 9, ro. 9-11 and all of Romans.

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand how Paul, uses diatribes and think, since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction, since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?



Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
 
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
376
255
Vancouver
✟45,742.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Thanks to everyone for such detailed responses. It’s taken me time to properly consider them and I know I still have much to fully understand!

My friend, that is true of all of us. We all have so much more to understand.


I think I need to comprehensively articulate (at least to myself) once and for all why I can’t support Calvinism ...

As a fellow Christian, I implore you to always, always keep in mind this one thing and to make it your governing principle: "What is my authority for this conclusion?" If it is not the Bible, then what is it? And are you spiritually comfortable with that?


Perhaps this is my Reformed/Calvinist upbringing speaking, but through all of the research I’ve done it seems the Bible does affirm Calvinism. The first verse that comes to mind is Romans 9:21, where God creates some vessels for dishonour.

As your upbringing probably made you aware (especially if you were catechized), there is a lot more that "supports Calvinism," as you put it, than Romans 9. For example, John 10:15 comes to mind (cf. v. 26), as does Acts 13:48. And there are so many more.


So, if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism ...

Wait, what is wrong with the logic and ethics of Calvinism? I mean, was there a logical or ethical flaw in my argument? Where?


So, if I can’t agree with the logic and ethics of Calvinism but I believe (so far) the Bible supports Calvinism more than any other other kind of theology, well, I hope you can see how I feel very stuck.

It sounds like you are being pressed on the question of authority. In other words, "What is your final authority? God and what he says, or you and what you need to believe?"

So, imagine you are in Eden, standing before a tree, and a voice is asking, "Did God truly say ...?"

I can appreciate your dilemma. I had to face it myself. When I began my Christian journey, I believed Calvinism was a demonic heresy. I am now convinced of Reformed theology. It was a protracted and difficult battle, but I had to submit my needs to God's will every step of the way—and my old human nature hated every second of it.


I feel like I need to believe I have genuinely free will ...

Why?

More precisely, this "free will" that you need to believe you have, what does it look like? And what is your biblical basis for it? Honestly, mate, 9 times out of 10 what most Christians believe about free will is not denied in Calvinism (e.g., the ability to choose).


... and in other conditions before I can be comfortable in my belief, ...

What conditions are those, and are they derived from Scripture? If so, where?

These are just open-ended questions intended to influence your contemplation.


... but I don't get to decide the terms of reality; I can only accept or reject the Bible and God on his terms.

Amen.


If I cannot comprehend the goodness of God and his plans with the intelligence and critical thinking he has provided me, what reason or motivation do I have to follow him?

Because your intelligence and critical thinking—YOU!—is not supposed to be the final authority which decides these things. Our intelligence and critical thinking is supposed to submit to God and his authority, our Creator whose image we are supposed to bear. We are supposed to tear down "every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:4-5). Everything we do should be for the glory of God. For Christians, God is the final authority, we are not.

Just imagine a Christian rejecting that truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
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

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,308
-
✟678,372.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As a fellow Christian, I implore you to always, always keep in mind this one thing and to make it your governing principle: "What is my authority for this conclusion?" If it is not the Bible, then what is it? And are you spiritually comfortable with that?
Parts of the Bible needs to be interpreted in the context of the entire Bible. Calvin contradicted the teaching of all other Christians: Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, and Arminians/Wesleyans. Do you think he was smarter or more Godly than all the others? Calvinists like to claim that he followed St Augustine. This is why I intentionally posted a Catholic reference to refute this idea.

Wait, what is wrong with the logic and ethics of Calvinism? I mean, was there a logical or ethical flaw in my argument? Where?
I wonder how can anyone be spiritually comfortable w/ the five points of Calvinists/Reformed?

It sounds like you are being pressed on the question of authority. In other words, "What is your final authority? God and what he says, or you and what you need to believe?"
2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The letter misunderstood kills.

Because your intelligence and critical thinking—YOU!—is not supposed to be the final authority which decides these things.
God the Creator gave us critical thinking and reason, unless one leans with the Gnostics toward the idea that the Creator did not want us to have critical thinking.

We are supposed to tear down "every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ" (2 Cor 10:4-5). Everything we do should be for the glory of God.
Amen. The "knowledge of God" is the purpose of critical thinking and revelation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0