Doubting God’s goodness in unconditional election

[Andrewn]

Easy. Without election, nobody would be saved. It’s merciful that He saves anyone.

What is greater, God's mercy or His wrath?

 

[Hammster]

What is greater, God's mercy or His wrath?

There is no greater because God is singular.

 

[Andrewn]

There is no greater because God is singular.

Because you are singular, you must be equally tall and short, eh? Excellent logic. God bless.

 

[Hammster]

Because you are singular, you must be equally tall and short, eh? Excellent logic. God bless.

No, I’m not singular. God is. He doesn’t have parts. So he doesn’t have one attribution greater or lesser than another.

 

[Balkan]

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.

Better late than never, I find it difficult to debate these ideas in my mind!

Thanks for your breakdown Bling, it was easily the most compelling explanation of Romans 9 and the surrounding passages I’ve read so far. I still have some questions though.

Firstly, do you consider translations that use “honor” and “dishonor” (positive and negative) instead of “honor” and “ordinary” (positive and average/normal) misleading or wrong? It seems unlikely Paul would intend to call all Gentiles dishonorable.
Translation comparisons here: Romans 9:21 - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Secondly, if both kinds of vessels have equal shot at salvation, why did God hate Esau before he had done anything good or bad, raise Pharaoh up for destruction (17) and prepare vessels of mercy beforehand (23)? Paul says it is “in order that God’s purpose of election (whatever end result He wants) might continue, not because of works (what we can or have done) but because of him who calls - God. (11, editorialized). This point is further reinforced by verses 15-18, where Pharaoh appears to be precisely a hardened clay pigeon molded and destroyed by God to demonstrate His power to the people who survived him.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I will give my two cents on this.

Secondly, if both kinds of vessels have equal shot at salvation, why did God hate Esau before he had done anything good or bad

Romans 9 is a passage talking about the fact that not everyone who is born a Jew will be saved just because they are a seed of Abraham.

Starting with:

Rom 9:3-6 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,​

And ending with:

Rom 9:29 And as Isaiah said before: "UNLESS THE LORD OF SABAOTH HAD LEFT US A SEED, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME LIKE SODOM, AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE LIKE GOMORRAH."​

When the bible says, Esau have I hated. It is not referring to Esau's salvation but the lineage of Esau was not chosen to fulfill God's purposes. It shows that just because a person is of the lineage of Abraham does not mean they are chosen to be the people of God.

Irenaeus in his Against Heresies states of this passage:

Book IV. (Cont.)​

​

Chap. XXI. — Abraham’s Faith Was Identical with Ours; This Faith Was Prefigured by the Words and Actions of the Old Patriarchs.​

​

2. The history of Isaac, too, is not without a symbolical character. For in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle declares: “Moreover, when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,” she received answer72 from the Word, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people are in thy body; and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” (Rom_9:10-13; Gen_25:23) From which it is evident, that not only [were there] prophecies of the patriarchs, but also that the children brought forth by Rebecca were a prediction of the two nations; and that the one should be indeed the greater, but the other the less; that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom_9:13; Mal_1:2)​

As for:

Rom 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

I believe this is more stating the story of Jacob and Esau, is a picture, or symbol of faith. That the younger "nation" would inherit, what was rightfully the older. In the same way, the Gentiles would inherit salvation as the "younger" not by works but by Him who calls. But again it is talking about the overarching "purpose" of God. Not individual salvation of people.

, raise Pharaoh up for destruction (17) and prepare vessels of mercy beforehand (23)? Paul says it is “in order that God’s purpose of election (whatever end result He wants) might continue, not because of works (what we can or have done) but because of him who calls - God. (11, editorialized). This point is further reinforced by verses 15-18, where Pharaoh appears to be precisely a hardened clay pigeon molded and destroyed by God to demonstrate His power to the people who survived him.

As for Pharoah, note the passage also states:

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?​

When I think of long-suffering I think of:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

I believe the long-suffering talked of by Paul is that of God extending his hand over and over again to man, but some reject that, and end up blind to faith, and given to a sorry plan.

When the Bible speaks of "beforehand", "foreknown" etc. I believe this refers to the plan of God. God has laid down a plan before creation for His creatures, but it is not fixed, it flexes based on our actions.

Jer 18:7-10 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

I believe God has prepared a salvation plan for each and every person He creates. As the Bible says:

1Ti 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.​

​

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.​

​

1Ti 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,​

​

 

[John Mullally]

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

Theological “election” deals with God’s choices. For instance, the Bible refers to an election of:

• Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 1 Peter 2:6)
• National Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 45:4)
• Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:13)
• Disciples (John 13:18; John 15:16)
• Christians (Ephesians 1:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

In Calvinism, election is labeled as Unconditional Election, in terms of God having decreed a total plan of all things from eternity, which includes a bifurcation of humanity into elect and non-elect camps, that is, fixed classes of sheep and goats. Individuals comprising the elect camp are unconditionally chosen by God for salvation prior to the Genesis creation, the basis of which being known only to Him, while the non-elect camp comprises those whom God never intended to spend eternity with Him in Heaven and thus passed by for salvific graces. Yet scripture does not support the Calvinist view as God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ labels none of his opponents as a goat as that designation is not known till the final judgement (Matthew 25:31-46) - which infers that no one's destination (of being a sheep or goat) is fixed in stone ahead of time.

Among non-Calvinist Evangelical, election is commonly labeled as Conditional Election, in which there are primarily two different views:

(1) The Wesleyan-Arminian “foresight of faith” model of Election and,​

(2) the Corporate model of Election (my view).​

​

In the Wesleyan model, by God’s eternal foreknowledge, all whom He found that will ever positively respond to the gospel and persevere in the faith, He foreordained as members of “the elect.” This view relies heavily on Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

As for the Corporate model, the foundation is that Jesus Christ is the Elect One, resulting that all who come to be “in Him,” that is, identified with Him in His body and as His bride, jointly share in His election, and hence believers in Him may rightly also be called “the elect” or favored. In other words, Corporate Election is a class election of Christ’s family, and for His part, He would like to see everyone in it, which He made possible at Calvary. This view has strong support from Ephesians 1:3, in which God has predestined every spiritual blessing “in Christ.”

Comparing and contrasting, Election in Calvinism means God choosing unbelievers, that is, of the elect kind, unto the gift of faith. Election in non-Calvinism means God choosing Christians, that is, unto salvation, service and blessings. Does God choose us or do we choose God? The answer is that God chooses to show His favor on Christians and we choose whether or not to become a Christian.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Theological “election” deals with God’s choices. For instance, the Bible refers to an election of:

• Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 1 Peter 2:6)
• National Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 45:4)
• Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:13)
• Disciples (John 13:18; John 15:16)
• Christians (Ephesians 1:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

In Calvinism, election is labeled as Unconditional Election, in terms of God having decreed a total plan of all things from eternity, which includes a bifurcation of humanity into elect and non-elect camps, that is, fixed classes of sheep and goats. Individuals comprising the elect camp are unconditionally chosen by God for salvation prior to the Genesis creation, the basis of which being known only to Him, while the non-elect camp comprises those whom God never intended to spend eternity with Him in Heaven and thus passed by for salvific graces. Yet scripture does not support the Calvinist view as God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and Christ labels none of his opponents as a goat as that designation is not known till the final judgement (Matthew 25:31-46) - which infers that no one's destination (of being a sheep or goat) is fixed in stone ahead of time.

Among non-Calvinist Evangelical, election is commonly labeled as Conditional Election, in which there are primarily two different views:

(1) The Wesleyan-Arminian “foresight of faith” model of Election and,​

(2) the Corporate model of Election (my view).​

​

In the Wesleyan model, by God’s eternal foreknowledge, all whom He found that will ever positively respond to the gospel and persevere in the faith, He foreordained as members of “the elect.” This view relies heavily on Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:1-2.

As for the Corporate model, the foundation is that Jesus Christ is the Elect One, resulting that all who come to be “in Him,” that is, identified with Him in His body and as His bride, jointly share in His election, and hence believers in Him may rightly also be called “the elect” or favored. In other words, Corporate Election is a class election of Christ’s family, and for His part, He would like to see everyone in it, which He made possible at Calvary. This view has strong support from Ephesians 1:3, in which God has predestined every spiritual blessing “in Christ.”

Comparing and contrasting, Election in Calvinism means God choosing unbelievers, that is, of the elect kind, unto the gift of faith. Election in non-Calvinism means God choosing Christians, that is, unto salvation, service and blessings. Does God choose us or do we choose God? The answer is that God chooses to show His favor on Christians and we choose whether or not to become a Christian.

Then, of course, you have the vast majority of humanity who will never have the opportunity to choose whether or not to become a Christian. Both you and the Calvinists are in solid agreement that God has not elected those folks to salvation.

 

[John Mullally]

Then, of course, you have the vast majority of humanity who will never have the opportunity to choose whether or not to become a Christian. Both you and the Calvinists are in solid agreement that God has not elected those folks to salvation.

No. I do not believe that God has chosen for anyone specifically to not hear the Gospel - even though some do not hear the Gospel as we live in a fallen world (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) . Jesus shed his blood for all humanity (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 Timothy 4:10) and he sends his disciples to evangelize the world per the Great Commission.

 

[Halbhh]

Then, of course, you have the vast majority of humanity who will never have the opportunity to choose whether or not to become a Christian. Both you and the Calvinists are in solid agreement that God has not elected those folks to salvation.

No. I do not believe that God has chosen for anyone specifically to not hear the Gospel - even though some do not hear the Gospel as we live in a fallen world (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) . Jesus shed his blood for all humanity (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 Timothy 4:10) and he sends his disciples to evangelize the world per the Great Commission.

On this question on whether some might never have a chance to hear the gospel it will be very encouraging to learn what is in 1rst Peter on precisely this very question. Since I routinely also encourage people many times to read in context and fully, I think I'd better instead of just highlighting the verses (about how some will hear the gospel after their mortal bodies have perished), instead refer anyone interested to read fully 1rst Peter, so that they encounter chapters 3 and 4 in a full way, so that when one has read every verse, they can if they wish also read commentaries about specific verses (such as Ellicott's and the Pulpit commentaries you can see in places like at the bottom of the verse page at BibleHub (1 Peter 3:19 - Suffering for Righteousness), and then those will confirm that the verses do indeed mean what they say in chapters 3 and 4 about that some will hear the gospel proclaimed to them after this mortal life. I found this first when carefully testing each part of the Apostle's Creed against scripture (even things I already knew were correct), so that I investigated the specific "He descended to the dead" (or to "hell") -- was there scripture that specific? Answer: yes.

So, before "on the third day he rose again from the dead;" we learn in 1rst Peter even more about that time, and what Christ did while his body was in the tomb.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

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.


I wonder how can anyone be spiritually comfortable w/ the five points of Calvinists/Reformed?


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.


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.


Amen. The "knowledge of God" is the purpose of critical thinking and revelation.

Good points. I was a calvinist since I became a believer in 1980 and went to a dutch reformed church where I was discipled by the pastor for a few years. I recently left calvinism a couple years ago when I started studying in depth the nature of God ( Tri-Unity ) in the atonement. That study about Gods nature/character eventually caused me to reject tulip, the reformed doctrine of Gods sovereignty, determinism among some others. Those doctrines made God out to be no good, not loving, not benevolent etc...... I found the same thing to be true with PSA, the penal substitution theory of the atonement. It led me to write a thesis paper that I'm still working on you can read here if you have the time. If you read it let me know what you think both positively and negatively.

Brean Apologetics Ministry

berean.mccafferty1.site

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

In order for both God to be good and unconditional election be true, God would have to elect to save all unconditionally. Otherwise, God would be unjust and, therefore, not good.

Amen !

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

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

The Apple doesn't fall far from the Tree !

THERE IS NO QUESTION that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.”1

In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name....”2 Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him....”3 B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”4 Thus the debt that the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was one of the most highly regarded “saints.” John Piper acknowledges that Augustine was the major influence upon both Calvin and Luther, who continued to revere him and his doctrines even after they broke away from Roman Catholicism.5

C. H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.”6 Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.”7 For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:

Even as he has appointed them to be regenerated...whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment.8

C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.”9 Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists.10 Calvin himself said:

Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.11

Augustine and the Use of Force

The fourth century Donatists believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. They abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. Compromising clergy were “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, who show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.”12 This is, of course, the biblical view.

Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church of his day as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin also would 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted....”13 Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics...who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.”14 Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.”15

Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported military force against those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke:14:23
,16 Augustine declared:

Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return?... The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in....” Wherefore is the power which the Church has received...through the religious character and faith of kings...the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges—that is, in heresies and schisms—are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled.17

Sadly, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion, and death that Augustine advocated and that the Roman Catholic Church followed consistently for centuries. Henry H. Milman writes: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.”18 And he justified himself by Augustine’s erroneous interpretation of Luke:14:23

. How could any who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such abuse of this passage?

Compel? Isn’t that God’s job through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace? Compel those for whom Christ didn’t die and whom God has predestined to eternal torment? This verse refutes Calvinism no matter how it is intepreted!hunt

hope this helps !!!