Doubting God’s goodness in unconditional election

[zippy2006]

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.

It seems to me that Calvinism is very much the fruit of Enlightenment Rationalism. Many forms of Christianity have an uneasy marriage with Rationalism, but Calvinism is the foremost.

In part, what this means is that when the Calvinist finds a theme in Scripture, such as in Romans 9, they will attempt to universalize it and then use logic to apply it to all other parts of the Christian religion and Scripture. The goal, intentionally or unintentionally, is a very strict, interlocking, logical system of thought.

I don't think it is good to approach Scripture or religion through the lens of Enlightenment Rationalism. It doesn't produce good fruit.

 

[John Mullally]

It seems to me that Calvinism is very much the fruit of Enlightenment Rationalism. Many forms of Christianity have an uneasy marriage with Rationalism, but Calvinism is the foremost.

In part, what this means is that when the Calvinist finds a theme in Scripture, such as in Romans 9, they will attempt to universalize it and then use logic to apply it to all other parts of the Christian religion and Scripture. The goal, intentionally or unintentionally, is a very strict, interlocking, logical system of thought.

I don't think it is good to approach Scripture or religion through the lens of Enlightenment Rationalism. It doesn't produce good fruit.

Yes especially when the subject of Romans 9 is Paul's anguish over Israel as he begins with Romans 9:3-4 and continues with Romans 10:1.

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.​

​

Romans 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.​

 

[Andrewn]

I prefer koinonos (partaker) of 2 Pe 1:4.

OK.

Well, the text states when "we were God's enemies", it does not state when "God was our enemy."

I didn't find this rendering in the translations I use. Then I found it in the NIV. As I often say, the NIV is a reasonable translation of the OT. But not of the NT. Since the NIV was first published in 1973, its Calvinist theology has changed the word of God. Because of its readability, it became widespread and misguided Evangelicals who depended on it for the last 50 years. In the NT, the NKJV is most accurate but it is not very readable. Next to the NKJV, as far as the NT is concerned, there is the ESV, NRSV, and CSB. This is on a scale of decreasing accuracy and increasing readability. The CSB is a new translation, release in 2017, that is almost as readable as the NIV while still retaining a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Well, it's people that got to hell, not hamartia.

Perhaps hell and its nature and purpose is beyond the scope of this discussion.

It is clear there that the Greek word used in Eph 2:3 is phusis, which meaning is "the natural powers or constitution of a thing."

I understood that that is the meaning of the English word "nature" but not the meaning of the Greek word "physis" in the context of Eph 2:3. We will not be able to agree about this since, even before Calvin, the Catholic Church has believed in the original sin/inherited guilt. But we should be able to agree that our nature/genetic predisposition/biology (I'm using the English understanding here) is not sinful/wicked/immoral (more on this in the message below).

 

[Andrewn]

I mean, that is the general understanding of it yes. I don't think that every facet of our being is the result of genetics, but it is a part of us and yes I do believe some people have behaviors that are simply hard-wired into them.

Psychology agrees with this.

Yes it is in our nature to cheat, lie, steal, etc.

This does not necessarily follow from your previous statement. The Jewish concept of yetzer hara, the so-called “evil inclination,” is perhaps the origin of Freud's "Id." Yetzer hara is not a sinful nature that pushes a person to do evil but rather a drive toward pleasure or property or security, which if left unlimited, can lead to evil. When properly controlled, the yetzer hara produces many socially desirable results, including marriage, business, and community. Yetzer hará is not sinful (full of sin, morally wrong, or wicked). The Eastern Orthodox understanding is very similar.

If this were not the case, then that means that we can live fully just lives and there would be no need for the cross; we wouldn't need a savior, we would need to try harder.

No one said we could live perfect "fully" just lives if we try harder. Non-Christians can live just lives to a degree. But all people need the Savior and the cross.

I believe that some of that behavior is due to this being advantageous to our ancestors (to an extent, the animal kingdom isn't all bloodshed and violence like people like to portray it), but we have been called by God to rise above being just animals slave to our natural whims, and in specific ways because I don't believe all of our natural inclinations are inherently wrong, so don't confuse me for a gnostic.

Well said. I especially like the last sentence because a lot of those who believe our nature is "sinful" are quite close to gnostic beliefs. They believe in the "sinful nature" based on a mistranslation in the NIV and NLT (more on this in the message above) rather than the word of God.

I never said that, I said that sin is a part of our nature. We are torn between two worlds, I think Romans 7:18 sums up my view pretty succinctly.

I wouldn't say that "sin is a part of our nature." But the id/yetzer hará/sinful inclination is indeed a part of our nature that should be resisted.

 

[Light on the Hill]

I wouldn't say that "sin is a part of our nature." But the id/yetzer hará/sinful inclination is indeed a part of our nature that should be resisted.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the point I am trying to make is that yes I do believe it is a part of us (at least as we are now). I agree that is it more of an inclination rather than a hard "you are born evil", but it still will manifest in sin every time, no matter how hard we try to fight it. Could a man (besides Christ) live a full 100 year life and have never committed a sin? No, because that is unfortunately a part of who we are; we are inclined to be selfish, deceitful, etc. and we all fall prey to it at some point. If it were possible to fight against sin for one's entire life then people would have done it, such is the narrow path I suppose.

I'll use the cat example again. Would it be fair or reasonable to expect a cat to live out its entire life without ever hunting or having a desire for meat? No, that would be absurd. What makes humans accountable as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom is that we now have the intellect and understanding to know that some of our behaviors are wrong. However, despite knowing and wanting to do good and even doing our best to fight against it, we still will sin at least once in our lives, its a guarantee. Even in the Old Covenant where God's people were expected to follow a strict law, He knew they would never be able to uphold it and that's why sacrifices were made. Christ as the final sacrifice is God's mercy on us, because He knows that even if we try our hardest, we will still fall short of His perfect goodness.

 

[Clare73]

OK.

I didn't find this rendering in the translations I use. Then I found it in the NIV. As I often say, the NIV is a reasonable translation of the OT. But not of the NT. Since the NIV was first published in 1973, its Calvinist theology has changed the word of God. Because of its readability, it became widespread and misguided Evangelicals who depended on it for the last 50 years. In the NT, the NKJV is most accurate but it is not very readable. Next to the NKJV, as far as the NT is concerned, there is the ESV, NRSV, and CSB. This is on a scale of decreasing accuracy and increasing readability. The CSB is a new translation, release in 2017, that is almost as readable as the NIV while still retaining a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Man is reconciled to God (Eph 2:16, 2 Co 5:18, Col 1:20, 22), God is not reconciled to man. Man is the enemy of God, God is not the enemy of man.

Perhaps hell and its nature and purpose is beyond the scope of this discussion.

I understood that that is the meaning of the English word "nature" but not the meaning of the Greek word "physis" in the context of Eph 2:3.

I gave you the Greek meaning, see Jas 3:7 ("kind"), 2 Pe 1:4.

We will not be able to agree about this since, even before Calvin, the Catholic Church has believed in the original sin/inherited guilt.

Sin and guilt are not inherited.
Adam's sin is imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-21), it being the pattern (Ro 5:14) of Christ's righteousness imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11, 5:18-19).

But we should be able to agree that our nature/genetic predisposition/biology (I'm using the English understanding here) is not sinful/wicked/immoral (more on this in the message below).

This refers to the disposition of our unregenerate spirits, they are not disposed to submission to God in all things, they are hostile to that notion.

 

[Andrewn]

Man is reconciled to God (Eph 2:16, 2 Co 5:18, Col 1:20, 22), God is not reconciled to man. Man is the enemy of God, God is not the enemy of man.

Yes, this is what I said.

This refers to the disposition of our unregenerate spirits, they are not disposed to submission to God in all things, they are hostile to that notion.

We agree again. The old man/person/self is the unregenerate spirit.

Eph 4:22 With respect to your former lifestyle, you are to lay aside the old self corrupted by its deceitful desires,

Col 3:9 Do not lie to one another. After all, you have taken off the old self with its practices

Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be destroyed and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Sin and guilt are not inherited. Adam's sin is imputed to all those born of Adam (Ro 5:12-21),

Whether guilt is inherited from Adam, as Catholics say, or imputed from Adam, as you say, the result is the same. But God made it clear that sin is not imputed. Only the person who sins is responsible for their guilt:

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

What we inherited from Adam is not sin but death/unregenerate spirits. And this resulted in sin.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—13 for sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam, who is a pattern of the one who was to come.

it being the pattern (Ro 5:14) of Christ's righteousness imputed to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11, 5:18-19).

I don't want to guess what point you're making here.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, this is what I said.

Man being reconciled to God means man was God's enemy, not God was man's enemy, which is what you asserted.

We agree again. The old man/person/self is the unregenerate spirit.

However, I'm thinking it's not just man's unregenerate spirit that does not want to submit to God in all things, I'm thinking that is also the natural disposition of man.

Whether guilt is inherited from Adam, as Catholics say, or imputed from Adam, as you say, the result is the same. But God made it clear that sin is not imputed. Only the person who sins is responsible for their guilt:
Eze 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Precisely, and it is not shared from his father, not inherited. It is applied, imputed by God (Ro 5:12-15) to all those born of Adam, and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the God applying, imputing of Christ's righteousness (justification) to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11).
And in neither case is man responsible (cause of) for either sin or righteousness.

What we inherited from Adam is not sin but death/unregenerate spirits. And this resulted in sin.

Correct.
But it is more than that. We are born guilty (Ro 5:18), we don't have to do anything, no exclusion of anyone.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—13 for sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam, who is a pattern of the one who was to come.

I don't want to guess what point you're making here.

Good for you, because it is a complicated passage.
It is showing that all mankind died between Adam and Moses, even when there was no law to sin against and
they were not held accountable for sin, which is the cause of death (Ro 6:23), yet they died anyway.
Of what sin did they die?
Of Adam's sin imputed to them (Ro 5:18), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to the reborn (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11).
In Ro 5:18-19, imputation of Adam's sin to all those born of Adam is paralleled to imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those born of Christ.
Adam being the pattern of the one to come having been stated in Ro 5:14.

 

[Andrewn]

Man being reconciled to God means man was God's enemy, not God was man's enemy, which is what you asserted.

In message #57, I asserted the following:

"God does not consider people his enemies. In Rom 5:10, Rom 11:28, and Col 1:21 it is people who consider God their enemy!"

And I quoted the referenced verses.

However, I'm thinking it's not just man's unregenerate spirit that does not want to submit to God in all things, I'm thinking that is also the natural disposition of man.

If by "natural disposition" you mean the "flesh," then I would agree. The impulses of the flesh cannot be subdued; even Christ himself was subject to temptations. When the spirit or /inner man/person/self is regenerated it attempts to control the flesh.

It is applied, imputed by God (Ro 5:12-15) to all those born of Adam, and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the God applying, imputing of Christ's righteousness (justification) to all those born of Christ (Ro 4:1-11). And in neither case is man responsible (cause of) for either sin or righteousness. . . . But it is more than that. We are born guilty (Ro 5:18), we don't have to do anything, no exclusion of anyone.

You believe that God imputes sin/guilt and imputes righteousness/justification externally, the way we may apply an ointment or a cosmetic. It is here that we part ways: –).

It is showing that all mankind died between Adam and Moses, even when there was no law to sin against and they were not held accountable for sin, which is the cause of death (Ro 6:23), yet they died anyway. Of what sin did they die? Of Adam's sin imputed to them (Ro 5:18), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to the reborn (Ro 5:18-19, 4:1-11). In Ro 5:18-19, imputation of Adam's sin to all those born of Adam is paralleled to imputation of Christ's righteousness to all those born of Christ. Adam being the pattern of the one to come having been stated in Ro 5:14.

Rom 4:3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

This is the principle upon which the concept of justification is built, namely, believing God and trusting Him. Is man responsible for his righteousness? Yes and no. On one hand, nobody can be totally righteous. On the other hand, we need to believe and trust God and to follow the example of Christ. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us internally.

Are we responsible (cause of) our sin? Again, yes and no. There is no such thing as absolute free will. We are all born with different genetics and live under different social circumstances. And we are born with a flesh that desires its selfish ways. Nevertheless, we should try and do our best under our circumstances and use our different talents with the help of the Holy Spirit.

"Which comes first, death or sin? For Adam, sin came first, and then death. For us, it is the opposite: death, mortality, we inherit from Adam, and sin follows after." Quotation from the Orthodox study Bible.

Adam's sin is not imputed to us, but we inherit his death/unregenerate spirit, as discussed in message #67, and this results in actual guilt, not externally applied.

In the same way, Christ's righteousness is not imputed externally but applied internally through faith and trust, resulting in a changed mind and behavior.

Regardless of whether you agree, I hope I was able to express my thoughts clearly.

 

[Clare73]

In message #57, I asserted the following:

"God does not consider people his enemies. In Rom 5:10, Rom 11:28, and Col 1:21 it is people who consider God their enemy!" And I quoted the referenced verses.

Seems he does if they have to be reconciled to him.

If by "natural disposition" you mean the "flesh," then I would agree. The impulses of the flesh cannot be subdued; even Christ himself was subject to temptations. When the spirit or /inner man/person/self is regenerated it attempts to control the flesh.

You believe that God imputes sin/guilt and imputes righteousness/justification externally, the way we may apply an ointment or a cosmetic.
It is here that we part ways: –).

Is that what you think the imputed forensic righteousness of justification is, an ointment or cosmetic?
It is the same as Abraham's imputed righteousness (Ro 4:2-3, Gen 15:6).

Christ's righteousness in justification is a forensic righteousness (as with Abraham), as Adam's sin is a forensic guilt, both are a finding of standing with the Court.
In the Greek, dikaiosis (justification/righteousness) is a declaration of not guilty, a sentence of acquittal, a finding of right standing with the Court.

Rom 4:3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Agreed. . .and the word there is "imputed" (credited, accounted, reckoned, applied).

This is the principle upon which the concept of justification is built, namely, believing God and trusting Him.

Well actually, it is believing in and trusting on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sin.

Is man responsible for his righteousness? Yes and no. On one hand, nobody can be totally righteous. On the other hand, we need to believe and trust God and to follow the example of Christ.

Yes, there are two kinds of righteousness in the NT:
on the one hand is righteousness of justification, which is imputed (Ro 4:1-11) and
on the onther had is righteousness of sanctification by obedience in the Holy Spirit, which is actual (Ro 6:16-19).

Christ's righteousness is imputed to us internally.

No, dikaiosis (justification/righteousness) is not internal, it is a declaration, a sentence, a finding of right standing with the court: penalty paid, time served, not guilty--external.

Are we responsible (cause of) our sin? Again, yes and no. There is no such thing as absolute free will. We are all born with different genetics and live under different social circumstances. And we are born with a flesh that desires its selfish ways. Nevertheless, we should try and do our best under our circumstances and use our different talents with the help of the Holy Spirit.
"Which comes first, death or sin? For Adam, sin came first, and then death. For us, it is the opposite: death, mortality, we inherit from Adam, and sin follows after." Quotation from the Orthodox study Bible.
Adam's sin is not imputed to us,

That is incorrect. Imputed sin is the burden of Ro 5:12-21.

but we inherit his death/unregenerate spirit, as discussed in message #67, and this results in actual guilt, not externally applied.

In the same way, Christ's righteousness is not imputed externally but applied internally through faith and trust, resulting in a changed mind and behavior.

We have both, externally applied (imputation) and internal guilt, as well as externally applied (imputation) and internal righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).
The internal guilt is our own sin and the internal righteousness is our sanctification.

 

[Andrewn]

Seems he does if they have to be reconciled to him.

God does not consider people his enemies. People have to be reconciled to God because they consider God their enemy!

I understand that your belief that God considers people his enemies is not uncommon and has led to theories of atonement, such as the Satisfaction Theory and the Penal Substitution Theory. Many books have been written about these (unfortunate) theories. I cannot get into the details here; all I can say is that these theories present a God who seems different from the loving God I worship.

The rest of your message goes into trying to read these atonement theories into the text of Romans.

The surprising thing is that when I daily meet people who presumably believe in this vengeful God who presumably considers people his enemies, they are loving and constantly participate in evangelical missions and social services. They are, in general, wonderful people even though their ancestors, the Reformed in Europe and the Puritans in America, had occasionally engaged in unloving, vengeful atrocities.

But I believe that God himself died for us and was resurrected to give us the internal moral fortitude to bear our crosses and follow in his footsteps and conquered the prideful enemy so that we humbly forgive others and praise his loving Father.

This is what Romans, and the rest of the Bible, is all about.

 

[Clare73]

God does not consider people his enemies. People have to be reconciled to God because they consider God their enemy!

Previously addressed, Ro 5:9.

I understand that your belief that God considers people his enemies is not uncommon and has led to theories of atonement, such as the Satisfaction Theory and the Penal Substitution Theory. Many books have been written about these (unfortunate) theories.

The OT demonstrated these unfortunate theories in the sacrificial system, the sinner laid his hands on the animal's head to transfer his sin to the animal, who then died in his place.

I cannot get into the details here; all I can say is that these theories present a God who seems different from the loving God I worship.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with more of the word of God in the Scriptures.

The rest of your message goes into trying to read these atonement theories into the text of Romans.

Actually, these "theories" were read out of the OT sacrificial system by Paul in his letter to the Romans.

The surprising thing is that when I daily meet people who presumably believe in this vengeful God who presumably considers people his enemies, they are loving and constantly participate in evangelical missions and social services. They are, in general, wonderful people even though their ancestors, the Reformed in Europe and the Puritans in America, had occasionally engaged in unloving, vengeful atrocities.

Maybe they are more acquainted with the God of the Scriptures than you are.

But I believe that God himself died for us and was resurrected to give us the internal moral fortitude to bear our crosses and follow in his footsteps and conquered the prideful enemy so that we humbly forgive others and praise his loving Father.

This is what Romans, and the rest of the Bible, is all about.

Did you leave out the part about sin. . . its consequences. . .and God's remedy for it?

 

[dms1972]

I'd like to understand this better as to what the particular views on this are. One book I have says Predestination has nothing at all to do with unbelievers, it only refers to believers and that Election and Predestination are not the same and it gets us nowhere to use the terms interchangably.

 

[Clare73]

I'd like to understand this better as to what the particular views on this are. One book I have says Predestination has nothing at all to do with unbelievers, it only refers to believers and that Election and Predestination are not the same and it gets us nowhere to use the terms interchangably.

Unconditional election simply means that God does not elect based on anything one does, but simply on his sovereign choice to elect.
As he did Jacob before he was born, and had done anything at all.

 

[Andrewn]

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with more of the word of God in the Scriptures.

Are you ignorant of the other theories of atonement? Are you unaware that Anselm of Canterbury created the Satisfaction Theory only in the 12th century and that it never became the sole explanation of the Atonement accepted in the Catholic Church? Are you ignorant that the Penal Substitution Theory began with Martin Luther in the 16th century and continued to develop within the Calvinist tradition?

Have you never read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation?" or learned about understanding Atonement in the early Church? The Early Church Fathers understood the word of God in the Scriptures a lot more accurately than Anselm and Calvin. More importantly, they knew God and experienced Him.

Maybe they are more acquainted with the God of the Scriptures than you are.

Funny how instead of educating yourself about Scripture-based theories of atonement, you mislead yourself into thinking that other people have a similarly limited scope of knowledge.

 

[Clare73]

Are you ignorant of the other theories of atonement?

They are not in conflict, the atonement was many things.

Are you unaware that Anselm of Canterbury created the Satisfaction Theory only in the 12th century and that it never became the sole explanation of the Atonement accepted in the Catholic Church? Are you ignorant that the Penal Substitution Theory began with Martin Luther in the 16th century and continued to develop within the Calvinist tradition?
Have you never read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation?" or learned about understanding Atonement in the early Church? The Early Church Fathers understood the word of God in the Scriptures a lot more accurately than Anselm and Calvin. More importantly, they knew God and experienced Him.

Funny how instead of educating yourself about Scripture-based theories of atonement, you mislead yourself into thinking that other people have a similarly limited scope of knowledge.

Funny how you got it wrong?

 

[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?

Calvinists, like Claire73, push unconditional election. They also propose that we all start out "Totally Depraved" haters of God. But they assert that God mysteriously chooses to "irresistibly change of the nature" of the "unconditionally elect" who He favored from the very distant past so that they would stop being haters of God and meet the qualifications to be saved as delineated in many passages throughout the New Testament. To believers this "irresistible change of man's nature" is a questionable link as it is not found in scripture. The best clue we have is found in Ezekiel 18:30-32, where God promises to change the nature (i.e. give a new spirit and heart) of those who repent, But how can haters of God repent? Calvinists reject this clue as they will not allow the truth in God's word to override their treasured man-made doctrine of "Total Depravity".

 

[Halbhh]

He didn't choose to save Billy because he was in any way better, nor did he pass over Tommy because he was somehow worse.

None earn/deserve salvation on their own merits we understand and agree I expect, but don't you also agree we cannot say something equal to God is choosing at random like rolling dice, as nothing like that is in the text I can recall, but instead we can find this is repeatedly in the text, which states God chooses according to certain things He can see in the heart (which is hidden from others, that He can see and we cannot see):

Bible Gateway passage: James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Psalm 138:6 - English Standard Version

But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Halbhh]

Likewise with Job. . .what did he do to deserve that predicament?

While Job is about human suffering in a general way, and then additionally is a parable to help us in our own lives -- I've also directly learned that suffering is very beneficial.

God designed it to happen generally, to all. I think it may be good for everyone even. People might understand how in that in the experience where one suffers intensely for a time, and then coming out of it we tend to have greatly increased sympathy and care about others, being far more patient, loving and kind to others than before.

At least that was the noticeable effect on me, like a good reset! Helping to clear away less good stuff and get back to the better side of oneself. The very intense, severe, involuntary outcrying intense pain for hour after hour didn't really hurt me afterwards, but the lasting effect was only that it made me a better person, better in touch with what matters. It really was a good thing. Better than a weekend meditation retreat, etc.

But going back to Job more broadly, don't you agree that we all suffer what Job did? We will all lose everything of this world in time, but more gradually-- by the end, as we are dying, we are losing the things we have here one by one....

Bodily health, the benefits of material goods, relationships even in that they become more and more cut back, more and more limited and then impossible near the very end....

So, don't we all suffer what Job did?

You have the most key thing and it's great to highlight as you did:

But note Job's believing heart. Through it all, with total lack of understanding, and after it all, Job never charged God with wrong-doing.

 

[Halbhh]

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. Whereas divine freedom, rightly understood, is directed towards the ultimate good, which is God. Divine justice is divine mercy; righteousness is in order to goodness, not in order to divine whim as an expression of unbridled power.

Fortunately (in my view) scripture simply comes to the rescue against such questions those doctrines (the notion of totally predetermined individual salvation or destruction no matter what person does or chooses) provoke (rightly, due to their questionable implications, etc.) -- since we can simply read what the Lord has said is the criteria by which He considers in order to choose to give grace to some and not others.
(and wouldn't it have been better for all if those people making up doctrinal ideas had been more complete readers of scripture then!)

6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

---

5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

---

6 For though the LORD is high, he regards the lowly,

but the haughty he knows from afar.

James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5; Psalm 138:6

But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

www.esv.org

We could also get this key thing from Christ Himself:

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven...."

-----------

and simply:

Matthew 23:12 - Woes to Scribes and Pharisees

For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

biblehub.com

======


I sometimes think that the urge to create a doctrine might be often....possibly motivated by a desire to not read the Bible, but I'm not sure. It seems that most problems of all sorts that churches in the world do have are caused by doctrines.... Hmmm...interesting. Then perhaps the bible speaks on that. Ah, yes it does, now that I think about it. Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 3:5-6 - New International Version

Ideally, we read scripture ....ok, let me not use a understatement here.

We all need to read scripture through instead of trusting in any doctrine. The scripture wasn't verbose and wasting words and saying things that don't matter much...no doctrinal distillation was ever needed!