If TULIP is true, why bother?

[saintboniface]

I am trying to read up on some Calvinist beliefs because I live in West Michigan where there are numerous Reformed and Christian Reformed communities. I think my neighbor who belongs to a Christian Reformed community would like me to attend a bible study sort of get-together. But I am thinking, what is the point from his stand-point?

I am either elected by God or not. Who cares if I go to his bible study? Who cares is I go to his worship service? It won't make a difference anyway under the TULIP theory.

Going a little bit further, why does Jesus spend the majority of his time telling people about how certain actions will cause them to be cast in the darkness where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth? It wouldn't matter what anyone does during their time on earth.

 

[Keachian]

From what I've read it is to do with the internal ministry of the Spirit who ministers to us the Word at the same time that the external ministry of the Word occurs. So the evangelistic call is an external tool which the internal Spirit uses to minister to us like any other ministry of the Word.

 

[saintboniface]

From what I've read it is to do with the internal ministry of the Spirit who ministers to us the Word at the same time that the external ministry of the Word occurs. So the evangelistic call is an external tool which the internal Spirit uses to minister to us like any other ministry of the Word.

Why do we even need to be ministered to? It won't make a difference in our eternal fate.

 

[Skala]

I am trying to read up on some Calvinist beliefs because I live in West Michigan where there are numerous Reformed and Christian Reformed communities. I think my neighbor who belongs to a Christian Reformed community would like me to attend a bible study sort of get-together. But I am thinking, what is the point from his stand-point?

I am either elected by God or not. Who cares if I go to his bible study? Who cares is I go to his worship service? It won't make a difference anyway under the TULIP theory.

Going a little bit further, why does Jesus spend the majority of his time telling people about how certain actions will cause them to be cast in the darkness where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth? It wouldn't matter what anyone does during their time on earth.

To answer your question with a short answer: If TULIP is true, why bother? Um, because if TULIP was true, it would be the truth. We should always "bother" with the truth, don'tcha think?

The long answer is because affirming TULIP doesn't mean you affirm fatalism.
Fatalism is the idea that nothing you do will affect the outcome. Instead, TULIP (Calvinsm, reformed theology, etc) teaches that God works through means.

So rather than the means being irrelevant, Calvinists believe God works through means.

For example, God didn't just snap his finger and kill everyone during Noah's time. Instead, he used the means of the flood. Christ didn't just show up on earth and suddenly die. But rather, God worked through the means of having people hate Jesus and murder him (the crucifixion)

In like manner, God doesn't just save his elect by snapping his fingers. Instead, he uses evangelism, preaching, the gospel message, etc.

Being involved in God's work of evangelism is a privilege. God lets us participate in the salvation of His elect people. He works through us (we are the tools in His hands) to save His chosen.

Your questions and objections seem to demonstrate that you think Calvinists believe that no matter what you do, your outcome is fixed in some sort of fatalistic way. But as I Hope I've demonstrated, you would be mistaken.

Instead, we believe people are saved by means of hearing the gospel message and putting faith in Jesus, then they live a life of servitude and produce spiritual fruit unto God's glory, and so that other men may see their good works and glorify God.

God works through means.

The Apostle Paul had this same mindset. He considered election a form of motivation for evangelism. Observe:

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10

Paul was a missionary and evangelist who suffered many persecutions and hardships. But he said he endured all of that for the elect's sakes, that they would obtain their salvation.

God doesn't just elect us and stop there. He continues working our salvation out, during our lives. He sends missionaries and evangelists to us. He opens our minds and hearts to the gospel message. He gives us faith and regeneration.

Election isn't the be-all-end-all of salvation. God does so much more than merely elect us. He does a bunch of other stuff, too, to bring us to our complete and final salvation.

 

[saintboniface]

The long answer is because affirming TULIP doesn't mean you affirm fatalism.
Fatalism is the idea that nothing you do will affect the outcome. Instead, TULIP (Calvinsm, reformed theology, etc) teaches that God works through means.

Being involved in God's work of evangelism is a privilege. God lets us participate in the salvation of His elect people. He works through us (we are the tools in His hands) to save His chosen.

Your questions and objections seem to demonstrate that you think Calvinists believe that no matter what you do, your outcome is fixed in some sort of fatalistic way. But as I Hope I've demonstrated, you would be mistaken.

God doesn't just elect us and stop there. He continues working our salvation out, during our lives. He sends missionaries and evangelists to us. He opens our minds and hearts to the gospel message. He gives us faith and regeneration.

Election isn't the be-all-end-all of salvation. God does so much more than merely elect us. He does a bunch of other stuff, too, to bring us to our complete and final salvation.

"you think Calvinists believe that no matter what you do, your outcome is fixed in some sort of fatalistic way." Yeah, I am still under that impression.

calvinistcorner.com says this:
Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

The privilege of helping the elect obtain eternal life seems nice unless you are not one of the elect.

Do the elect know that they are the elect? I get the impression that you think you might have been elected? Is that what you think and why?

 

[Keachian]

It matters not whether I am of the Elect, God has told me through his word what is good and profitable and that is to proclaim repentance and faith, I am assured that the judge of the world will do right and that is enough for me.

 

[saintboniface]

It matters not whether I am of the Elect, God has told me through his word what is good and profitable and that is to proclaim repentance and faith, I am assured that the judge of the world will do right and that is enough for me.

How is proclaiming repentance and faith profitable to you if you weren't one chosen by God? God doesn't look into the future to see if you acted in a way that is good and profitable. I'm not arguing (not yet anyways), I really don't understand how you can being saying this.

 

[Keachian]

How is proclaiming repentance and faith profitable to you if you weren't one chosen by God? God doesn't look into the future to see if you acted in a way that is good and profitable. I'm not arguing (not yet anyways), I really don't understand how you can being saying this.

Because not everyone is out for themselves, God has changed my heart so that I seek his Glory through the good of the Church.

 

[saintboniface]

Because not everyone is out for themselves, God has changed my heart so that I seek his Glory through the good of the Church.

You said it is profitable to you. That is what I am asking about. How is it profitable to progmonk if progmonk isn't a chosen one?

Also, how does Matthew 25 (the last passages) fit into this? Jesus says the righteous (those who fed the hungry etc) will have eternal life but those who didn't do those things won't have eternal life. I know there are some passages than can be argued as supporting election but how can this passage be explained?

 

[Skala]

"you think Calvinists believe that no matter what you do, your outcome is fixed in some sort of fatalistic way." Yeah, I am still under that impression.

Even after I told you it isn't true? Did you even read my post?

Let me try to explain it again.

This is fatalism, it is NOT what Calvinism teaches:

Bob hears the gospel message from a faithful evangelist. Bob believes it and puts his faith in Christ. Bob lives a life of service to Christ and the church, and trusts Christ completely for salvation. Bob eventually dies. But, because Bob was never one of "the elect", God rejects him on judgement day and says "I didn't choose you!!!" and casts Bob into hell.

This is Calvinism:

Bob hears the gospel message from a faithful evangelist. Bob believes it and puts his faith in Christ. Bob lives a life of service to Christ and the church, and trusts Christ completely for salvation. Bob eventually dies. On judgement day, God sees that Bob is covered in Christ's blood and accepts him into heaven. Bob was elect the entire time. The proof of Bob's election is that God sent a missionary to Bob, changed Bob's heart, gave Bob faith and repentance. As a result, Bob put his trust in Christ, obeyed God, and lived a life of service.

Do you see the difference?

If Bob wasn't elect, he would have never believed the gospel in the first place. So Calvinism affirms that whatever happens matters, because God uses means, and whatever happens between points A and Z, in chronological time, actually matches and corresponds with God's plan (such as election)

In other words, it's not as if God will cast believers into hell saying "You aren't elect!!".
Likewise, it's not as if God will accept non-believers into heaven, saying "You are elect!"

What I'm trying to say is that the way events unfold, and play out, in time, matches with election.

calvinistcorner.com says this:
Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

This is a correct definition. But it has nothing to do with how events play out in chronological time. The doctrine of unconditional election is merely stating that when God elected people for salvation, before he ever created the world, he did so out of free, unearned grace and mercy, and not based on foreseen works or merits or faith (for there is no such thing as foreseen faith in non-elect people).

In other words, Calvinists think Arminian-type election (conditional election, being elected on foreseen faith) is nonsense and impossible, because we believe the reason a person believes in Christ is because of election. Thus, to us, there's no such thing as God "foreseeing" who believes, and electing on that basis, because there's no person that God could foresee would believe. Without election, nobody would believe. We take seriously the doctrine of the total depravity of fallen man and his hostility to a holy God.

The privilege of helping the elect obtain eternal life seems nice unless you are not one of the elect.

But if you actually have a desire and drive to obey God's command to preach the gospel, that is evidence that you are elect.

Do the elect know that they are the elect?

Not before they are saved. But now, having put trust in Christ and read the Bible, and learned about our salvation, and learned that God "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be blameless and holy" and learned that "in love he predestined us for adoption as sons", we know we are elect.

I get the impression that you think you might have been elected? Is that what you think and why?

I know I am elect because I believe in Christ. If you believe in Christ, you are among the elect too. It's that simple. All current Christians, and all future Christians are the elect. They wouldn't believe in Christ otherwise.

 

[saintboniface]

Even after I told you it isn't true? Did you even read my post?

Let me try to explain it again.

This is fatalism, it is NOT what Calvinism teaches:

Bob hears the gospel message from a faithful evangelist. Bob believes it and puts his faith in Christ. Bob lives a life of service to Christ and the church, and trusts Christ completely for salvation. Bob eventually dies. But, because Bob was never one of "the elect", God rejects him on judgement day and says "I didn't choose you!!!" and casts Bob into hell.

This is Calvinism:

Bob hears the gospel message from a faithful evangelist. Bob believes it and puts his faith in Christ. Bob lives a life of service to Christ and the church, and trusts Christ completely for salvation. Bob eventually dies. On judgement day, God sees that Bob is covered in Christ's blood and accepts him into heaven. Bob was elect the entire time. The proof of Bob's election is that God sent a missionary to Bob, changed Bob's heart, gave Bob faith and repentance. As a result, Bob put his trust in Christ, obeyed God, and lived a life of service.

Do you see the difference?

If Bob wasn't elect, he would have never believed the gospel in the first place. So Calvinism affirms that whatever happens matters, because God uses means, and whatever happens between points A and Z, in chronological time, actually matches and corresponds with God's plan (such as election)

In other words, it's not as if God will cast believers into hell saying "You aren't elect!!".
Likewise, it's not as if God will accept non-believers into heaven, saying "You are elect!"

What I'm trying to say is that the way events unfold, and play out, in time, matches with election.

This is a correct definition. But it has nothing to do with how events play out in chronological time. The doctrine of unconditional election is merely stating that when God elected people for salvation, before he ever created the world, he did so out of free, unearned grace and mercy, and not based on foreseen works or merits or faith (for there is no such thing as foreseen faith in non-elect people).

In other words, Calvinists think Arminian-type election (conditional election, being elected on foreseen faith) is nonsense and impossible, because we believe the reason a person believes in Christ is because of election. Thus, to us, there's no such thing as God "foreseeing" who believes, and electing on that basis, because there's no person that God could foresee would believe. Without election, nobody would believe. We take seriously the doctrine of the total depravity of fallen man and his hostility to a holy God.

But if you actually have a desire and drive to obey God's command to preach the gospel, that is evidence that you are elect.

Not before they are saved. But now, having put trust in Christ and read the Bible, and learned about our salvation, and learned that God "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be blameless and holy" and learned that "in love he predestined us for adoption as sons", we know we are elect.

I know I am elect because I believe in Christ. If you believe in Christ, you are among the elect too. It's that simple. All current Christians, and all future Christians are the elect. They wouldn't believe in Christ otherwise.

Thanks for the second attempt, I appreciate it. I understand now.

But now that I understand, I fail to see the vital importance of election. It seems to me to fall into the same category as "faith alone." Both seem to be legalistic arguments to differentiate from salvation via the response of faith and works to God's free grace. But in the end, all result in the necessity of having faith and doing works.

 

[Skala]

Thanks for the second attempt, I appreciate it. I understand now.

But now that I understand, I fail to see the vital importance of election.

For starters, if the Bible teaches it (and if you think what the Bible teaches is important), election must be important. And the Bible most certainly teaches that God "elected" us, aka "chose" us. (elect is a synonym for choose)

"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" - Eph 1:4 aka, "He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world"

Since the bible teaches it, and the Holy Spirit felt that He should take the time to inspire the Apostle Paul to write it, it must be important.

It seems to me to fall into the same category as "faith alone." Both seem to be legalistic arguments to differentiate from salvation via the response of faith and works to God's free grace. But in the end, all result in the necessity of having faith and doing works.

I see what you are saying, but there are certain implications to believing that a person has faith because he was elected.

For example, the Calvinist says "I owe my faith to my election", but the Arminian say "I owe my election to my faith"

In the former, the Calvinist is crediting God (and God's election of him) for the reason that he is a believer, and thus, is saved.

In the latter, the Arminian acknowledges that he was elected, but the reason he was elected is because of his (self-wrought) faith.

So, we could view this as the cart and the horse. Which is the cart, which is the horse? One is pulling the other, and whichever you think is the "cart" makes a big impact on the rest of your theology.

More examples:

It's a reason to thank God:
In his intro to Colossians and 2 Thess, Paul thanked God for the faith of the recipients of his letters. Why would Paul thank God for someone's faith, if God had nothing to do with the fact that a person is a believer?

It's motivation for evangelism:
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Paul, a missionary and evangelist who suffered many hardships and persecution, says he did so "for the sake of the elect", to bring about their salvation.

It's a reason to worship God:
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Election exalts the sovereignty of God:
Rom 9:13-23
(13) As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
(15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
(17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
(18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
(20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
(21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
(22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
(23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Election is for the praise of God's glorious grace:
Eph 1:4-11
(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
(5) he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
(6) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
(7) In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
(8) which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
(9) making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
(10) as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
(11) In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

This is just a small sampling of things I can think of off the top of my head, why Unconditional election (Calvinistic understanding of election) is important. it has implications for how you view your own salvation. It gives you all the more reason to be thankful for God's free grace and mercy which He chose to bestow upon you.

I know it has certainly had an impact on how I view my own salvation, and what I think and praise and worship God for, ever since I became convinced of this position.

He didn't have to save me, but he did, out of nothing but love, grace, and mercy.

 

[saintboniface]

This is just a small sampling of things I can think of off the top of my head, why Unconditional election (Calvinistic understanding of election) is important. it has implications for how you view your own salvation. It gives you all the more reason to be thankful for God's free grace and mercy which He chose to bestow upon you.

Thank you for that response.

 

[Don Maurer]

I am trying to read up on some Calvinist beliefs because I live in West Michigan where there are numerous Reformed and Christian Reformed communities. I think my neighbor who belongs to a Christian Reformed community would like me to attend a bible study sort of get-together. But I am thinking, what is the point from his stand-point?

I am either elected by God or not. Who cares if I go to his bible study? Who cares is I go to his worship service? It won't make a difference anyway under the TULIP theory.

Going a little bit further, why does Jesus spend the majority of his time telling people about how certain actions will cause them to be cast in the darkness where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth? It wouldn't matter what anyone does during their time on earth.

I go to a Reformed Baptist Church just as Skala. I approve of what Skala said, but want to add something. saintbonaface, what I observe in your posts is the assumption that compatiblism is not possible. Specifically, I am referring to the fact that Gods sovereign election, and human responsibility are indeed compatible.

Acts 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

In this text, God delivers Christ. That is a statement of God's sovereignty. He delivered Christ into the hands of lawless men, that is a statement of responsibility.

In the OT God sovereignly used the Assyrians to punish Israel, but then punished Assyria for their sin.

I find it interesting that when the concept of compatiblism is refused, one can sound almost the same as Pauls opponent in Romans 9.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

The man in verse 20 complains that Gods sovereignty made him this way, so why is he held responsible? Pauls answer to the charge made by the person in verse 20 is that God can be both sovereign, and still hold man responsible. This makes election not some "legalistic" doctrine, but election is then a matter of Gods all sufficient grace. Without election, you could say grace is still necessary, but in the reformed doctrine of unconditional election, grace becomes all sufficient and not merely a necessary thing.

I agree with you that a persons view of election is related to his view on justification. If faith is a divine work of God in man, and not a work of man for God, then even justification is by grace alone, and grace is all sufficient because even faith has its source in the work of God. This is not some "legalistic" triviality, but it is giving God his proper glory in the work of salvation. anyways, I will also post Pauls answer.

21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I am trying to read up on some Calvinist beliefs because I live in West Michigan where there are numerous Reformed and Christian Reformed communities. I think my neighbor who belongs to a Christian Reformed community would like me to attend a bible study sort of get-together. But I am thinking, what is the point from his stand-point?

I am either elected by God or not. Who cares if I go to his bible study? Who cares is I go to his worship service? It won't make a difference anyway under the TULIP theory.

Going a little bit further, why does Jesus spend the majority of his time telling people about how certain actions will cause them to be cast in the darkness where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth? It wouldn't matter what anyone does during their time on earth.

Who cares if the elect do care...but um...wow..

...I did not know that Catholics believe the future is unknown even by God! Neither did I know that Catholics believe the future is open and subject to revision!?!? All this time I thought Calvinists and Catholics had a shared belief in the omniscience of God, in the perfection of God, and the immutability of God. All this time I thought Calvinists and Catholics believe in predestination. My the times are a changing! Might I suggest taking a peek at John Gill's "The Cause of God and Truth" which is a history of theology including the doctrine of predestination, including history before the Reformation in the Catholic Church.

 

[saintboniface]

Who cares if the elect do care...but um...wow..

...I did not know that Catholics believe the future is unknown even by God! Neither did I know that Catholics believe the future is open and subject to revision!?!? All this time I thought Calvinists and Catholics had a shared belief in the omniscience of God, in the perfection of God, and the immutability of God. All this time I thought Calvinists and Catholics believe in predestination. My the times are a changing! Might I suggest taking a peek at John Gill's "The Cause of God and Truth" which is a history of theology including the doctrine of predestination, including history before the Reformation in the Catholic Church.

I think you are trying to be bombastic here for the most part, so I don't think I need to respond to everything.

Catholics believe that what we do during our lives actually affects whether or not we will have eternal life. My understanding is that Calvinists don't believe that what they do during their lives affects whether they will have eternal life. What they do during their lives only reflects whether they will have eternal life, it does not affect whether they will have eternal life.

This is my understanding of Calvinism. If that is not true please let me know.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think you are trying to be bombastic here for the most part,

Not really, if I wanted to be bombastic I would bring up the Crusades, "Bloody Mary", indulgences, priests scandals involving child molestation, or the joke that papal inerrancy or infallibility is. Those would more likely stir up emotions. What I was trying to do is help you to see the inconsistency of your objection, which is based on predestination, when all the while Catholics have always held to predestination, and if we are to include the ECF, we shouldn't forget Augustine, among others.

so I don't think I need to respond to everything.

I think it would benefit you more if you addressed my arguments, rather than my character or style of posting, which have nothing to do with what is true.

Catholics believe that what we do during our lives actually affects whether or not we will have eternal life. My understanding is that Calvinists don't believe that what they do during their lives affects whether they will have eternal life.

That would be an incorrect understanding of how Calvinists view the eternal Covenants and the outworkings of the decrees of God. Further your first sentence does not agree with nor consistent with Catholic teaching of predestination, nor with God's attributes of omniscience and immutability. I think you need to explain further and clearify, since you're not an open view theist or molinist, since you would agree NOTHING WE DO can surprise God, nor change His knowledge.

Calvinists are Biblicists, and we absolutely believe it's possible to know people by their fruits. At the same time, we absolutely believe people will do NOTHING effectual towards responding to the Gospel, if GOD does not FIRST DO SOMETHING, namely Regenerate a person. So the emphasis for Calvinists is not on what fallen creatures can or cannot do, but on what the sovereign Creator does to make it possible or not possible for creatures.

What they do during their lives only reflects whether they will have eternal life, it does not affect whether they will have eternal life.

This is my understanding of Calvinism. If that is not true please let me know.

That's because Calvinists are Biblicists we do NOT believe God leaves anyone any room for boasting, read Eph 2:4-10 without the tradition goggles on. It's really not incredibly difficult to grasp that particular passage of Scripture. I don't expect you'll read it so I will quote the last verse of the selection here:

Eph 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

How does that jive with your notion of free will? Nothing there about self-created, nor works added to the cross, rather this is referring to predestined works, ordained before the foundation of the world! Lookout it's the BIBLE BOMB!

 

[saintboniface]

Not really, if I wanted to be bombastic I would bring up the Crusades, "Bloody Mary", indulgences, priests scandals involving child molestation, or the joke that papal inerrancy or infallibility is. Those would more likely stir up emotions.

No those items wouldn't stir my emotions in the least.

That would be an incorrect understanding of how Calvinists view the eternal Covenants and the outworkings of the decrees of God. Further your first sentence does not agree with nor consistent with Catholic teaching of predestination, nor with God's attributes of omniscience and immutability. I think you need to explain further and clearify, since you're not an open view theist or molinist, since you would agree NOTHING WE DO can surprise God, nor change His knowledge.

My first sentence was that Catholics believe that what we do during our lives actually affects whether or not we have eternal life. Catholics believe that if a person intentionally and freely commits a grave sin, knowing that it is a grave sin, and does not repent before death, that person will not have eternal life. The person's actions really did cause the person not to have eternal life. Did God have the foreknowledge that the person would do this? Yes, but nonetheless God gave the person the free will to choose. The person's fate was at no time predetermined. I agree that nothing can surprise God or change his knowledge, that doesn't mean that I believe He willed that person to hell. He didn't will it, he allowed it.

How does that jive with your notion of free will?

My notion of free will is that all men are freely given grace and all men have the free will to choose eternal life or hell. God knows what choices will be made but he does not will anyone to hell.

My understanding of Calvinist belief is that no man has free will. God wills some to eternal life and some to hell. There is nothing man can do to change what has already been predetermined. There is a complete absence of the themes of reward and punishment found in just about every parable of Christ.

Is it true that Calvinists believe that God desires some men to spend eternity where there will be "wailing and grinding of teeth."?

 

[Skala]

My understanding of Calvinist belief is that no man has free will.

Define free will first, before you make assertions.

 

[saintboniface]

Define free will first, before you make assertions.

Free will meaning God does not predetermine that a man will go to hell. Lack of free will, in my understanding of Calvinism, would mean that God predetermines some men to go to hell. That have no choice but hell.