Predestination??

[ContraMundum]

This doesn't solve the problem at all. It still gives man a reason to boast before God.

Not necessarily. A more balanced Christian would not "boast before God", but rather "boast in the cross", as Paul did. Arminian doctrine does not state that the power of the choice to follow Christ is man's. Quite the opposite.

Boasting before God is not the only logical conclusion to decision theology, just like boasting before men is not the only logical conclusion to the belief or claim of being one of the elect.

 

[MarkT]

But it is important to pay attention to the context of this passage. "Chosen" in this context is referring to those whom God has chosen to carry out His redemptive work, but not chosen in the sense that they were saved without God ever giving them the choice to be saved.

I think we're supposed to understand that we didn't have a choice in it (his kingdom), any more than the man God created of flesh and blood had a choice in it (the creation) when God made him.

Does it seem unfair to you that we didn't have a choice?

God created his kingdom. Nobody forced him to do it. We didn't do it. All we can do is understand what he did and marvel at it.

God gave us to his Son. His Son found us on earth, scattered over time. He reconciled us to God.

This is also why Jesus had said in another place, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

If all whom God calls must necessarily be saved, how is it then that only a few of them are chosen when many are called?

No. Many hear the word of God but few are chosen. That's evidently true.

 

[mlqurgw]

No it doesn't. Consider the following...Im a rich man...I have tickets for a concert...I offer tickets to both two poor men....one accepts and another says no....if the one who goes to the concert later states he did something to earn the ticket I gave him I might give him a piece of my mind later. He did nothing at all...I gave them to him....for him to boast just because he received them of his own free will would be nonsense and I don't know anybody who would do that....they would be thankful to the one who gave him the ticket and would not make such a ridiculous claim....and yet a Calvinist would say his statement would be reasonable to make? Not sure how one could reason like this.

Show me ,if you are able to, where God ever offers salvation to anyone. The Scriptures always present it as a gift never an offer. It is true that God commands all men everywhere to repent but that is an excersice of His sovereign right and authority to do so not a reflection of His will, as I said earlier.

A better example, I believe, would be of a rich man who decides for his own reasons to give a million dollars to someone. It is his money and his right to give it to whom he will and withold it from whom he will. None deserve the gift and he is not obligated to give it to anyone. The man to whom he gives the money has no just and rightful claim to it other than it was given to him. The one whom it was witheld from has no reason to cry unfair nor unjust because he doesn't deserve it any more or less than the one who actually was given it. Neither deserve it nor have a claim to it.

 

[mlqurgw]

Not necessarily. A more balanced Christian would not "boast before God", but rather "boast in the cross", as Paul did. Arminian doctrine does not state that the power of the choice to follow Christ is man's. Quite the opposite.

Boasting before God is not the only logical conclusion to decision theology, just like boasting before men is not the only logical conclusion to the belief or claim of being one of the elect.

Agreed that no Arminian would claim he has a reason to boast but the reason is still there. Boiled down to the essense of the view it must be recognized that the Arminian is himself the one that makes the difference. God's grace is helping and working but ultimatly it is the man who makes the decision and the difference in whether he is saved or not.

 

[mlqurgw]

it's not a problem, It's TRUTH, and TRUTH does'nt need to be solved.

Of course I would disagree that it is truth as can be clearly seen by my rebuttal.

 

[MarkT]

But if God is love, why then would He create some people for damnation?

To get rid of all causes of evil and all evil doers.

 

[MarkT]

So what sense then was there in Jesus going to the cross to make acceptable people that were already accepted?

To pay the debt the flesh incurred.

 

[ContraMundum]

Agreed that no Arminian would claim he has a reason to boast but the reason is still there.

There's always occasion to sin, no matter what we are talking about. Just because there is a reason for the occasion to sin doesn't mean the idea is void. Remember the old saying by Augustine- "abuse does not destroy the substance, it confirms it".

Boiled down to the essense of the view it must be recognized that the Arminian is himself the one that makes the difference. God's grace is helping and working but ultimatly it is the man who makes the decision and the difference in whether he is saved or not.

Not necessarily. God's grace is more than helping- it's working- doing all the saving work. God's prevenient grace enables man to respond, but to what? God's Gospel- the completely gracious and unmerited offer of salvation. When we view this question in the light of the Gospel, we see that man has contributed nothing to his salvation. Did God have to offer us the Gospel? No, but He did. Did God have to give us the grace to recieve His gift of the Gospel? No, but He did. Did God have to regenerate us, justify us, sanctify us? No, but He did. We all agree that no matter what, the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men to change them. This is not our ability, but God's.

The whole point generally avoided by all Reformed believers (Calvinist and Arminian) is that God uses means to communicate His grace to us. These means are effective in and of themselves, and do not require our energies or faith to be effectual. Like Luther put it, gold is gold even if a harlot wears it, likewise, the means of grace are truly offering and communicating grace even to us sinners who clearly do not deserve it.

The means of grace does not give any man the place to boast before God- because we do not deserve them, and we receive them as penitent sinners. Thus, an Arminian believer does not think his choice for God worthy of anything, because his spirit was tested by the law, his heart made contrite, and knowing his unworthiness he repented and begged Christ for His mercy. Where is boasting there? He was a miserable sinner, not a worthy recipient of the power to choose.

However, could we apply this to the Calvinist formula? Here, a man was chosen- he is different, privileged. Although the process of his election included contrition for his sins, ultimately, he believes he is a lucky lottery winner, fortunate to be in God's favor. (Personally, I have not met a Calvinist like this, but for the sake of comparison with your concerns, I put this out there. I should note that I have never met a boasting Arminian either.)

 

[ContraMundum]

To get rid of all causes of evil and all evil doers.

Sounds like Dubya.

 

[mlqurgw]

But such comments are really rhetorical exaggeration. I don't know if anyone seriously believes Calvinism is that shallow and unsophisticated.



For every doctrine regarding the nature and gravity of sin there must need be a doctrine about the nature and magnitude of love. It is easily proven that man's sin is grave and totally seperates him from God, but it is also true that God overturns all evil powers, sin, the Devil and death itself to save His creation.

Therefore, if God has decreed a plan of salvation which entails choice, and then He by His power graciously enables the choice to be made, this is not a plan either against His holiness or against His sovereignty, but rather, is a testimony both to His love and His holiness.

However, if we have a God which extends genuine love only to a select few, which He alone chooses, however mysteriously, we don't have much of a testimony to His love, but rather only to His sovereignty.

What bothers me the most about all this is how much of the teachings of Jesus about the Father's love is left out of discussions on election. We focus on a few passages of Paul, but forget the parables, such as the sower and the seed, the wedding feast, the bridegroom, the prodigal etc etc. Many of these speak of the Father's love, the effect of the word on the heart, the invitation to respond and the like. I think it is wise to take these into context when discussing election.

Glad you pitched in.

BTW- I'm still undecided on the intricacies of the "warm cookie" model. It seems a very good workable model based on scripture, and like yourself, I would add some modifiers to it. More later.

You are correct that love is the fountain from which election flows. Still there is a great misunderstanding of the love of God and often it is treated as though love is all that God is. The love of God is in perfect union and complete harmony with all the attributes of God such as wisdom and power. Man's love is often powerless but that just isnt the case with God's love. Those He loves He saves. He is not only able to do it and wise enough to accomplish it but it would actually destroy the love of God for it to be otherwise.

 

[Bobber]

Show me ,if you are able to, where God ever offers salvation to anyone.

He stated whosoever will may come....whosoever means whosover....and he that comes to me I will in no wise cast out....

A better example, I believe, would be of a rich man who decides for his own reasons to give a million dollars to someone. It is his money and his right to give it to whom he will and withold it from whom he will. None deserve the gift and he is not obligated to give it to anyone. The man to whom he gives the money has no just and rightful claim to it other than it was given to him. The one whom it was witheld from has no reason to cry unfair nor unjust because he doesn't deserve it any more or less than the one who actually was given it. Neither deserve it nor have a claim to it.

To send somebody to hell who was born a sinner by nature, who had no say in it being this way and not in a very real way allowing for such a creature a way of escape but you punish them for somethng they had no power to make different is insanely unjust and showing favortism . Because Calvinists think this way id be absolutely terrified to see one ever become a judge in natural law. If their understanding of righteousness can consider that just then somebody else committing the same crime as I gets off....and that's considered just? It would bring a legal system into confusion and I'll never understand for the life of me how men can reason this way.

 

[cygnusx1]

He stated whosoever will may come....whosoever means whosover....

not quite ......... it doesn't mean whosever................

it means whosever WILL MAY COME .

the difference is one of content.

If I say whosever may be saved , I have said nothing .

The Gospel call is general but the focus is upon those and only those who will come.

There is no good news for the will not's ........... only judgement .

 

[MarkT]

Sounds like Dubya.

It's really simple and you're all making it way too complicated.

The words settle it.

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." Mark 10:15

 

[ContraMundum]

Those He loves He saves.

Does He not love all who have not resisted His call? Yet, does He not offer His call to all and did He not make provision for the salvation of all?

He is not only able to do it and wise enough to accomplish it but it would actually destroy the love of God for it to be otherwise.

How so? That seems like a contradiction.

 

[mlqurgw]

To send somebody to hell who was born a sinner by nature, who had no say in it being this way and not in a very real way allowing for such a creature a way of escape but you punish them for somethng they had no power to make different is insanely unjust and showing favortism . Because Calvinists think this way id be absolutely terrified to see one ever become a judge in natural law. If their understanding of righteousness can consider that just then somebody else committing the same crime as I gets off....and that's considered just? It would bring a legal system into confusion and I'll never understand for the life of me how men can reason this way.

Actually there is no parallel in natural justice to the way God saves sinners. In natural justice the judge has neither the right nor authority to tranfer guilt to another. He may transfer the penalty but not the guilt. God alone has both the right and authority to so. That is what substitution is all about.

To answer your statements I will ask if the thing formed has the right to say to the one who formed it why did you make me this way? God is the one who decides what is just not man. Justice demands that all perish under the wrath of God. God's right to satisfy juctice in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ for some in no way does harm to justice but upholds it. God can show favoritism without being unjust. His being no respector of persons only means that we have nothing in us that is any different than anyone else to draw His favoritism. He saves the rich and the poor, the wise and the simple, the profligate and the moral. We are all sinners in need of mercy and are justly damned unless God, in sovereign mercy, intervenes.

 

[cygnusx1]

No it doesn't. Consider the following...Im a rich man...I have tickets for a concert...I offer tickets to both two poor men....one accepts and another says no....if the one who goes to the concert later states he did something to earn the ticket I gave him I might give him a piece of my mind later. He did nothing at all...I gave them to him....for him to boast just because he received them of his own free will would be nonsense and I don't know anybody who would do that....they would be thankful to the one who gave him the ticket and would not make such a ridiculous claim....and yet a Calvinist would say his statement would be reasonable to make? Not sure how one could reason like this.

but supposing that you invited thousands to a concert and they made excuses , and then you went into the streets and sought out the disabled , the poor the unfortunates , the abused , the down-trodden "garbage of society" ........... and you "compelled" them to come in ...... so that your concert would still take place , now do you see the contrast , it is far far more stark than "easy-believism" .

 

[MarkT]

Did anyone instruct God? Did anyone ask God to make them? Did anyone ask God to create his kingdom? No. God did it. It is done.

Is there anyone here who can say, "it's OK with me"?

Nobody took away your will when God created his kingdom.

To have freewill sounds like you need sin. So do you want sin so you can choose sin?

If God takes away all causes of sin and all evil doers, what are you going to say? Are you going to say you want sin so you can choose it?

But God took it away so how can you choose it?

See this is how we know who is of God and who is not, when we see the ones who are arguing for sin and freewill.

 

[cygnusx1]

Did anyone instruct God? Did anyone ask God to make them? Did anyone ask God to create his kingdom? No. God did it. It is done.

Is there anyone here who can say, "it's OK with me"?

Nobody took away your will when God created his kingdom.

To have freewill sounds like you need sin. So do you want sin so you can choose sin?

If God takes away all causes of sin and all evil doers, what are you going to say? Are you going to say you want sin so you can choose it?

But God took it away so how can you choose it?

See this is how we know who is of God and who is not, when we see the ones who are arguing for sin and freewill.

good post , and about time someone linked free-will with sin!

 

[cygnusx1]

Certainly the Greek is very useful in gaining a better understanding of what was written but I am aware of no real theological debates that have been solved by the Greek. All sides use it and seek to make their points from it. When it comes to sticky theological debates the Greek is as much a matter of interpretation as the English.

well put friend! anyone would think translators worked in vain!

 

[cygnusx1]

Here is a simple argument for you:

If God created humankind without free-will, He couldn't be omnipotent,

Yes He could!

because then He must have held back from giving man free-will for fear of something that he would choose to do outside of His will.

God held back Abimelech from sinning ............ do you think God was frightened ?

Genesis 20​

6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me.

Could a God who is fearful be omnipotent?

He couldn't be God!

The truth is, God's omnipotence is disclosed in the fact that He did create humankind with free-will, for He has fear of nothing, not even our choices!

You are drawing your premise from your conclusion ..... there is a Latin phrase for that

In the end, He will have the final word.

Yes , because nothing is beyond His control!