Problem with Election

[Marvin Knox]

Reformed theology requires God forcing people to do what they do not want to do or worse, manipulates them from the inside making them want what Calvinism says God decided for them. It is tyranny of the mind and heart.

And predestination and election as the Calvinist sees it eliminates entirely the free choices made by men. There is no other logical way to see it. Now what some do is commit intellectual suicide and jettison reason. They just say it doesn't thinking saying so makes it so. Everyone including athesists see thru this smoke easily.

You are mistaken.

 

[Radagast]

Since for the Calvinist "God is sovereign" means He gets his will done including making those who are chosen to be saved believe

But Calvinism also believes that people do what they want to do. Those who go to Hell go there because they want to sin.

 

[Radagast]

In your teaching faith does not come by hearing...
It comes by God choosing to save a particular person.

And God saves them by having us preach the gospel to them.

 

[Marvin Knox]

When I state something that you feel is incorrect, it is incumbent upon YOU to correct me.

I have. That correction is in the WCF.

You say God predestines all things. So God predestines rape, murder, war, cancer.....

That is correct.

My God is a loving and merciful and just God.

Mine too.

If I thought HE caused all of the above, I'd stop worshipping Him immediately, if not sooner.

Read the WCF on the subject of predestination and believe it and you will not believe that God is the direct cause all things.

You've misstated the Reformed position again.

You do indeed need to study. But you will not so you are on your own now and without excuse.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

LOL
I'll repeat it, but there's no answer!

If God is all-good and omnipotent...
Why does evil exist?

Thanks for repeating the question. The answer depends upon what one means by the question. Let's see what you are asking.

IOW, is there some evil in God?

There is no evil in God.

Is He not able to remove evil from the universe?

Not sure what you mean by "evil" here but God will not remove evil by tyranny or force. That is because doing so is evil itself. So he is able to remove evil from the universe as men choose to love good and reject evil. It is a mistake to think He is unable. He is unwilling to by a tyrant.

It IS a problem within Christianity and the one question for which there is no answer.

I am afraid I disagree. The answer is relatively simply but one needs to know what the question really means. Is it asking why there is moral evil? The answer is because men and angels chose to do evil. If it is asking why suffering occurs, that is a different question. Suffering is not necessarily moral evil.

Good ole' Augustine thought he had the answer in his new Christian days. But, as usual with him, he did change his mind later on in life and deided that, indeed, there was no answer to this problem.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
One question preoccupied Augustine from the time he was a student in Carthage: why does evil exist in the world? He returned to this question again and again in his philosophy, a line of inquiry motivated by personal experience. Augustine lived in an era when the pillar of strength and stability, the Roman Empire, was being shattered, and his own life, too, was filled with turmoil and loss. First he lost his mistress, then his mother, and finally his son. To believe in God, he had to find an answer to why, if God is all-powerful and also purely good, he still allows suffering to exist.

He was struggling with personal suffering, not moral evil. He ought not to have been surprised that people die. It is not really news to anyone beyond the age of young children. Why it happened to him is a different question.

Augustine’s answers to this question would forever change Western thought. First, he states that evil exists because we have free will. God enables humans to freely choose their actions and deeds, and evil inevitably results from these choices.

He did not invent this one. It was communicated to Adam and Eve in the garden and down through the geneartoins of men. So this was not his answer per se. It is the answer the Bible gives. Men were given a choice between good and evil and some choose evil. Augusting did not invent this idea. The idea of sin nature was invented by Augusting, that is true.

Even natural evils, such as disease, are indirectly related to human action, since they become evil only when in contact with people. According to this theory, a disease spreads only because men and women put themselves in harm’s way. Augustine gave a more theological explanation later in his life: we cannot understand the mind of God, and what appears evil to us may not be evil at all. In other words, we cannot judge God’s judgment. The roots of both of these answers stemmed from two philosophies, Manicheanism and Neoplatonism, which shaped Augustine’s ideas.

I do not doubt your above presentation of the thought of Augusting. Too bad he did not focus on knowing God because he would have understood the mind of God. There are many who have and still do. If he had understood the mind of God, he would not have written as he did.

Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine's answer has been the most intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying solution to this vexing problem.

I think his answer is weak and lacks understanding outside of what he said that was already said in Genesis. But that was not his answer.

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. The existence of evil is o ne of the most vexing challenges a Christian--or any person, for that matter-- must grapple with. It's occupied the minds of great Christian thinkers since the beginning, including St. Augustine (354-430). For much of his life he worked hard at a solution.

As I said, if he had understood and known God, he would have had his answers. But if a man does not know God, then a lot of things will remain a mystery.

This is more complete and also mentions John Calvin at the end of the article and how he accepts that God created evil.

Calvin attributed a great deal of moral evil to God and had no problem doing so. God did not create evil same as God did not create moral good. One can read in Genesis what God was credited with creating and moral evil and good are not listed. Not on a single day.

So why is there moral evil? Because in order for the world to be morally good, there has to be real choice not to be morally good. The tryanny of goodness is evil. That is why Heaven will be peopled with volunteers. No one will be kidnapped and forced into Heaven.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Romans 9:22. 1 Peter 2:8.

This is an example of shutting down the mind. Simply quote a bible verse hoping no one will actually read them and the surrounding texts. If you quoted the words themselves, we would easily see through it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Now you're just saying silly things in order to avoid the implications of the illustration.

Not at all. No mature person thinks being locked in a room of toys where you think you can never get out a good thing. No one. Find a better illustration.

 

[bling]

LOL
I'll repeat it, but there's no answer!

If God is all-good and omnipotent...
Why does evil exist?

IOW, is there some evil in God?
Is He not able to remove evil from the universe?
It IS a problem within Christianity and the one question for which there is no answer.

Good ole' Augustine thought he had the answer in his new Christian days. But, as usual with him, he did change his mind later on in life and deided that, indeed, there was no answer to this problem.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
One question preoccupied Augustine from the time he was a student in Carthage: why does evil exist in the world? He returned to this question again and again in his philosophy, a line of inquiry motivated by personal experience. Augustine lived in an era when the pillar of strength and stability, the Roman Empire, was being shattered, and his own life, too, was filled with turmoil and loss. First he lost his mistress, then his mother, and finally his son. To believe in God, he had to find an answer to why, if God is all-powerful and also purely good, he still allows suffering to exist.

Augustine’s answers to this question would forever change Western thought. First, he states that evil exists because we have free will. God enables humans to freely choose their actions and deeds, and evil inevitably results from these choices. Even natural evils, such as disease, are indirectly related to human action, since they become evil only when in contact with people. According to this theory, a disease spreads only because men and women put themselves in harm’s way. Augustine gave a more theological explanation later in his life: we cannot understand the mind of God, and what appears evil to us may not be evil at all. In other words, we cannot judge God’s judgment. The roots of both of these answers stemmed from two philosophies, Manicheanism and Neoplatonism, which shaped Augustine’s ideas.

source: SparkNotes: Saint Augustine (A.D. 354–430): Themes, Arguments, and Ideas


Is God the author of evil or its helpless victim? St. Augustine's answer has been the most intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying solution to this vexing problem.

One doesn't need a Ph.D. in theology to look around the world and realize something is desperately wrong. The existence of evil is one of the most vexing challenges a Christian--or any person, for that matter-- must grapple with. It's occupied the minds of great Christian thinkers since the beginning, including St. Augustine (354-430). For much of his life he worked hard at a solution.

source: Augustine on Evil | Stand to Reason

This is more complete and also mentions John Calvin at the end of the article and how he accepts that God created evil.

Augustinian theodicy - Wikipedia

And this speaks of how he changed his mìnd on the millenium, but it's not the only concept.
Why Saint Augustine Changed His Mind About the Millennium

Is sin the problem or is unforgiven sin the problem?

Is sin part of the solution to man’s problem (man fulfilling his earthly objective)?

Would you prefer to be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God forever or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your just accepting God’s charity?

Let me explain:

The reason you have free will is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.


So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force in all universes, since that force compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time:

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)


This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or even deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).


An unselfish God would be doing all He can to help willing individuals to make that free will decision to accept His Love. Again, since God will not be forcing these individuals, they have to be willing (it is their choice) and God cannot “make” them willing since that is robotic action. God can only at best make them free will agent (like God is) and capable of make the right decision without the selection being worthy of anything (it is a gift of pure charity).


This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.


Let me just give you an example of How God works to help willing individuals.


All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

If the nonbeliever had knowledge of God's existence that person would not need faith in God's existence, but faith is needed for humility and humility is needed to humbly accept pure charity and the only way to get Godly type Love is through accepting it as pure charity in the form of forgiveness.

That is an introduction to a huge topic.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Here is a question for the group regarding total depravity. If we are incapable of anything but sin before we come to God, why are there nonbelievers who lead moral lives and do lots of good things, who love their families and fellow men, who treat people better than a lot of “Christians” do? Is that a totally depraved soul?

They define the words "total depravity" differently so as to avoid all problems with the theology. I mean we can look up what depravity means and it is NOT what it means to a Calvinist if you ask them about the absurdity of the doctrine. Anyone who has dealt with Mormons and JWs knows the experience. They change the meaning of the words IN CASE you see the falseness of the doctrine. "Total" does all and "depravity" does not mean depraved of all moral values. It is bait and switch. Redefining words if you care to ask. This is what the theology does to the minds of men.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But Calvinism also believes that people do what they want to do. Those who go to Hell go there because they want to sin.

They also believe that those who want to go do so because God chose them before the foundation of the world to want to do so and cannot not want to do so. Those who go to hell are predestined to not want to go to Heaven and they cannot ever want to go to Heaven because God is preventing it.

You see, those who are not Calvinists can look at ALL of the theology and not cut out those going to hell because God predestining them to do so because it is not a very nice doctrine. The god of calvinism is cruel and unjust. I know you guys like to look at those going to heaven ignoring those going to hell but they are there and are real. Ignoring them will not make the god of calvin nicer.

(This is not the real God, by the way. He wants all men to be saved and come a knowledge of the truth. PRoblem is the will of God is NOT DONE on the earth because men refuse it. Pretty simple really.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And God saves them by having us preach the gospel to them.

IF you are a calvinist, which is the point of the thread, He is going to save them no matter what. So preaching is just an optional extra. He (for the calvinist) already predestined them for heaven and they cannot miss no matter what they do or believe.)

 

[112358]

They define the words "total depravity" differently so as to avoid all problems with the theology. I mean we can look up what depravity means and it is NOT what it means to a Calvinist if you ask them about the absurdity of the doctrine. Anyone who has dealt with Mormons and JWs knows the experience. They change the meaning of the words IN CASE you see the falseness of the doctrine. "Total" does all and "depravity" does not mean depraved of all moral values. It is bait and switch. Redefining words if you care to ask. This is what the theology does to the minds of men.

Indeed. Every time I carry one of their false tenets through to its logical (and usually absurd) end as I did here, the definition morphs into something slightly different, so one can never pin down the line of thought with certainty. It's an infinite loop of illogical reasoning.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If God chooses to make a new creation who will respond favorably to the gospel - it does not force that new creation to do so or force the old creation to not do so.

So do you admit that that new creation he made who will respond favorably to the gospel and actually in truth reject the gospel despite God making him/her to respond favorably to the Gospel? You realize you have a problem here, right? If the person cannot but respond favorably to the Gospel, it really does force them to do so despite you denying it. If you admit that such a creature can reject the gospel despite God making them so, you have abandoned Calvinism.

I suspect you will say the former because I have seen over and over again the intellectual suicide of some Calvinists. They say God predestines one to be saved but at the same time does not force them to do so all the while being sovereign. This is logically incompatible and yet said without a blink. God is not forcing but the man is not free. Those are mutually exclusive.

No - no one's will is being controlled - only reinforced.

Can the one in the sentence out right refuse in the end? If not, they are being controlled.

God hardens a heart which rejects Him and gives a new heart which will accept Him to some to the praise of His amazing grace.

This is the typical change the subject of the calvinist all the while having no problem with attributing evil to God. Reject God and He will harden your heart such that you CAN NEVER repent and accept Him for some to the shame of amazing cruelty.

Now you know the answer as to how these things can be so. I glad I had the opportunity to contribute to your understanding.

Willing to live with attributing evil to God but not calling it evil and using a fair amount of incompatible double talk. There is a theology that is so much better it boggles the mind how this is accepted.

The theology that is true is men make real decisions that affect their eternity. God calls and woes and reaches both in answer to our prayers and other reasons. He has made a way and we must answer the call when He moves us. It is not all God but it is not all us either.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Indeed. Every time I carry one of their false tenets through to its logical (and usually absurd) end as I did here, the definition morphs into something slightly different, so one can never pin down the line of thought with certainty. It's an infinite loop of illogical reasoning.

Very astute. My experience is that there are two kinds of Calvinists. The majority are kind and do not like the picture of God painted by the theology and they themselves are warm and loving and caring people and so have to shut down their minds in order to remain kind and still a Calvinist. The minority become like Calvin himself and do not care if God predestines some for hell as long as they themselves are going to heaven. The do not care if the god described is cruel and unjust. They have their own assurance of Heaven at stake and therefore cannot abandon the theology. I fear for what they will face when they see him and realize what their minds called Him. Then there are those who believed them and thought they too were destined for heaven no matter what they did to others in pursuit of their own interests. (That element is not a part of this discussion.)

 

[MDC]

This is an example of shutting down the mind. Simply quote a bible verse hoping no one will actually read them and the surrounding texts. If you quoted the words themselves, we would easily see through it.

The text means what it says. You’re an example of one who deflects from dealing with what it says by insulting the character of the messenger. But coming from someone who believes God owes sinful man mercy, proves that 1 Peter 2:8 fits you well. Pelagius and many like him made the same arguments and rants you are making. It is why they were deemed heretics and enemies of the gospel

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The text means what it says. You’re an example of one who deflects from dealing with what it says by insulting the character of the messenger. But coming from someone who believes God owes sinful man mercy, proves that 1 Peter 2:8 fits you well. Pelagius and many like him made the same arguments and rants you are making. It is why they were deemed heretics and enemies of the gospel

If you do not have the confidence to cut and paste the text, then it is useless to post with you. The text very likely means something different than you think it does but it is risky to quote it to others. Quote the whole bit if you want to talk about the Bible. I am only glad that we are anonymous here and no Calvinist has the power to execute those who do not accept calvinism anymore. Whew! The same attitude is seen though. "Believe in calvinism or you are a heretic and an enemy of the gospel." Thank the Lord the "we execute heretics and enemies of the gospel" has been made illegal.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And God saves them by having us preach the gospel to them.

Je ne sai pas since anyway they will only listen if God MAKES them listen...

All seems like a waste of time to me.
God is sovereign, He could figure out some other way to save them instead of making YOU go through all the trouble.

Oh. Wait. That's right. This is what CALVIN said to do.
Whatever Calvin says, goes.

John 3:16
Acts 16:30-31

 

[MDC]

If you do not have the confidence to cut and paste the text, then it is useless to post with you. The text very likely means something different than you think it does but it is risky to quote it to others. Quote the whole bit if you want to talk about the Bible. I am only glad that we are anonymous here and no Calvinist has the power to execute those who do not accept calvinism anymore. Whew! The same attitude is seen though. "Believe in calvinism or you are a heretic and an enemy of the gospel." Thank the Lord the "we execute heretics and enemies of the gospel" has been made illegal.

It means what says quit deflecting. Power to execute lol! No, not like your forefathers the papist

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Je ne sai pas since anyway they will only listen if God MAKES them listen...

All seems like a waste of time to me.
God is sovereign, He could figure out some other way to save them instead of making YOU go through all the trouble.

Oh. Wait. That's right. This is what CALVIN said to do.
Whatever Calvin says, goes.

John 3:16
Acts 16:30-31

Preaching the Gospel is harmless compared to Calvin making sure his enemies in Geneva were burned at the stake.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It means what says quit deflecting. Power to execute lol! No, not like your forefathers the papist

OK, MDC, time to move on. There are others I would rather talk to. I do not deal with those who do not have the kindness nor honesty to actually cut and paste the verse they claim supports their position. Too many times it just didn't and I thought the poster hoped no one would actually look it up. Not saying you do this but it has been the case in the past of others.

Adieu.