Problem with Election

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Why is my statement any more silly than the other poster who said if God is not allowed to choose who is lost at no fault to their own he'd no longer be sovereign? Your answer would ring true to this issue as well....God's essential nature of LOVE (and truth) would forbid him from crossing the line into being unjust and unfair. No difference!

The foolishness of others is never an excuse to be foolish ourselves.

Your and my perception of love and justice is immaterial. We don't know it all and have built-in biases. Where God has placed the boundary between love and justice is at the Cross. But we do not understand His full plan or why some people will not be saved.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,'' declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish,so that it yields seed for the sower and bread to the eater,so shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire, and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:8-11)

His words will cause faith in some but not in others, according to His will. (This is Election.)

 

[Radagast]

Free will is man having choices.

I don't know what that sentence means, and I don't believe that you do either.

There are several versions of free will, and some of them are indeed compatible with predestination.

You have not clearly indicated which version of free will you are talking about.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Isn't your lead in a tad bit misleading? Everyone knows the word election or elect is a Biblical term. You're implying it's owned by the Calvinists thus you're on the Bible side. The question shouldn't be do people have a problem with election or rather what type of election....conditional Or unconditional.


Does your assertion of these things make it so? I think not.

Nor does your denial of any of these make them not so. These assertions are basic biblical doctrines-- or so I learned through my many years of study of the scriptures and had confirmed in seminary.

If you know the history of the organized churches and the Reformation, you also know that Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God and predestination/Election. The Roman Catholic Church has never emphasized these biblical doctrines. I am not a Calvinist but neither am I a Roman Catholic. I am, however, very much a Christian, and have studied and taught the scriptures for many, many years. I certainly do not know it all and am still learning, but on this website I have a right to assert what I have learned so far. And you get to debate with me.

 

[Radagast]

Jesus DID NOT believe in predestination.
He came here to save the whole world -- all that wanted to be saved, He did not die just for the elect.

Well, that's the key question in a nutshell:

1. Did Jesus die to save everybody (but fail to achieve this goal)? or
2. Did Jesus die to save everybody (and 100% of humans will be saved)? or
3. Did Jesus die to save only the elect?

I think the Bible pretty clearly teaches #3.

One can, of course, have a second debate about how election works (for example, were the elect chosen on the basis of foreseen faith, as Arminius said?)

 

[Radagast]

you also know that Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God and predestination/Election. The Roman Catholic Church has never emphasized these biblical doctrines. I am not a Calvinist but neither am I a Roman Catholic.

Depends what you mean by "Roman Catholic Church."

A belief in some kind of predestination and election is de fide for Catholics. Thomist Catholics basically accepted the first 4 points of Calvinism, although Molinists did not.

 

[Radagast]

Everyone knows the word election or elect is a Biblical term. You're implying it's owned by the Calvinists thus you're on the Bible side. The question shouldn't be do people have a problem with election or rather what type of election....conditional Or unconditional.

There are people on this thread who are Calvinists, and accept Unconditional Election.

There are people on this thread who are Arminian, and accept Conditional Election.

And there are people on this thread who deny Election completely, even though it is a Biblical doctrine.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

It is not a mystery. God has enabled everyone. They choose to hear and come to faith or not. Very simple.

Then you appear to be saying that those who have come to faith on their own accord, by their own choice, have in essence saved themselves. God has not saved them. They can boast in themselves and in their higher wisdom, and they can look down on those who did not so choose.

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

In fact, no one can even boast of their faith, because all faith comes from God, not ourselves. I can even show from the scriptures that conviction of sin and repentance is a gift from God. What is our own is confession. But no one confesses until they repent. So no one has any room to boast or to feel somehow superior.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Depends what you mean by "Roman Catholic Church."

A belief in some kind of predestination and election is de fide for Catholics. Thomist Catholics basically accepted the first 4 points of Calvinism, although Molinists did not.

Sure. Catholics do not all believe the same. But no one doubts that Calvin and his followers have publicly emphasized predestination and election far more than other Christian leaders and theologians. The debates between Calvinists and others about these issues are famous and ubiquitous.

 

[Rubiks]

There are people on this thread who are Calvinists, and accept Unconditional Election.

There are people on this thread who are Arminian, and accept Conditional Election.

And there are people on this thread who deny Election completely, even though it is a Biblical doctrine.

You forgot those who subscribe to the corporate election view.

 

[Rubiks]

Well, that's the key question in a nutshell:

1. Did Jesus die to save everybody (but fail to achieve this goal)? or
2. Did Jesus die to save everybody (and 100% of humans will be saved)? or
3. Did Jesus die to save only the elect?

I think the Bible pretty clearly teaches #3.

One can, of course, have a second debate about how election works (for example, were the elect chosen on the basis of foreseen faith, as Arminius said?)

Christ came to offer salvation to all men, which must be accepted by faith.

Romans 3:28 (NRSV) For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

Paul did not say that we are justified purely by grace apart from faith and works. Christ offered salvation to all (historic Calvinism also taught the same) but must be accepted by faith. The above verse shows that faith is NOT a work, contrary to what neo-Calvinists want you to believe.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

There are people on this thread who are Calvinists, and accept Unconditional Election.

There are people on this thread who are Arminian, and accept Conditional Election.

And there are people on this thread who deny Election completely, even though it is a Biblical doctrine.

Of course. People are different and their beliefs are all over the map. I've got mine and you've got yours. We would not believe what we do if we thought it was wrong.

 

[Bobber]

A question and I'm not claiming I know the answer. How does Calvinistic theology effect the real disposition or conscious mind of those who hold to it? Are Calvinists say more pron to be judgemental and cast people aside for in their inner mind justice of right comes up this way...If God dismisses without mercy individuals for no reason (that is for no reason outside of the problem that everybody else has...a sinful nature)...wouldn't that albeit even in subtle ways... in ways that even they couldn't quite put their finger upon cause within themselves a taking away of the value of life or the value of people in general? If God could so easily dismiss people without any chance, hope of Salvation in life...then why not they? To be clear...I'm not saying such ones would have to be less kind, loving and gracious. But doesn't it seem that if a child is raised by a parent who dismisses individuals let's say at no fault of their own then the same mindset would move in upon their offspring?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Well, that's the key question in a nutshell:

1. Did Jesus die to save everybody (but fail to achieve this goal)? or
2. Did Jesus die to save everybody (and 100% of humans will be saved)? or
3. Did Jesus die to save only the elect?

I think the Bible pretty clearly teaches #3.

One can, of course, have a second debate about how election works (for example, were the elect chosen on the basis of foreseen faith, as Arminius said?)

Yep. The first two are easy to refute.
Jesus was the One who frequently talked about judgment and the dividing of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the weeds, the wheat kernels from the chaff. He even talked about the children of God and the children of the devil. (See John 8:42-44, Matthew 13:37-42, John 6:70). Jesus was clear that not all people would be saved.

Also: here is reminder from Matthew 15 that Jesus did not even see Himself as coming to save non-Jews. Of course, the Father always knew it and after His resurrection and ascension, Jesus also knew— and so we have the Great Commission and Pentecost to prove Christ’s mission to all nations and cultures. Here is a excerpt from an article on the Gospel Coalition some years ago:.
. “The early Christians saw their mission as global in scope, but during his earthly ministry, Jesus explicitly declared his mission to be focused only on Israel (Matt 15:24).
When traced backwards, the flow of universal mission of the early church runs into the rocks of Jesus’ striking particularity. What gives?
Creating too strong a dichotomy between Jesus’ mission to the Jews and the church’s mission to the Gentiles is unhelpful. As the long-awaited Messiah who fulfills Israel’s vocation, Jesus accomplishes the mission of Israel through his own life and work, thereby bringing the blessing of Abraham to the nations, as was promised in the Old Testament.
The mission to the Gentiles was not at the expense of mission to Israel, nor was it merely an extension. Instead, Israel was to be the catalyst through which God would accomplish his promises to the world.
Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in order that through his regathering and reconstituting the true Israel, the blessing of salvation would be released to flow from Israel and into all the world, just as God promised in the Old Testament.”

 

[Marvin Knox]

How does an all-good God send people to hell through no fault of their own?

No fault of their own?
Someone needs to take a trip down to the river and identify with sinners.
This is really basic stuff you're missing.

He believes God chooses arbitrarily.

The OP does not believe God chooses arbitrarily. Calvin did not believe that. I don't believe that. No one I know of believes that.

The pagan is still RESPONSIBLE for what GOD made HIM do? Did I get that right?

No - you got that wrong. No one believes such a thing - certainly not Calvinists.

I hope you know that calvinists don't believe we do have a choice. They believe God has already determined everything that's going to happen...so, according to them, we THINK we have a choice, but we really don't. IOW, God is tricking us. He's playing games with our mind.

Calvinists believe no such thing.
Where on earth do you get these ideas?

And there's something even worse He's doing, but I'm not bringing it up...it's too ugly.

Please tell us.

So what kind of a God is this? HE makes them sin and then gets mad at them. He makes them disobey and then gets mad at them. He makes them not believe and then doesn't allow them into the Promised Land! He sounds like a mixed up god.

You are the one who is mixed up.

You misrepresent what others believe and then reject what you have made up about their beliefs.

He actually made Calvin plan the death, and then He got Servetus to go to Geneva so Calvin could carry out his plan? You see...Calvinism brings to mind some weird ideas about God.
We could post verses till the cows come home (oops, no cows in Geneva). The very concept of calvinism is wrong.

You obviously don't know anything about what Calvinists believe.
Why aren't you asking them questions about their beliefs rather than making statements based on your misconceptions?

He makes Adam eat the fruit and then punishes us for making Adam eat the fruit?

Again with your silliness.
No one believes the things you say they do.

I only write what I'm sure of.

No - you write what you are mistaken about.

And yet Calvinism believes God sends people to hell for no reason at all!

No reason at all?
Again - you need to do a study on the nature of fallen mankind as well as basic Reformed theology.

That's just after reading the third page of your misinformation. I'll leave it at that for now.

I see something about Italy on your identification.

Might you be a Roman Catholic? That would explain a lot about your unwillingness to study the Word of God for yourself.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

A question and I'm not claiming I know the answer. How does Calvinistic theology effect the real disposition or conscious mind of those who hold to it? Are Calvinists say more pron to be judgemental and cast people aside for in their inner mind justice of right comes up this way...If God dismisses without mercy individuals for no reason (that is for no reason outside of the problem that everybody else has...a sinful nature)...wouldn't that albeit even in subtle ways... in ways that even they couldn't quite put their finger upon cause within themselves a taking away of the value of life or the value of people in general? If God could so easily dismiss people without any chance, hope of Salvation in life...then why not they? To be clear...I'm not saying such ones would have to be less kind, loving and gracious. But doesn't it seem that if a child is raised by a parent who dismisses individuals let's say at no fault of their own then the same mindset would move in upon their offspring?

Here is how I would answer. First, we must remember that all Calvinists (or others who believe strongly in Election and predestination) do not regard the doctrine alike nor does it have the same effect on all alike. So you cannot generalize about such a thing, and why would you even think of it unless you are looking to criticize and judge Calvinists?

Secondly, you are suggesting that your view of love and mercy is necessarily God's view.
Even hypothetically suggesting the possibility that "God dismisses without mercy individuals for no reason" is inappropriate and certainly does not describe those who believe in predestination.
God, being God, is far more rational, far more loving, far more merciful, and far more just than any of us can imagine. We are all unqualifed to judge God. So whatever the final outcome, we will all (once we are there) totally agree and be amazed at God's wisdom, mercy, grace, and justice. We will also realize how ignorant we were to even question His will.

Again, you wrote: "If God dismisses without mercy individuals for no reason (that is for no reason outside of the problem that everybody else has...a sinful nature)..." It is almost like you are dismissing the problem of sin as no big deal, when in fact it is why ALL of us deserve permanent elimination from existence! The fact that God chose to save anyone at all is what I find to be amazing grace. Focusing on the others, all of whom deserve condemnation, should only do one thing inside us, and that is to cause us to want to put more energy and effort into our evangelism. For we do not know who are lost sheep and who are goats, nor do we know how God will use us to help bring about His divine Kingdom.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No fault of their own?
Someone needs to take a trip down to the river and identify with sinners.
This is really basic stuff you're missing.

The OP does not believe God chooses arbitrarily. Calvin did not believe that. I don't believe that. No one I know of believes that.

No - you got that wrong. No one believes such a thing - certainly not Calvinists.

Calvinists believe no such thing.
Where on earth do you get these ideas?

Please tell us.

You are the one who is mixed up.

You misrepresent what others believe and then reject what you have made up about their beliefs.

You obviously don't know anything about what Calvinists believe.
Why aren't you asking them questions about their beliefs rather than making statements based on your misconceptions?

Again with your silliness.
No one believes the things you say they do.

No - you write what you are mistaken about.

No reason at all?
Again - you need to do a study on the nature of fallen mankind as well as basic Reformed theology.

That's just after reading the third page of your misinformation. I'll leave it at that for now.

I see something about Italy on your identification.

Might you be a Roman Catholic? That would explain a lot about your unwillingness to study the Word of God for yourself.

Why don't you enlighten us all and tell us what calvinists DO believe since I'm so misinformed??

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, that's the key question in a nutshell:

1. Did Jesus die to save everybody (but fail to achieve this goal)? or
2. Did Jesus die to save everybody (and 100% of humans will be saved)? or
3. Did Jesus die to save only the elect?

I think the Bible pretty clearly teaches #3.

One can, of course, have a second debate about how election works (for example, were the elect chosen on the basis of foreseen faith, as Arminius said?)

Who cares what Arminius said?
This is one of the problems of calvinism. Too much attention on what Pelagius said, what Augustine said, whaat Arminius said.

Could we just concentrate on the bible please?

1. Jesus did NOT fail His goal.
Again: John 3:16
"For God So Loved the WORLD (everybody) that He gave His only begotten Son....that WHOSOVERE BELIEVETH in HIM, should not perish but have everlasting life."

That looks like number 2 to me.
Of course someone has to BELIEVE in Jesus to be saved....

Simple English!

Here are some verses for you.

John 1:29
Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the WORLD.

Romans 3:23-26
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
We have all sinned, and those who have faith in Jesus will be justified by His blood.


Romans 5:17-19
17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

As in Adam we all fell from grace, in Jesus, our relationship with God has been restored, by grace through our faith in Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8

Could you show me one verse that states Jesus died only for a select few?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Look at the initial post on this thread and the idea of Election as somehow diminishing God's love. Many of those who have problems with Election (meaning that they do not like the idea that some are NOT among the Elect, chosen by God) have problems with seeing both sides of God (both love and also justice) and thus have minimized the reality of sin and condemnation. Therefore they have come to espouse "cheap grace," the Pelagian heresy (as if we were born good or could earn salvation), and/or even universalism (as if we were all going to be saved anyway so it does not matter much what we do or believe).

The biblical doctrine of Election keeps us balanced theologically... and tends to divide the sheep from the goats.

Here's what separates the sheep from the goats...
and it's not election since election is based on NOTHING.

Mathew 25:31-46
Mathew 25:40 What we do we do also to Jesus. These are the sheep.

Mathew 25:45-46 These did not do anything for anyone...they are the goats and they will go to eternal punishment.

If you'll notice the above is based on the works we do...
NOT on who is elected.

If it was based on who was elected, Jesus' words would make no sense at all since the elect would have already been chosen and nothing they did or didn't do would have made no difference.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Arminians, please!

Armenians are people from Armenia.

A common typo of one letter.

 

[98cwitr]

I do not have a problem with God's Election. I have been debating with another poster. She does have a problem with Election. So we are starting this new thread to get everyone's take on it.


"The big problem I have with election is that it changes the nature of a loving God." by GodsGrace101

LOL
You see the kind of speaking calvinism forces on us!
I understand it and I had to read the above TWICE!
God made it so simple, some make it so difficult!

God loves all His creation.
He does CHOOSE, but based on our accepting His conditions.

Love always protects?