Question on election

[ohgin]

So AV1611, you mean that you really think that God did not feel sad for those Isrealites that fell away is it?

 

[lmnop9876]

1. God loves even those who are never going to be saved , otherwise He would make everyone's life hell!

question I've been dying to ask: if God doesn't love everyone, how is election unconditional? there are four possible scenarios (provided you believe in unconditional election of course):
1. God loved some so He elected them, but then His election is conditional on the fact that He loved them.
2. God chose some, so He loved them, but then His love is conditional on His election.
3. God's love and election are both unconditional and one and the same act.
4. God loves all people: because He loves all people He decided to provide a way of salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

[cygnusx1]

question I've been dying to ask: if God doesn't love everyone, how is election unconditional? there are four possible scenarios (provided you believe in unconditional election of course):
1. God loved some so He elected them, but then His election is conditional on the fact that He loved them.
2. God chose some, so He loved them, but then His love is conditional on His election.
3. God's love and election are both unconditional and one and the same act.
4. God loves all people: because He loves all people He decided to provide a way of salvation through Jesus Christ.

number3 ...... and number 4

Even the none elect have thousands of unmerited blessings .

 

[CCWoody]

So AV1611, you mean that you really think that God did not feel sad for those Isrealites that fell away is it?

Having skimmed his posts, choice of cites, & name he has chosen for himself "High Calvinist" you probably need to know that when reading his posts, you most likely are dealing with a Supralapsarian "High Calvinist" that denies common grace (at least by that name) and God's love for the non-elect (at least by that name).

As such, his answers will most likely be quite different that a Calvinist such as myself. (At least they will seem that way.)

Anyway, despite his choice for the AV (I prefer the 1599 Geneva Bible over the AV1611 for the fact that James' authorization of a Bible was in part his dislike for the independent minded Calvinists), I still like his name. Change a letter and number or two and you get my favorite choice in concealed combat weaponry (1911 ACP).

 

[CCWoody]

question I've been dying to ask: if God doesn't love everyone, how is election unconditional? there are four possible scenarios (provided you believe in unconditional election of course):
1. God loved some so He elected them, but then His election is conditional on the fact that He loved them.
2. God chose some, so He loved them, but then His love is conditional on His election.
3. God's love and election are both unconditional and one and the same act.
4. God loves all people: because He loves all people He decided to provide a way of salvation through Jesus Christ.

When we speak of Unconditional Election, we do not make a reference for any "condition" found within God for who may inquire into the mind of God or ask him what and why? When we speak of Unconditional Election, we are making a reference to the fact that there is nothing about man or any action of man which is a condition for his election by God.

Depending upon how you phrase your definition of love and which verses of Scripture you are discussing, you may or may not be able to say that God loves the non-elect. For example, there is clearly a special and particular sacrificial love bestowed upon those whom the Lord has died to save. He does not love the non-elect in this way.

However, if we define love as a general benevolence and care, then we may say that God loves even those who are his enemies. Many might object to the use of the term love to describe this just as they may object to the use of the term common grace. This doesn't change the fact that there is a general care for the whole world.

 

[lmnop9876]

number3 ...... and number 4

Even the none elect have thousands of unmerited blessings .

that's what I thought

When we speak of Unconditional Election, we do not make a reference for any "condition" found within God for who may inquire into the mind of God or ask him what and why? When we speak of Unconditional Election, we are making a reference to the fact that there is nothing about man or any action of man which is a condition for his election by God.

Depending upon how you phrase your definition of love and which verses of Scripture you are discussing, you may or may not be able to say that God loves the non-elect. For example, there is clearly a special and particular sacrificial love bestowed upon those whom the Lord has died to save. He does not love the non-elect in this way.

However, if we define love as a general benevolence and care, then we may say that God loves even those who are his enemies. Many might object to the use of the term love to describe this just as they may object to the use of the term common grace. This doesn't change the fact that there is a general care for the whole world.

my comment is more about the fact that perhaps "unconditional election" is not the best term to use, perhaps a better term could be come up with. but i agree with everything you said.

 

[CCWoody]

my comment is more about the fact that perhaps "unconditional election" is not the best term to use, perhaps a better term could be come up with. but i agree with everything you said.

But only if it makes a cool acrostic like TULIP.

 

[Imblessed]

Having skimmed his posts, choice of cites, & name he has chosen for himself "High Calvinist" you probably need to know that when reading his posts, you most likely are dealing with a Supralapsarian "High Calvinist" that denies common grace (at least by that name) and God's love for the non-elect (at least by that name).

As such, his answers will most likely be quite different that a Calvinist such as myself. (At least they will seem that way.)

Anyway, despite his choice for the AV (I prefer the 1599 Geneva Bible over the AV1611 for the fact that James' authorization of a Bible was in part his dislike for the independent minded Calvinists), I still like his name. Change a letter and number or two and you get my favorite choice in concealed combat weaponry (1911 ACP).

have I ever mentioned how much I love your posts woody? You cheer me up no mattter what!

 

[mlqurgw]

This doesn't change the fact that there is a general care for the whole world.

The question is for whose sake does God generally care for the whole world? I guess you could say that I too am a super because I do not believe that God loves the nonelect nor do I believe in common grace. I do believe that God is longsuffering to the reprobate for the sake of the elect. He gives them the benifits of His care because it serves His purpose for the elect. I don't usually make a big deal of it though and I abhor debates on the order of decrees. I think there are much more important things that need to be proclaimed, such as the Gospel.

 

[CCWoody]

have I ever mentioned how much I love your posts woody? You cheer me up no mattter what!

Thank you. I, too, consider the Semper forum a oasis of Calvinist wine to cheer my heart, in part for reading the thoughts of my brothers AND my sisters like you. Once upon a time not too long ago, it was my only contact with Calvinists.

Funny thing is that I do try to be cheerful around even those who despise our doctrine. Alas, I fail. It is the formal debater in me. I have not yet learned to fully keep my hatchet from over correction and often look across the table and see it buried in the forehead of whoever just made the discussions personal through some nasty remark. Somehow I don't think that is what is meant by "let's bury the hatchet." Oh, well, at least the fly is dead.

 

[CCWoody]

[/font]

The question is for whose sake does God generally care for the whole world? I guess you could say that I too am a super because I do not believe that God loves the nonelect nor do I believe in common grace. I do believe that God is longsuffering to the reprobate for the sake of the elect. He gives them the benifits of His care because it serves His purpose for the elect. I don't usually make a big deal of it though and I abhor debates on the order of decrees. I think there are much more important things that need to be proclaimed, such as the Gospel.

I would say that Superlapsarian, or "high Calvinism" has nothing to do with how we view love for the non-elect or common grace, even if they are generally held by Supra's. I do find the Supra position compelling and a better explaination of Romans 9:11 than the Infralapsarian position, which is why I am not a strict Infralapsarian. But, I don't think that one necessitates the other.

I do note that, even if agape is a noun, Agapate is a verb (present, active, imperative) and is an express command for us to love our enemies as exemplified by the Father's care for his enemies (Matthew 5:44-48). And, I have yet to find an interpretation satisfying enough to make me believe that us doing good, blessing, and praying for our enemies is somehow of a kind different than the Father's caring for his enemies. I mean, we are to be perfect at least in this regard as our Father in heaven.

Perhaps it is from the perspective of our own anthropotic nature we are unable to conceive of a being that is able to love his enemies that he hates, hence our on human imprefection in this regard. But, that would be forcing our own human character and perspective on our reading of the Scriptures. I tend to look at it like this:

1. I am expressly commanded to love my personal enemies.
2. I am given the example to follow in this regard of the Father's general benevolence to all mankind.
3. Regardless my understanding or ability, I don't see this as a difference in kind.
4. So I view this as a true Agapaontas (Present, Active, Participle) of the Father loving his enemies, even if that verb does not appear in the passage noted as directly connected with the Father.

 

[lmnop9876]

But only if it makes a cool acrostic like TULIP.

oh, of course. in that case, we could use something like "unmerited election," or something like that. would that mean the same thing?