Reformed Theology - Question "How Does God Choose?"

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As I understand Reformed Theology God chooses on the basis of what glorifies himself, not on who the person is or on what they will.

 

[Andy centek]

Ignatius:

God choses what ever, whenever, and whatever, He choses to. BUT, what He does is always perfect for the end results. Even Jesus, as perfect as He was to His Father, never took credit.
ONE of the problems as I see it, is that men always desire to put themselves in a position of what God thinks and does.
Can the created say to the creator, I know better?
There are many today however that seem to think that they do. Blessings.

Andy Centek

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

My understanding is that we do not know and don't need to know how God makes his choices of his Elect. I'll be interested to see if others disagree, but I do know that it's a mistake to try to argue that God's foreknowledge determines his picks, i.e. that he predestines people on the basis of what he sees them doing in the future.

Why not? It's not as if God could do away with His foreknowledge while making His choices.

 

[Albion]

Why not? It's not as if God could do away with His foreknowledge while making His choices.

I suppose we could agree to that part about him not doing away with his foreknowledge, but the issue remains the same from what I can tell. That is to say that it is not on account of the supposed worthiness of the person that causes God to reward him with election.

 

[Andy centek]

Why not? It's not as if God could do away with His foreknowledge while making His choices.

 

[Andy centek]

Isa 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I say that this should be the answer to your question. How can one of the created know that which created it?

Andy Centek

 

[Andy centek]

Why not? It's not as if God could do away with His foreknowledge while making His choices.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ignatius:

God choses what ever, whenever, and whatever, He choses to. BUT, what He does is always perfect for the end results. Even Jesus, as perfect as He was to His Father, never took credit.
ONE of the problems as I see it, is that men always desire to put themselves in a position of what God thinks and does.
Can the created say to the creator, I know better?
There are many today however that seem to think that they do. Blessings.

Andy Centek

Be that as it may, it seems the primary motivating factor behind God's decisions is not our wealth-fare but his glory.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Be that as it may, it seems the primary motivating factor behind God's decisions is not our wealth-fare but his glory.

in whose eyes?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Be that as it may, it seems the primary motivating factor behind God's decisions is not our wealth-fare but his glory.

I know some see God this way, but if it means to say that God created man and set in motion all of human history, just for the sake of bolstering Himself in some sense (what exactly is meant by "for His glory"? by those who say so?) ... rather than God having created man out of love, and redeeming him for the same reason.

Not arguing here, but I disagree even with what that seems to make God out to be?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I suppose we could agree to that part about him not doing away with his foreknowledge, but the issue remains the same from what I can tell. That is to say that it is not on account of the supposed worthiness of the person that causes God to reward him with election.

Would you also agree that every "elected" person, in heaven, becomes good and perfect?

 

[Albion]

I think it's safe to say that every mortal who is admitted to heaven is perfected there.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

in whose eyes?

In the eyes of the Reformed it would seem. I don't think I've misrepresented the position of Reformed Churches here in saying that God acts primarily on the basis of what glorifies him. This is why it seems like a belief in double predestination is held, because God's condemning certain people (not for anything they did) contributes his eternal glory. The primary motivating factor is never our agency for what God does in reformed theology but what God desires of us for his uses.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Be that as it may, it seems the primary motivating factor behind God's decisions is not our wealth-fare but his glory.

That would not be consistent with the idea that God is Love.

 

[Albion]

Not necessarily. After all, we cannot say that for God to be loving he has to let his sin-dimmed creatures do whatever they want to do.

I've heard people who argued that way, saying that if he doesn't simply give everything to everyone at all times, with no exceptions, he cannot be a God of Love, but most people realize that this isn't actually the definition of Love.

 

[Radagast]

Based on the known traits, what do reformed folks believe is the criteria for God's choosing who He will save?

We do not know, and we cannot know.

 

[ezra932]

Thank you for asking. I am Reformed, to help in your quest for an answer, I searched and found an article from Pastor Sam Storms on crossway.org that I recommend HERE. If I get more time, I may attempt a personalized, but partial answer.

not to bad but the die hard calvinist in carm would have a massive stroke over those answers

 

[ezra932]

Thank you for asking. I am Reformed, to help in your quest for an answer, I searched and found an article from Pastor Sam Storms on crossway.org that I recommend HERE. If I get more time, I may attempt a personalized, but partial answer.

the argument i get is on 2peter 3 not willing any should perish ,but all come to repentance..the word all does not mean all. hmmmm if i say ya all come that is a open invite to who ever hears or reads... it does not mean all will come .but my hat is off to pastor sam for his explanation

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

not to bad but the die hard calvinist in carm would have a massive stroke over those answers

Matt Slick? I've always respected and appreciated him, not that I've always been in one hundred percent agreement with him about everything, or we may even agree in conclusion but I might not agree with how he arrives at a conclusion, or how something is explained, but that's alright, there is room for disagreements, and we all struggle with error and inconsistency and more.

 

[ezra932]

Matt Slick? I've always respected and appreciated him, not that I've always been in one hundred percent agreement with him about everything, or we may even agree in conclusion but I might not agree with how he arrives at a conclusion, or how something is explained, but that's alright, there is room for disagreements, and we all struggle with error and inconsistency and more.

not so much slick but the posters there is some real die hard calvinist ..they will come right out and call you a false teacher believing in free will.. in fact while the pastor did not use freewill terms he came really close another subject that gives them heart burn is children going to heaven /infants .i dont post in there a whole lot . usually ends end very heated