• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What’s the beef with non-Calvinists concerning election????

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals

Which is why I qualified my first post by stating that we should stay on SE on NOT go to the other four points, which apparently is hard for those of RT to so seeing as it is an all encompassing dogma.
Yes the key word you voiced is IMO, and as I said I prefer God Word to man's opinion.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals

Not really...I did read your thread and did qualify my opening response.
I always address this issue when it comes up as I believe it is harmful to those that accept it and Paul admonishes us all to come against false teaching. No offence, but I think you are very naïve if you think you can get people to leave it alone....those who view it was wring will not leave it.
I am neither confused nor offended. I am more than resolute, and have been for all of my 43 years as a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Freegace2 said,
"I am interested in the verses that clearly teach that one is elected before they believe. btw, Eph 1:4 (the usual proof text) actually refutes that notion. The "us" is a reference to believers. That's who is elected".

You'll likely want to just debate these things over and over agian challenging everyone to come up with a magic bullet that teaches SE. It's been done here by others and I probably couldn't add to that debate.

To me it comes down to you and those who believe like you playing word game frankly. You end up presenting a concept like; Joe Brown is mayor. Based on the fact that he is mayor I will elect him mayor. He will then be considered elected after he was mayor. No one can prove that he was elected mayor before he became mayor. Therefore I will say that he is only the "elect" because he has entered the mayoral office.

Sorry, but if words mean anything at all this is silly. It is silly in the above example and it is silly when discussing the elect in scripture. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that. And challenges to prove that it is silly by a particular verse won't make it any less silly when I won't play those word games. I don't claim to be a Greek scholar. But a little common sense can go a long way in theology IMO.


Freegrace said,
"So what's the problem? Only Calvinism has the problem with evil. For non Calvinists, the issue is easily solved with man's freedom to choose and think freely, AND being held accountable for his free actions."

I don't see the problem of evil being solved by free choice at all. (Even if it was - free choice is not a doctrine that I deny).

If God looked ahead and saw that some would exercise freechoice and end up in Hell, and created them anyway that's no kind of solution as to why He is good for doing it. He was supremely happy being God before doing these things and He could have chosen not to do them and cause all this pain. The problem remains whether you use a Calvinist model or a free grace model or an Arminian model.


Freegrace said,
"So, what would those big issues be?".......

'd be very interested to see what the free grace tensions are, in your opinion. Because I can't think of any. Really.

Please refer to my other posts including my original. I'm running out of steam. Add a few more issues if you will.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I did NOT say man did, and obviously Jesus recognized the good that men are capable of, as he pointed it out. Maybe you should pray about it an query your savior?

So man doesn't prepare his own heart, but Jesus recognized good that men are capable of? Seems a bit of a contradiction there.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married

Your admission that you read and understood where I was wanting to go with the conversation in this thread is a very clear illustration of what my issue is with the fixation on SE. You knew where I wanted to go in the conversation. You purposefully channeled the conversation to the old debate on election that we have seen virtually every thread in soteriology end up being.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that it was just my fault in the titling of this thread. I see now that it wasn't just that. It was your absolute unwillingness to leave it alone that was the problem. It was intentional after all.

You and others seem to think that the Calvinist's view of election is the biggest issue in scripture. I disagree.

I'm pretty resolute myself. I believe that Arminian/feegrace theology is harmful as well. People will just have to determine for themselves which system they think is most harmful.

I believe that to allow for your theology requires a complete suspension of agreement with the scriptures concerning the very nature of God and His sovereign providential control over His creation. I'm not a complete "Calvinist" as some define Calvinism. But I think that most Calvinists feel that way as well even if they don't put it quite that strongly.

Here we stand brother! No wonder these things are so thorny.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
My head is spinning!

They tell me that there have been a couple of physicists who went crazy thinking about infinity. I suspect they were well on their way before they got to thinking about infinity. But the subject of time is a heavy thing to think about as are other aspects of an "infinite" God.

Of course we know that God isn't bound by time. But He is and always has been able to think in time relationships. He is also the one who uses terms like; "in the beginning", "before the foundation of the world",and such.

The very use of the terms pre-destination and foreknowledge shows the concept of an even that took place (or is it is taking place???) one before the other.

I believe it is clear that (to use anthropomorphic terminology) there was a time when God had not created anything and a time after He created them. That includes folks who will eventually end up in Hell. He didn't need to do it. He could have done an "infinite" number of other things and "chose" not to do them but do this thing instead.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My intent was to find some way to get the non-Calvinist camp to quit railing against Calvinism constantly. The same arguments are stated over and over again.
My argument against the Calvinist definition of election is that it is not supported by Scripture, which I clearly demonstrated in a previous post.

The Calvinist see the other guys redefining predestination and election because they don't like them.
The real issue is that Calvinism has "redefined" them. No one is either predestinated to salvation or elected to salvation. Believers are predestinated to conform to the image of the Son, and believers are elected to special privilege and service.


Eph 1:4 is very clear. The "us" refers to believers; Paul and his audience, which includes ALL believers, by extension. That's who God elected in eternity past: believers. And the verse specifically tells us to WHAT God has elected believers for: to be holy and blameless. That's part of our expected service.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Seems you've just dodged my request. I asked for verses that actually state what election is: that God chooses who will believe, as that is the logical conclusion of the RT view of election. For God to choose who will be saved, He must also by (RT) definition choose who will believe, and then He regenerates them so they will believe. Where is that verse?

To me it comes down to you and those who believe like you playing word game frankly.
What words have I been playing with?

This is nonsense and I reject this mischaracterization of my view. I don't believe that even an idiot would make this kind of claim. So your charge is false.

Sorry, but if words mean anything at all this is silly. It is silly in the above example and it is silly when discussing the elect in scripture.
I agree that the example was way more than just silly. Nonsense. But I've given a clear definition of election and you've done nothing to refute any of it from Scripture. Will that refutation be coming?

No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that.
I'm neither playing with words or engaged in any kind of gymnastics. I am challenging the RT view of election, which I do not find anywhere in Scripture.

And challenges to prove that it is silly by a particular verse won't make it any less silly when I won't play those word games. I don't claim to be a Greek scholar. But a little common sense can go a long way in theology IMO.
The first thing that is necessary if one is going to use any common sense is to find verses or passages that actually say what they claim.

Your opinion is noted. It's still wrong, though.

Free will and accountability solves the "problem" of evil completely. Since Calvinism cannot stand behind free will, it cannot provide any solution for the problem, and its position makes God the 'first cause' of all sin and evil, which I believe is blasphemous.

Just as no auto maker is the cause of one's personal choices about how they drive their car, so God is NOT the cause of how anyone makes their own choices.

If God looked ahead and saw that some would exercise freechoice and end up in Hell, and created them anyway that's no kind of solution as to why He is good for doing it.
The error here is seen in your phrase "if God looked ahead". Since God is omniscient, He doesn't look ahead. He already knows. In fact, He has always known.

What Calvinists keep rejecting (or just not comprehending) is the fact that by providing the solution to sin (Christ's death on the cross for all men), He demonstrates His perfect and unlimited love for all His creatures. Even the ones who will reject His love. For some reason, RT just can't fathom that kind of love.

He was supremely happy being God before doing these things and He could have chosen not to do them and cause all this pain.
This is irrelevant and hypothetical. Let's just stick with "what is", not "what if".

The problem remains whether you use a Calvinist model or a free grace model or an Arminian model.
By rejecting (or not comprehending the free grace model) one cannot realize that there is no problem.

How does a problem remain with free will to choose and being responsible for all choices? Please explain this.

I hope you're kidding. I'm not going to wade through pages of threads trying to find what you may be referring to. If you can explain tensions in free grace, just go ahead and do it.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I believe that Arminian/feegrace theology is harmful as well.
I'm very interested in specifically what was meant by "free grace theology is harmful as well". Harmful in what way, specifically? Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals


Your expectation that people will leave it alone is a tad disingenuous to say the least. If that was really your intent then you should have posted in the RT or the Monergistic Safe House.

When you feel like actually debating the scripture and what it does convey, feel free to do so and let me know.

I spend the least amount of my online time on this thread, so no I don't, but it is a big issue. Sounds like you have become tired of defending it?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This is for no one in particular.

My not providing a scripture that we can dissect here concerning SE isn't for lack of scriptures. It's just that they have all been trotted out by the Calvinists over and over again. Someone then trots out their explanation of how they only refer to service, the fine differences of election vs. choosing etc. etc. etc. In some of these cases it is all very unique and clever. It's even got me investigating my beliefs at times. That's a good thing IMO.

But why should we retry the case again and again and again. I invite everyone here to look through the soteriology forum and look at it from both sides. My lack of wanting to debate the issue in great detail is just because everyone has heard it all before. I'd like to cut a little new ground if possible.

Say what you will about it. Everyone here can assume what they want about what my arguments might be. You will probably be right in 80% of it. Everyone can assume what others would say in rebuttal. They'd probably be right in at least 80% of their assumptions.

The charge is made again and again, "You can't prove that." Let's hear it one more time and then leave it alone please.

I can almost hear the come back to why saying let's leave it alone is not being guided by scripture or being afraid to debate from scripture only- just going on my opinion etc. . Let's hear that also. Why not?

Then maybe we cut a little new ground.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I'm very interested in specifically what was meant by "free grace theology is harmful as well". Harmful in what way, specifically? Thanks.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Lets just include any other limited sovereinty person (LIKE stan1953) here in that question - not just you FG2. It'll cover more ground.

It's simply that your view of the lack of sovereignty concerning everything that happens seems close to another view of God than what I believe the scriptures teach.

The idea that God isn't involved fully in both evil and good and has relinquished control of anything at all is a dangerous false view of God in my view. I find it much more troubling than a doctrine like election could ever be.

The fact that the majority of Christianity now believes in a non sovereign God tells me nothing about the truth of the matter. The scriptures teach us about a totally sovereign God.

You and others charge over and over that I can't believe in free will and still believe in a sovereign God. That simply isn't true. God's sovereignty and my free will are totally compatible. Saying otherwise is a straw man it seems to me.

My free will and God's sovereignty work together. This seems like basic Christianity 101 to me. Leave that truth out of any theology concerning soteriology or anything else and you've distorted scripture badly. Your theology is bound to be off as it is in the case of all limited sovereignty proponents here on the forum.
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals

I have a very good handle on the issue of SE or Sovereignty of God. My intent was to deal with the former, but I'm more than willing to address the later.

Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I have a very good handle on the issue of SE or Sovereignty of God. My intent was to deal with the former, but I'm more than willing to address the later.

Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. (Ephesians 6:11-13 ESV)

It's a command from God. I'm not sure how you don't see God's sovereignty here.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,454
✟92,138.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Where exactly does God's Sovereignty fit into Eph 6:11-13?
Ephesians 6:1-13 "Put on the full armor of god, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm."

As I said, we are dealing here with the most basic of Biblical principles. Many of them are simply put on the shelf and out of sight by some when they consider salvation in all of it's aspects. That includes our activities leading up to and including our most basic Christian endeavors.

I was taught early on to cement certain Biblical truths concerning the nature of God and His relationship with the creation in my theology. Only then could I safely forge ahead into the more intricate considerations of theology.

Working out salvation (of which the above Eph. scripture is a part) is Him working in us first and foremost.

Philippians 2:12-13 "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

Our works are His works. Overcoming in spiritual battle is part of the works He is doing through us."

Ephesians 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them."

Consider also some of the most basic of Biblical concepts concerning the omni-present, upholding providence of God in everything in His creation including our brains and tongues.

Colossians 1:16-17 "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
 
Upvote 0

stan1953

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2012
3,278
64
Calgary, Alberta
✟3,901.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals

This did not address my question. What is this saying about your previous statement about the Sovereignty of God? Why do we need to put on armour if God is in control of this world?
You said:
The idea that God isn't involved fully in both evil and good and has relinquished control of anything at all is a dangerous false view of God in my view. I find it much more troubling than a doctrine like election could ever be.
Obviously Paul teaches in Eph 6, that God has relinquished control to;
"the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms", if WE have to struggle against them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
This did not address my question. What is this saying about your previous statement about the Sovereignty of God? Why do we need to put on armour if God is in control of this world?

How does one grow in strength except through exercise and struggle?

Obviously Paul teaches in Eph 6, that god has relinquished control to: 'the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms', if WE have to struggle against them.
God has not relinquished anything. What would make you say such a thing? God allows these intermediate forces for the purpose of accomplishing His Will in the world, fallen though it is. Our struggle against them is not because God has abdicated (which is what you imply), but because strength is built through resistance, struggle, and hardships. Otherwise we'd all be namby-pamby, weak, limp-wristed, milque-toast christians afraid of their own shadows, and wholly unfit for any use in the Kingdom.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I didn't.
I kinda thought the same thing. Isnt this taken to be instruction? And by whom? Sovereignty isnt exclusive of everything done, it is rule over what is done.

Were these the armor suggestions of God?

Now I guess we are on a hunt for suggestions and noncommittalness in Scripture, likemaybe Paul on whether to get married? Would that indicate lack of sovereignty, or diversity of roles in life?
 
Upvote 0