What are implications of unconditional election?

[mcarans]

This post asks questions about certain Calvinist doctrines.

If God chooses those to be saved based solely on His will, the implication is that He chooses those He won't save (based solely on His will). Is that correct?

The elect cannot lose their salvation. Is it also the case that the unsaved cannot lose their damnation?

It is stated that the elect cannot resist God’s call to salvation. Are the unsaved "called to damnation" or just not called?

 

[Hammster]

For sake of argument, and so that we can cut to the chase and get to your actual argument, I’ll say yes, yes, and not called.

 

[mcarans]

For sake of argument, and so that we can cut to the chase and get to your actual argument, I’ll say yes, yes, and not called.

"if you say something for the sake of argument, what you say may not be true but it will help you to have a discussion". (Longman)

Are the answers you gave true to the best of your knowledge?

 

[Hammster]

"if you say something for the sake of argument, what you say may not be true but it will help you to have a discussion". (Longman)

Are the answers you gave true to the best of your knowledge?

Is this how this is going to go? I answer, and every time you’ll ask me I think it’s true?

I know you have a point, so let’s get to it.

 

[mcarans]

Lol Believe it or not I am genuinely trying to get straight answers to those questions from a Calvinist.

I am guessing that the reason many don't want to give straight answers is either because the implications challenge them or make them uncomfortable, or maybe because they don't really believe it deep down, or perhaps because they are not completely sure that they are one of the elect.

 

[Pneuma3]

Lol Believe it or not I am genuinely trying to get straight answers to those questions from a Calvinist.

I am guessing that the reason many don't want to give straight answers is either because the implications challenge them or make them uncomfortable, or maybe because they don't really believe it deep down, or perhaps because they are not completely sure that they are one of the elect.

he gave you straight answers. yes, yes and not called.

 

[Hammster]

Lol Believe it or not I am genuinely trying to get straight answers to those questions from a Calvinist.

I am guessing that the reason many don't want to give straight answers is either because the implications challenge them or make them uncomfortable, or maybe because they don't really believe it deep down, or perhaps because they are not completely sure that they are one of the elect.

I gave straight answers. I’m not challenged. I believe them. I’m not uncomfortable with them. And I’m sure.

Two reasons I answered the way I did. One, I know you have a point to make, so let’s get to it. And two, i answers the way I did because you asked three questions, and to give more detailed answers would lead to a longer post, which then you’d respond to with even a longer post, and then I’d reply. Etc. And since there were three questions, it would be crazy long.

So again, I know you have a point. I know you’re not a fan of Calvinism. So let’s get on with it.

 

[bcbsr]

This post asks questions about certain Calvinist doctrines.

If God chooses those to be saved based solely on His will, the implication is that He chooses those He won't save (based solely on His will). Is that correct?

The elect cannot lose their salvation. Is it also the case that the unsaved cannot lose their damnation?

It is stated that the elect cannot resist God’s call to salvation. Are the unsaved "called to damnation" or just not called?

Calvinism is a puppet theology. The implications of Calvinism is that people are mere puppets devoid of free will, and that being the case when people sin it's God who has programmed them to sin, and yet blames them. If a person is reckoned guilty of that which he has no control over, that is kind of the definition of injustice. And Calvinism confirms this with their imputed guilt idea concerning people being held guilty of the sins of their ancestors.

Their justification for God doing such things is that people are merely inanimate objects (mere pottery). God throwing people into hell is not a matter of justice, but rather as one would throw away a piece of pottery or a doll. Jonathan Edwards, in his Calvinist sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" implied as much as he gave the illustration of man being like a spider one dangles over the fire. Not a matter of justice to throw a spider into the fire.

 

[mcarans]

Their justification for God doing such things is that people are merely inanimate objects (mere pottery). God throwing people into hell is not a matter of justice, but rather as one would throw away a piece of pottery or a doll.

That seems to be a reasonable expression of the Calvinist view.

I gave straight answers.

So again, I know you have a point. I know you’re not a fan of Calvinism. So let’s get on with it.

Thank you for your straight answers. Why do you think God created humans?

 

[Pneuma3]

Calvinism is a puppet theology. The implications of Calvinism is that people are mere puppets devoid of free will, and that being the case when people sin it's God who has programmed them to sin, and yet blames them. If a person is reckoned guilty of that which he has no control over, that is kind of the definition of injustice. And Calvinism confirms this with their imputed guilt idea concerning people being held guilty of the sins of their ancestors.

Their justification for God doing such things is that people are merely inanimate objects (mere pottery). God throwing people into hell is not a matter of justice, but rather as one would throw away a piece of pottery or a doll. Jonathan Edwards, in his Calvinist sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" implied as much as he gave the illustration of man being like a spider one dangles over the fire. Not a matter of justice to throw a spider into the fire.

it is also a theology of segregation, and we all should be aware by now what that leads to.

 

[Albion]

This post asks questions about certain Calvinist doctrines.

If God chooses those to be saved based solely on His will, the implication is that He chooses those He won't save (based solely on His will). Is that correct?

Not necessarily. Some people believe in "double predestination", but some believe in "single predestination."

The elect cannot lose their salvation. Is it also the case that the unsaved cannot lose their damnation?

same situation as above.

It is stated that the elect cannot resist God’s call to salvation. Are the unsaved "called to damnation" or just not called?

The latter is the way a believer in single predestination would look at it. But a believer in double predestination, while believing that the uncalled person is doomed would say that it is not simply because God scorned him for no apparent reason, but that his loss is because of his sins.

In other words, all of us would be deserving of eternal life if we kept the law perfectly, but of course no one can do that, which is why God, of his mercy, sent a Savior to be sacrificed for us.

 

[Hammster]

That seems to be a reasonable expression of the Calvinist view.



Thank you for your straight answers. Why do you think God created humans?

Edit

For His glory. Is that what this thread is about?

 

[~Zao~]

Lol Believe it or not I am genuinely trying to get straight answers to those questions from a Calvinist.

I am guessing that the reason many don't want to give straight answers is either because the implications challenge them or make them uncomfortable, or maybe because they don't really believe it deep down, or perhaps because they are not completely sure that they are one of the elect.

Especially when one is saying that the damned cannot be saved unless they'r on some list of 144,000 is what I'm hearing you saying.

 

[Albion]

Calvinism is a puppet theology. The implications of Calvinism is that people are mere puppets devoid of free will, and that being the case when people sin it's God who has programmed them to sin, and yet blames them.

That's a popular, if incorrect, perception about predestination. It is the eternal destiny of the person that is "pre-destined" or predetermined, not his favorite color, choice of whopper vs big mac for lunch today, whether to shoplift or to resist the urge, etc.

 

[mcarans]

Edit

For His glory. Is that what this thread is about?

If a father has 10 children and treats 2 of them well and the other 8 terribly, then we wouldn't use the term "loving" to describe that father. If God is as described in Calvinism, then He is not loving. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Albion]

If a father has 10 children and treats 2 of them well and the other 8 terribly, then we wouldn't use the term "loving" to describe that father. If God is as described in Calvinism, then He is not loving. Is that a fair statement?

Predestination is not about how God treats anybody. Some are destined to salvation; others are not. The ones who are not aren't sent somewhere in the afterlife that they don't otherwise deserve. It is on that point where most critics of predestination stumble.

 

[Hammster]

If a father has 10 children and treats 2 of them well and the other 8 terribly, then we wouldn't use the term "loving" to describe that father. If God is as described in Calvinism, then He is not loving. Is that a fair statement?

That’s not how God is described in Calvinism. That’s a straw man.

 

[mcarans]

Predestination is not about how God treats anybody. Some are destined to salvation; others are not. The ones who are not aren't sent somewhere in the afterlife that they don't otherwise deserve. It is on that point where most critics of predestination stumble.

Did the all powerful God of Calvinism plan that humanity would be fallen?

That’s not how God is described in Calvinism. That’s a straw man.

You mean that in Calvinism God is not described as loving?

 

[Hammster]

You mean that in Calvinism God is not described as loving?

Yes. He loves His people. He loves His sheep. He loves His children.

 

[mcarans]

Yes. He loves His people. He loves His sheep. He loves His children.

Who are His children? The elect or everyone?