Question on the perspective of God as a result of Calvinist doctrine

[bercawc]

Hello. Brand new to the forum. I’ve been looking into Calvinism and its five points and was curious to hear from self-described Calvinists on some of my conclusions. In a brief browse of the forum I see that there are several lengthy threads on the first page alone debating/discussing one or more of the points and in attempt to not rehash old ground, I won’t begin with something along those lines – although I suspect such a thing is inevitable in the course of this thread.

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21). Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will. To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity. Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello. Brand new to the forum. I’ve been looking into Calvinism and its five points and was curious to hear from self-described Calvinists on some of my conclusions. In a brief browse of the forum I see that there are several lengthy threads on the first page alone debating/discussing one or more of the points and in attempt to not rehash old ground, I won’t begin with something along those lines – although I suspect such a thing is inevitable in the course of this thread.

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate.

Or, this;
3._____ By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )
It is known as Preterition.

This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21).

It perfectly aligns with all God's Holy attributes. If you are really going to take a look, do not solve the puzzle until you consider all the pieces of the theological puzzle.

Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace.

Does this look like force to you?3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses

The God of Calvinism does not do "arbitrary".He has An eternal plan and purpose that he brings to pass without fail. Eph3:9-11

eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will.

Someone has told you many falsehoods. Stick around and we will help you.

To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity.

We need to see the God who has revealed Himself in scripture, not one we invent that we think is attractive.

Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced

That is carnal reasoning, let's try scripture itself.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

No...that is not the view of God that scripture gives.

Welcome to CF,

Here, for you;

Home - Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Mebane

Loving God, one another, and the world through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

vor.org

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Dorothy Mae]

From experience I can tell you they’ll say “its a mystery” which means they refuse to think about it.?

 

[Iconoclast]

From experience I can tell you they’ll say “its a mystery” which means they refuse to think about it.?

Not really

 

[bercawc]

Iconoclast – I appreciate the response. Truly. I know it takes effort and valuable time to write something so thank you for that - especially considering it being a response to a complete stranger’s question.

I’m going to revisit my OP goal hopefully worded better and with a little more context and I’ll start with a full disclosure type statement – I don’t believe any of the five points of Calvinism. For almost 40 years I’ve believed in “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” This is the gospel I see in scripture - open and available freely to anyone who will accept God’s gracious gift of their own free will through faith in Christ. So rather than debate whether the five points are scriptural, my question came from a curiosity standpoint of Calvinists believe the TULIP points to be true so in what ways might belief in those teachings affect their faith/walk? Do they feel similarly as I do about God, about holiness, about evangelism? or do our soteriological differences take us to different places?

The points that most interested me are the ones I mentioned in my OP - Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. So assuming for argument’s sake TULIP is true - God preselected specific individuals for salvation. Then through Preterition I guess it’s called, those not chosen are left to continue to act in their sin to their just condemnation with absolutely no hope or chance of redemption. That fate would be true of the elect too if God had not chosen them. So what I meant when I said that I don’t believe this to be consistent with a loving or just God is that the elect did nothing to warrant being elected – no repentance, no humbling of the will, or crying out to the Lord. God is the only catalyst in the equation. So condemning the unelect when they have neither opportunity nor ability to be redeemed while bestowing eternal life upon the elect when they have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the unelect is unloving (showing preferential treatment/bias) and treating these two groups differently while they were in fact once the same is unjust.

Then my other point was Irresistible Grace. Iconoclast – you didn’t agree with my use of the word “forces” in describing God giving faith to the elect to obtain grace but I’m not sure how else to define something that is ‘Irresistible’. If it cannot be resisted it is being forced upon you. You pointed out Psalm 110:3 and I agree. I don’t believe God operates in this ‘Irresistible’ way, overriding man’s free will in order to receive salvation. I’m proceeding based upon what the TULIP point itself states though.

And if I’m wrong on what these points teach please explain.

So then, some questions – and genuinely from a curiosity standpoint because I believe I would think about these things if I believed TULIP.

Everyone please feel free to answer whichever one(s) you are willing to

Is there any validity to my proposal that Unconditional Election is not just? Why or why not?​

Do any of you worry/struggle with whether you are truly among the elect or not? What about whether your friends are? Your family?​

What is your view of the unelect? Do you feel sorry for them or is their condemnation justified?​

Does Unconditional Election remove your sense of urgency and purpose in spreading the gospel and evangelizing?​

Believing that you didn’t truly choose God on your own, that He caused you to believe through Irresistible Grace – does that diminish the sense of your faith being your own? i.e. would I have chosen God if I was able to choose?​

 

[Hopeful]

Hello. Brand new to the forum. I’ve been looking into Calvinism and its five points and was curious to hear from self-described Calvinists on some of my conclusions. In a brief browse of the forum I see that there are several lengthy threads on the first page alone debating/discussing one or more of the points and in attempt to not rehash old ground, I won’t begin with something along those lines – although I suspect such a thing is inevitable in the course of this thread.

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21). Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will. To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity. Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

Welcome to the site.
Your questions are good ones.
I do not adhere to Calvinism's doctrines.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast – I appreciate the response. Truly. I know it takes effort and valuable time to write something so thank you for that - especially considering it being a response to a complete stranger’s question.

okay

I’m going to revisit my OP goal hopefully worded better and with a little more context and I’ll start with a full disclosure type statement – I don’t believe any of the five points of Calvinism.

I knew this when I read your first post.

For almost 40 years I’ve believed in “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Calvinists believe all these verses. [except "the sins of" are added, they are not in the text.

This is the gospel I see in scripture - open and available freely to anyone who will accept

The problem is this person does not exist. No one accepts anything, and that language is not biblical at all. Men cannot welcome such truth.

God’s gracious gift of their own free will

free will does not exist, except in philosophy...not in the bible. Men have self will which is bound by sin.

through faith in Christ. So rather than debate whether the five points are scriptural, my question came from a curiosity standpoint of Calvinists believe the TULIP points to be true so in what ways might belief in those teachings affect their faith/walk?

It is totally comforting and exciting to be a part of evangelism of the unsaved knowing God has chosen to save a multitude of sinners ,in Jesus.

Do they feel similarly as I do about God, about holiness, about evangelism? or do our soteriological differences take us to different places?

No...we are all about it.

The points that most interested me are the ones I mentioned in my OP - Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. So assuming for argument’s sake TULIP is true - God preselected specific individuals for salvation. Then through Preterition I guess it’s called, those not chosen are left to continue to act in their sin to their just condemnation with absolutely no hope or chance of redemption. That fate would be true of the elect too if God had not chosen them.

God was serious when He explained to Adam, dying thou shalt surely die. Adam fell into sin and death.

So what I meant when I said that I don’t believe this to be consistent with a loving or just God

Why do you say this? God is perfect and all knowing. Do you believe Jonah when he declared salvation is of the Lord?

is that the elect did nothing to warrant being elected – no repentance, no humbling of the will, or crying out to the Lord.

Salvation is not of man, or his will. jn1;
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I am pretty sure you think it is,but it is not so.

God is the only catalyst in the equation. So condemning the unelect when they have neither opportunity nor ability to be redeemed while bestowing eternal life upon the elect when they have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the unelect is unloving (showing preferential treatment/bias) and treating these two groups differently while they were in fact once the same is unjust.

It is pure mercy if God saves only one person. We are all guilty and deserve hell.
The fact is our all knowing God has purposed to save all He can save in His Holy Omniscience.
Do you question God's wisdom in this? Do you want to blame God for mans sin and guilt?

Then my other point was Irresistible Grace. Iconoclast – you didn’t agree with my use of the word “forces” in describing God giving faith to the elect to obtain grace but I’m not sure how else to define something that is ‘Irresistible’. If it cannot be resisted it is being forced upon you. You pointed out Psalm 110:3 and I agree.

okay.

I don’t believe God operates in this ‘Irresistible’ way, overriding man’s free will in order to receive salvation. I’m proceeding based upon what the TULIP point itself states though.

It is exactly what Jesus taught in jn 6:37-44....... I believe what Jesus taught, and recommend you believe Jesus also

And if I’m wrong on what these points teach please explain.

So then, some questions – and genuinely from a curiosity standpoint because I believe I would think about these things if I believed TULIP.

Everyone please feel free to answer whichever one(s) you are willing to

Is there any validity to my proposal that Unconditional Election is not just? Why or why not?​

No, blaming God or saying He is not fair, are the same objections Paul condemned in Romans 9.
Scripture is not a poll question, or a multiple choice. I suggest you believe what it teaches.

Do any of you worry/struggle with whether you are truly among the elect or not? What about whether your friends are? Your family?​

What is your view of the unelect? Do you feel sorry for them or is their condemnation justified?​

Does Unconditional Election remove your sense of urgency and purpose in spreading the gospel and evangelizing?​

Believing that you didn’t truly choose God on your own, that He caused you to believe through Irresistible Grace – does that diminish the sense of your faith being your own? i.e. would I have chosen God if I was able to choose?​

useless speculation, just trust what God declares in scripture.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Iconoclast – I appreciate the response. Truly. I know it takes effort and valuable time to write something so thank you for that - especially considering it being a response to a complete stranger’s question.

I’m going to revisit my OP goal hopefully worded better and with a little more context and I’ll start with a full disclosure type statement – I don’t believe any of the five points of Calvinism. For almost 40 years I’ve believed in “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” This is the gospel I see in scripture - open and available freely to anyone who will accept God’s gracious gift of their own free will through faith in Christ. So rather than debate whether the five points are scriptural, my question came from a curiosity standpoint of Calvinists believe the TULIP points to be true so in what ways might belief in those teachings affect their faith/walk? Do they feel similarly as I do about God, about holiness, about evangelism? or do our soteriological differences take us to different places?

The points that most interested me are the ones I mentioned in my OP - Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. So assuming for argument’s sake TULIP is true - God preselected specific individuals for salvation. Then through Preterition I guess it’s called, those not chosen are left to continue to act in their sin to their just condemnation with absolutely no hope or chance of redemption. That fate would be true of the elect too if God had not chosen them. So what I meant when I said that I don’t believe this to be consistent with a loving or just God is that the elect did nothing to warrant being elected – no repentance, no humbling of the will, or crying out to the Lord. God is the only catalyst in the equation. So condemning the unelect when they have neither opportunity nor ability to be redeemed while bestowing eternal life upon the elect when they have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the unelect is unloving (showing preferential treatment/bias) and treating these two groups differently while they were in fact once the same is unjust.

Then my other point was Irresistible Grace. Iconoclast – you didn’t agree with my use of the word “forces” in describing God giving faith to the elect to obtain grace but I’m not sure how else to define something that is ‘Irresistible’. If it cannot be resisted it is being forced upon you. You pointed out Psalm 110:3 and I agree. I don’t believe God operates in this ‘Irresistible’ way, overriding man’s free will in order to receive salvation. I’m proceeding based upon what the TULIP point itself states though.

And if I’m wrong on what these points teach please explain.

So then, some questions – and genuinely from a curiosity standpoint because I believe I would think about these things if I believed TULIP.

Everyone please feel free to answer whichever one(s) you are willing to

Is there any validity to my proposal that Unconditional Election is not just? Why or why not?​

Unconditional election is deeply unjust as it is based on nothing righteous.

Do any of you worry/struggle with whether you are truly among the elect or not?​

Never

What about whether your friends are? Your family?​

Worry? No. Pray for them? Yes, the ones who are not believers and even they say this is the case.

What is your view of the unelect? Do you feel sorry for them or is their condemnation justified?​

Where are the "unelect" described in the Bible. Never heard that term. You made that up?

Does Unconditional Election remove your sense of urgency and purpose in spreading the gospel and evangelizing?​

For those who believe it, of course. The rational reason to spread the gospel is gone.

Believing that you didn’t truly choose God on your own, that He caused you to believe through Irresistible Grace – does that diminish the sense of your faith being your own?​

Well, faith is not our own if God did it all. But who thinks their faith is their own anyway? Why is this even an issue? What difference does it make?

i.e. would I have chosen God if I was able to choose?​

I am able to choose and I chose HIm. And the better I got to know Him, the stronger the attachment.

 

[Iconoclast]

Many have a blame God theology which is temporary

 

[brightfame52]

bercawc

Then through Preterition I guess it’s called, those not chosen are left to continue to act in their sin to their just condemnation with absolutely no hope or chance of redemption

Correct but preterition is too soft, it denotes God as being passive, but God was and is active in the Just condemnation of the Non Elect, the damnation of the Non elect was just as much an active decree of God as is the decree of Election.

It was God who made [created some people as Vessels of Mercy [Salvation] and some vessels of wrath and He fits them for destruction. Rom 9:20-23

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

[Fastfredy0]

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21).

Not sure why you think God is unjust. People sin and God punishes them. He is not obligated to be merciful.
God is love. Love is a Bond of Unity (Col 3:14). God loves is proportional to this bond of unity. God the Father loves the Son and the Spirit most as they are one. Those IN CHRIST are also loved due to bond of unity. (see Upper Room Discourse .. you in Me and I in you etc.)
If God have any esteem for His own perfections, He must needs have an implacable aversion to all that is so repugnant to him, that would, if it were possible, destroy him, and is a point directed, not only against his glory, but against his life. If he did not hate it, he would hate himself: for since righteousness is his image, and sin would deface his image; if he did not love his image, and loathe what is against his image, he would loathe himself, he would be an enemy to his own nature. Stephen Charnock

Short answer: one must understand the definition of love as God defines it and then apply it. Few people do so.

Love Defined: God’s love is an passionless, immutable, holy (separated from evil) disposition to favor (goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight, Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor, 1 Corinthians 13:6 Love rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth) according to the ethical loveliness (divine likeness, bond of unity – Colossians 3:14 for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others) of the object; God himself and those “in Christ” being the most lovely

Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will. To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity

I would argue the God does not force the elect to chose Him. He does cause their desire to change such that they willingly chose Him.
I see you don't care for the Reform doctrine of Irresistible Grace. This may be because you have define God as you think He should be instead of reading scripture and finding out what God say He is.
Romans 9;20 Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does the potter not have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump [of clay] one object for honorable use [something beautiful or distinctive] and another for common use [something ordinary or menial]? See, you are the clay telling the potter what to do. It doesn't work that way.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

Not a struggle for me. Read some Systematic Theology books which specialize in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. A lot of free ones on the internet. Read Reform and Arminian versions to get both sides of the picture.

 

[Fastfredy0]

So condemning the unelect when they have neither opportunity nor ability to be redeemed while bestowing eternal life upon the elect when they have done nothing to differentiate themselves from the unelect is unloving (showing preferential treatment/bias) and treating these two groups differently while they were in fact once the same is unjust.

Well, we (Reform perspective can put the shoe on the other foot.
Let's assume your right. Let's assume:
1) Free Will is true (you didn't define it as most refuse to do but let's go with "you can chose A or B with not external influence)
2) God loves everyone equally
3) God would be unjust if he doesn't give everyone an opportunity to use their free will to save themselves.

Now look at empirical evidence.
1) 20 to 40% of people die before age of accountability (still born, abortion, sickness, etc.) ... therefore you should find God unjust as He sends these people to heaven (most people assume they go to heaven, that's debatable) when they didn't have to chose Him like He forces others to do to get to heaven
2) 2 billions people in the world currently never heard of Christ. Most will die in this state and go to Hell because God did not allow them use their free will to believe or not. Therefore, using your logic you find God to be UNLOVING and UNJUST. If you don't find God UNLOVING AND UNJUST you should reject your own doctrine.
3) I could go on... you get the idea. Given your definition of LOVE and JUSTICE one can empirically show that your standards finds God UNLOVING and UNJUST because He does not give everyone the same chance via Free Will to be saved.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello. Brand new to the forum. I’ve been looking into Calvinism and its five points and was curious to hear from self-described Calvinists on some of my conclusions. In a brief browse of the forum I see that there are several lengthy threads on the first page alone debating/discussing one or more of the points and in attempt to not rehash old ground, I won’t begin with something along those lines – although I suspect such a thing is inevitable in the course of this thread.

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21). Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will. To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity. Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

People are in bondage to sin. The Holy Spirit frees the person and there’s only one way to go.
God.

 

[jeremiah1five]

PS: free will is an illusion.

 

[bercawc]

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

Calvinists believe all these verses. [except "the sins of" are added, they are not in the text.

I'm not sure I understand your statement that Calvinists believe all these verses. Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement are disproven via those verses as well as manyl others.

John 1:29 "Lamb of God...taketh away the sin of the world"​

John 4:42 "Christ, the Savior of the world"​

2 Cor 5:19 "reconciling the world unto himself"​

I John 4:14 "Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world"​

Isiah 53:6 "And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."​

I Tim 2:6 "who gave himself a ransom for all"​

I Tim 4:10 "We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men,"​

As for "the sins of" being added and not in the text - I dont believe that to be accurate. However, even if it was, the verse still reads "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world."

The problem is this person does not exist. No one accepts anything, and that language is not biblical at all. Men cannot welcome such truth.
free will does not exist, except in philosophy...not in the bible. Men have self will which is bound by sin.

Are you saying that men dont have the free will to choose good? That doesnt align with the Bible (Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. Gen 26:29 That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.) or even with life experience. I know many people who I do not believe are saved but are good moral people, caring for others. So once these people hear the gospel they suddenly lose the ability to consider and choose it on their own?

God was serious when He explained to Adam, dying thou shalt surely die. Adam fell into sin and death.

I agree. Adam sinned and therefore death passed to all men - a level playing field with all in need of redemption -

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Why do you say this? God is perfect and all knowing. Do you believe Jonah when he declared salvation is of the Lord?

I'm not denying that God is perfect and all knowing. I believe that he absolutely is. He can be those things and offer salvation to all men freely. Everyone gets an opporuntity to accept or reject him. That is loving and just.
Yes I believe Jonah - Salvation is of the Lord. If we look at salvation as a gift, it being from the Lord doesnt mean that he guides your hands and causes you to accept it and unwrap it. He can offer it to you for you to choose to accept or reject and it is still of the Lord - He is the source.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I am pretty sure you think it is,but it is not so.

not of blood - doesnt come from lineage, heritage, like royalty.
nor of the will of the flesh - doesnt come from self improvement, effort, works, discipline, as in "by force of will"
nor of the will of man - not forced upon you by governments, church leadership, chosen for you by others, etc.
but of God - absolutely! He bestows it when we surrender our own self will you described earlier and humbly believe the gospel as the only way out of our sin predicament.

It is pure mercy if God saves only one person. We are all guilty and deserve hell.
The fact is our all knowing God has purposed to save all He can save in His Holy Omniscience.

Yes saving any is merciful. But God is merciful AND just. Saving some and not others is not just. Take an earthly judge - would we honor one as a fair judge who when presented with two identical defendents, both unquestionably guilty of the same capital crime, and neither has shown remorse or regret, he pardons one and executes the other?

As for saving all He can save - if TULIP is true, why wouldn't God just elect all, die for all, and apply irresistible grace to all? Why limit who he saves? The Bible says he wants to save them all. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Do you question God's wisdom in this? Do you want to blame God for mans sin and guilt?

I'm questioning Calvinist doctrine. Not God's wisdom.

It is exactly what Jesus taught in jn 6:37-44....... I believe what Jesus taught, and recommend you believe Jesus also

John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

I'd recommend being careful here. This passage has a very Jewish, nation of Israel, context and is precrucifixion. It is not yet the age of church age salvation. Applying it as the way men come to salvation today is dangerous.​

I would also note that "drawing" someone is not "compelling" or "coercing" as in the concept of Irresistible Grace.​

James 4:8 commands to "Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you." We make the first move and God responds to us.​

Lastly, John 12:32-33 says "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die." If we equate "drawing" to Irresistible Grace salvation in chapter 6, we'd have to do it here too and that would mean that all men get saved - which isn't happening. So here in chapter 12, note that Christ draws all men to himself - not God the Father drawing them to Christ as in chapter 6 so they must be speaking of different things. I'd argue that only chapter 12 pertains to the cross and a more obvious salvation context.​

No, blaming God or saying He is not fair, are the same objections Paul condemned in Romans 9.
Scripture is not a poll question, or a multiple choice. I suggest you believe what it teaches.

I'm not blaming God or saying that he is not fair. I'm proposing that the logical conclusion of TULIP doctrine makes the God portrayed by it to be unjust and since that is not how God is described in scripture, that is a point in support of TULIP being unbiblical.

 

[brightfame52]

bercawc​

I would also note that "drawing" someone is not "compelling" or "coercing" as in the concept of Irresistible Grace.

Drawing here in Jn 6:44 and Jn 12:32 is the work of the Spirit in the New Birth, its the commencement of the Salvation experience. Its an inward impelling work of God the Spirit. Its the greek word helkō:

1. o draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel:
3. to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to.

God does compel the regenerate to come,
Lk 14:23
And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

And so drawing is equivalent to what Paul wrote to the Philippians here Phil 1:6

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

So Irresistible grace, effectual call is True !

 

[bercawc]

Correct but preterition is too soft, it denotes God as being passive, but God was and is active in the Just condemnation of the Non Elect, the damnation of the Non elect was just as much an active decree of God as is the decree of Election.

It was God who made [created some people as Vessels of Mercy [Salvation] and some vessels of wrath and He fits them for destruction. Rom 9:20-23

So if I’m understanding your statement correctly, are you saying that God deliberately created sinners for the sole purpose of condemning them to destruction? If so, I’m guessing that doctrine isn’t in bold on the front of the Calvinism brochure - unbelievers struggle enough with God commanding Israel to destroy cities and pagan peoples in the Old Testament. I really hope that I’m misunderstanding your statement. I would consider teaching that God intentionally created sinners solely for the purpose of their destruction to demonstrate his judgment to be blasphemous.

As for the passage you cited in support of that – Romans 9:20-23, as I stated in an earlier post, Chapter 9 is dealing with the history of Israel as a nation. The clay is Israel (Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.) In Jeremiah 18 the depiction of Israel as the clay and God the potter appears again.

1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. 11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. 12 And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.

Clearly, God has set a choice in front of Israel – obey him or reject him – and he made it clear that his actions toward them would depend upon their choice. At this time in their history, they rejected his offer and followed after evil. This is always the case with God. He has offered grace and mercy in various ways throughout time but if man simply believes by faith what God has instructed him to do and obeys that instruction, God responds as he promised. He does not predetermine our fate. When he says he has the right to form the clay as he pleases – that is correct as long as it is within the structure HE HIMSELF HAS SET FORTH. He has the right as the Potter to say to Israel the clay, obey me and I will bless you, reject me and I will bring evil upon you. Israel clearly had a choice here.

To fast forward to the church age, by definition, vessels contain something. A vessel of wrath would represent an unbeliever. John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. A vessel of mercy would then be a believer. I Tim 1:13-16 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

2 Tim 2:20-21 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

Here we see that a vessel is equated with an individual man (“if a man”) and the vessel can change its state or “destiny” – “if a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour.” Without question, this passage teaches that the vessel’s type and therefore fate is in the hands of the man – not God’s. God has simply put forth the structure for obtaining mercy.

Going back to the context of Romans 9, we could say then that God knew that some would reject him and he designated that those making that choice would be vessels of wrath for his righteous judgment. Conversely, he knew that some would believe on him, choosing to repent, and therefore he designated that those would be vessels of mercy and receive forgiveness and glory with him. He does not designate which type of vessel each individual will be. The free will choice of each man determines that.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello. Brand new to the forum. I’ve been looking into Calvinism and its five points and was curious to hear from self-described Calvinists on some of my conclusions. In a brief browse of the forum I see that there are several lengthy threads on the first page alone debating/discussing one or more of the points and in attempt to not rehash old ground, I won’t begin with something along those lines – although I suspect such a thing is inevitable in the course of this thread.

I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21). Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will. To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity. Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced.

I’m curious to hear from Calvinists if such a conclusion is something you’ve come to and struggled with and how you have reconciled it.

I've been a born-again Christian for forty-six years and only within the last two decades did I hear of John Calvin. But I never studied him or read his works. So, I don't consider myself a Calvinist. But I find it encouraging that in my studies outside of Calvin that Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and myself all came to understand the Doctrines of Grace through individual study without influence of each other. OK. Here we go...

QUOTE: I feel like I understand the thrust of the five points enough to then also infer their ramifications. Unconditional Election says that God predetermined in eternity past specific individuals to be among the elect and therefore to be saved. Ok - but then either by his active choice or by default those that he did not elect are destined for hell and both groups have absolutely no ability or opportunity made available to them to change or accept that fate. This does not align with God being love (I John 4:8, 16) and being just (Deut 32:4 and Isaiah 45:21).
RESPONSE: Have you ever studied the Immutability of God? That means God does not change. God loves, and God hates. He loves HIS PEOPLE His Church and hates those not His Church. Christ died to atone the sins of His Church, those whose names are in the book of life. He did not die for the world. He as High Priest whose ministry is to offer sacrifices for the people of God and pray for the people of God doesn't even pray for the world (John 17:9).

QUOTE: Further, the teaching of Irresistible Grace says that God “forces” faith upon those he has elected in order to cause them to believe on him and obtain salvation through his grace. These teachings describe God to be the type of being who arbitrarily chooses eternal life and eternal punishment for his creation and then forces those he has elected to follow and love him even though they have not chosen him of their own free will.
RESPONSE: First, freewill is an illusion. We can choose the grey pull-over or the green striped shirt, the Levi's of the slacks, to wear a hat or not, but in the spiritual realm which Christ rules we as flesh have nothing to do with the spiritual realm until we are born-again and God creates a new human spirit for us and restores us to the three-fold image of God. There's a reason why Jesus said "fear Him that can cast body and soul in hell." That's because a two-fold person is not saved, does not bear the image of God by having a newly-created human spirit restored to them. Second, God doesn't force anyone. We are all in BONDAGE to sin and what the Holy Spirit does is liberates/frees the person from that bondage and the person has ONLY ONE way to go: God. They are drawn.

QUOTE: To me, this perspective of God is not attractive and does not motivate me to serve him or even be a part of Christianity. Frankly, even as an elect person I would see that perspective of God as diminishing my love for him – similar to if I found out that my wife had been giving me some love potion all along and my love for her was never genuine but forced.
RESPONSE: Let me tell you that IF you ever meet God and become a born-again Christian, YOU WILL KNOW IT!

 

[bercawc]

Not sure why you think God is unjust. People sin and God punishes them. He is not obligated to be merciful.

Perhaps I’m struggling to convey my stance clearly. I do not think God is unjust. My assertion is that TULIP is a misinterpretation of scripture that presents God to be unjust based upon what TULIP teaches.

I get what you mean when you say that God is not obligated to be merciful. I agree - He did not have to offer us a way out of our sin. Praise him that he chose to do that! And because he chose to do that, he is absolutely obligated then to be merciful within the context of the structure he chose to bestow that mercy. As I stated above, he has offered grace and mercy in various ways throughout time but if man simply believes by faith what God has instructed him to do and obeys that instruction, God must respond as he promised.

As I understand TULIP, it teaches that all mankind is the same – dead in sin and totally depraved, deserving of condemnation and destruction, unable to respond to God. Because of that inability, God intervenes and saves those he alone chose and designated as the elect. That is not a structure for dispensing mercy. It requires nothing (no repentance or surrender) of those receiving mercy to distinguish them from the non-elect. Therefore, with no difference between those two groups, if God is just, he would have to save the non-elect too.

Short answer: one must understand the definition of love as God defines it and then apply it. Few people do so.

I would argue you that you are complicating something that is very simple – profound but simple. Absolutely we agree that God is love. Love is giving. Love is sacrifice. God loves the whole world. Everyone.

John 3:16 For God so loved……Who did he love?……the world…..What did he do because he loved?……..that he gave his only begotten son. Who did he give to?.....that whosoever believeth in him………Why did he give?.... should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

God had the highest love for us when we had no relationship, no part with him. We were sinners and he chose to sacrifice for us in order to give us a path to eternal life with him, all the while knowing that most of mankind would reject his offer. That is love.

I would argue the God does not force the elect to chose Him. He does cause their desire to change such that they willingly chose Him.
I see you don't care for the Reform doctrine of Irresistible Grace. This may be because you have define God as you think He should be instead of reading scripture and finding out what God say He is.
Romans 9;20 Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does the potter not have the right over the clay, to make from the same lump [of clay] one object for honorable use [something beautiful or distinctive] and another for common use [something ordinary or menial]? See, you are the clay telling the potter what to do. It doesn't work that way.

I agree that the Holy Spirit can work in hearts to soften them to repentance, preparing the soil for the seed of the word, keeping the devil and the word from stealing it away – this is why we pray for the salvation of the lost. Your statement that God causes their desire to change such that they willingly choose him – that is a contradiction with Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, is it not? One other member in this thread stated that free will is an illusion. Which does Calvinism teach? It can't be both.

Please see my previous post on Romans 9.

 

[brightfame52]

bercawc​

So if I’m understanding your statement correctly, are you saying that God deliberately created sinners for the sole purpose of condemning them to destruction?

Yes Rom 9:20-22

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

That was one of the ways He purposed to shew His Wrath and make His Power known. Do you have a problem with it friend ?