Calvinism and Context?

[posthuman]

If you believe that God chose some specifically to be damned, wouldn't that be praying against His will?

i often see the criticism levied that if God irrevocably destined for salvation all who are being saved, there is no motivation to evangelize. i find it equally critical that if God is unjust to intervene and coerce a person to believe and be redeemed, then there is contradictory to pray for anyone, because prayer is directly asking God to do exactly those things, superseding the will of the lost.

 

[EleventhHour]

Certainly seems it would be.

No problem for me since I don't believe it within God's character to be the lone effective cause between salvation and damnation.

But if you believe God's sovereign choice is to damn people, and you're praying that God would continue to suffer them then you are going directly against what you claim to believe God wills.

What is continually evident is all the problems that Calvinism causes with unanswerable questions and the inconsistent character of

God and then they need books and more books to explain away all the problems created by a system that is not biblical anyway!!

 

[Bbrdrd]

i often see the criticism levied that if God irrevocably destined for salvation all who are being saved, there is no motivation to evangelize. i find it equally critical that if God is unjust to intervene and coerce a person to believe and be redeemed, then there is contradictory to pray for anyone, because prayer is directly asking God to do exactly those things, superseding the will of the lost.

The contradiction comes not in evangelizing someone whose status is unknown, but praying that God would suffer all. It places the mercy of the petitioner as greater than that of God, having mercy on those that God has chosen not to.

Praying for God to intervene is different from God coercing an individual. The prayer for those who believe in the will of the individual is not that God would decide for the person, but that He would arrange their circumstances to win them over. To treat God's loveliness as if it would not be able to gently persuade those who initially are reluctant without the need to forcefully intervene in their will undermines God's glory.

 

[cv5]

Certainly seems it would be.

No problem for me since I don't believe it within God's character to be the lone effective cause between salvation and damnation.

But if you believe God's sovereign choice is to damn people, and you're praying that God would continue to suffer them then you are going directly against what you claim to believe God wills.

"if you" "you're" "then you are" "you claim"
You're doing it again. I think it's getting worse. Whew.

Anyhoo, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
The command of Scripture is clear: we should pray for the well-being and salvation of all men.
It is not our place to speculate why, impugn God, nor place a limit on God's mercy and love.

Judgment is His business not mine. I am merely an unworthy servant. And a very lowly one at that.

 

[cv5]

What is continually evident is all the problems that Calvinism causes with unanswerable questions and the inconsistent character of

God and then they need books and more books to explain away all the problems created by a system that is not biblical anyway!!

Perhaps you might want to review your Bible. There are injunctions everywhere regarding the folly of making assumptions about the character of God. Criticizing gods justice. Questioning His motives and character.

Why are we even going there? Let's beat a hasty retreat.

 

[Bbrdrd]

"if you" "you're" "then you are" "you claim"
You're doing it again. I think it's getting worse. Whew.

Anyhoo, I was being somewhat sarcastic.
The command of Scripture is clear: we should pray for the well-being and salvation of all men.
It is not our place to speculate why, impugn God, nor place a limit on God's mercy and love.

Judgment is His business not mine. I am merely an unworthy servant. And a very lowly one at that.

All of those "you's" were hypothetical, because using "one" is too stiff for a forum.

I'd agree with that read of Scripture, but it runs contrary to the teaching on election via sovereign choice. Simply answering "don't ask questions" when your system presents obvious discrepancies between the character of God revealed in the Bible and the character of the god of the system it is the system that should be discarded not the questions.

 

[cv5]

All of those "you's" were hypothetical, because using "one" is too stiff for a forum.

I'd agree with that read of Scripture, but it runs contrary to the teaching on election via sovereign choice. Simply answering "don't ask questions" when your system presents obvious discrepancies between the character of God revealed in the Bible and the character of the god of the system it is the system that should be discarded not the questions.

The "system" of election certainly isn't my system. But it is boilerplate scriptural doctrine.

 

[Bbrdrd]

The "system" of election certainly isn't my system. But it is boilerplate scriptural doctrine.

You really should trademark that.

If it truly was scriptural doctrine, and not simply the result of men philosophizing there wouldn't be so many obvious contradictions to it, so many places where Scripture must be bent and "harmonized" to fit it. Instead it would lead to a connection between Scripture that are in tension with each other and make the disparity understandable.

Besides that, we wouldn't be able to so clearly trace the heritage and evolution of the doctrine from Augustine to Calvin through the English reformers. Instead we would see it declared from the first consistently and clearly. Yet if we look previous to Augustine we see it contradicted by Justin Martyr, Jerome, and everyone else who wrote on the topic of man's will in salvation.

Your insistence that it is scriptural only speaks to the depth of your self-deception, not the accuracy of your conclusions.

 

[EleventhHour]

You may not like the sound of this.........but I don't know.
Does anyone really know? I mean really?

The best Paul could do was exonerate God of any wrongdoing, and then break out in a doxology of praise.

Don't expect me to do any better. And I won't expected it of you either.

I KNOW!!

Romans:
29 For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

This is not about salvation of lost people that God chooses willy nilly ...... it is about the GUARANTEED future of saved people.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The "system" of election certainly isn't my system. But it is boilerplate scriptural doctrine.

Here is boilerplate scriptural doctrine in a nutshell:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Does anyone see "the elect" in that verse? If not, that false teaching should be banned by those who hold to it. Indeed, they should put on sackcloth and ashes and repent for perverting the Gospel. See the book of Jonah.

 

[EleventhHour]

Perhaps you might want to review your Bible. There are injunctions everywhere regarding the folly of making assumptions about the character of God. Criticizing gods justice. Questioning His motives and character.

Why are we even going there? Let's beat a hasty retreat.

I make no assumptions... I do not fashion a god who chooses some for salvation and creates other people for destruction

.... a false dogma developed by Augustine and his Gnostic Manichean roots and later adopted by Calvin who idolized him.

And here were are in 2020, having it be part of mainstream Christianity a doctrine not even evidenced anywhere in scripture.

 

[cv5]

You really should trademark that.

If it truly was scriptural doctrine, and not simply the result of men philosophizing there wouldn't be so many obvious contradictions to it, so many places where Scripture must be bent and "harmonized" to fit it. Instead it would lead to a connection between Scripture that are in tension with each other and make the disparity understandable.

Besides that, we wouldn't be able to so clearly trace the heritage and evolution of the doctrine from Augustine to Calvin through the English reformers. Instead we would see it declared from the first consistently and clearly. Yet if we look previous to Augustine we see it contradicted by Justin Martyr, Jerome, and everyone else who wrote on the topic of man's will in salvation.

Your insistence that it is scriptural only speaks to the depth of your self-deception, not the accuracy of your conclusions.

To each his own. By the way I'm not a Calvinist. I think I've mentioned that once or twice.
Did I mention that election is boilerplate biblical doctrine? Oh yes I just mentioned that as well.

 

[cv5]

I make no assumptions... I do not fashion a god who chooses some for salvation and creates other people for destruction

.... a false dogma developed by Augustine and his Gnostic Manichean roots and later adopted by Calvin who idolized him.

And here were are in 2020, having it be part of mainstream Christianity a doctrine not even evidenced anywhere in scripture.

Don't be so bitter about the perceived errors of others.
Early bed for me tonight I'm bushed. Cheers!

1Sam 12:23
As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you. And I will continue to teach you the good and right way.

 

[Bbrdrd]

To each his own. By the way I'm not a Calvinist. I think I've mentioned that once or twice.
Did I mention that election is boilerplate biblical doctrine? Oh yes I just mentioned that as well.

Whether you identify as a Calvinist or not is immaterial. The heritage of the doctrine you claim is "boilerplate" begins properly with Calvin so it properly bears his name.

And central to that doctrine is particular election, which is the distinctive that Calvin identified that theologians prior to him had not stated. So any theological variation that centers on particular election is properly called "Calvinist."

You quote calvinist theologians, you read Scripure with a Calvinist bent, yet you are ashamed to properly attribute your heritage.

The doctrine of particular election fails every test. It fails the historical test of being continually espoused since we can clearly trace it to individual theologians. It fails the test of logical cohesion as it requires massive logical failings. It fails the test of God's character. And most importantly it fails the test of making Scripture more understandable rather than less, as many boilerplate verses are in plain conflict with it.

 

[Duskey]

I am sure a diligent and dedicated Bible study will provide you with the answers you are seeking.

It already has. calvinism = epic fail.

 

[EleventhHour]

Sure it does, the Eternal Decrees laid down before the foundation of the world, were not rejected nor can they be. The word "counsel" of Luke 7:30, is not an Eternal Decree.

How does the above answer my question of how God judges the non elect in Calvinism when they had no choice?

The one who rejects Me and does not receive My word has a judge; on the last day the Word that I have spoken will serve as judge (John 12:48).

 

[49]

This horse ain't dead enough yet?

 

[posthuman]

The prayer for those who believe in the will of the individual is not that God would decide for the person, but that He would arrange their circumstances to win them over.

this is what i was trying to explain to you earlier, that you don't see yet.
if anyone can be saved as a result of 'the right circumstances' occurring to 'win them over' --- why doesn't God, knows all, who appoints all the times and seasons, bring about 'the right circumstances' for everyone?
isn't God de-fact sovereignly determining fate and destiny by whether or not He causes 'the right circumstances' in a person's life?

 

[posthuman]

Does anyone see "the elect" in that verse?

Whosoever believes.

How does it come about that one person hears and believes, and another who hears the same word, does not?

 

[Grandpa]

This post earned you a ribbon...ha

Can you be honest then?

You only want to deal with the elect, and side step the implications of your dogma.

The non-elect are never regenerated so they can believe correct?

So why are they created and how does God hold them accountable for their unbelief when they were never regenerated so they can believe?

Is this not the logical outcome of your dogma.. few Calvinists want to be honest about this why is that?

He shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others.”
John Calvin

What is continually evident is all the problems that Calvinism causes with unanswerable questions and the inconsistent character of

God and then they need books and more books to explain away all the problems created by a system that is not biblical anyway!!

All you need to do is read the bible. Its all in there.

Why did God create the Caananites? The Egyptians? The Amalekites? The Philistines?

Were they held accountable for their unbelief? Yes.


Its throughout the WHOLE Bible. Theres the elect and the non-elect. Believers and unbelievers. How can you read the bible and not see it??? How can you live in the world and not see it??

Because it is SO evident there is only ONE of two conclusions to be made. 1. God is impotent and CANNOT save those He chooses to Save. Or 2. God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.

The free-will philosophy (which is unbiblical) holds to the first conclusion. That God is impotent. Mens Wills over-ride Gods Will in this philosophy.

In Calvinism, and biblically based theology, God is Powerful to Save and Saves 100% of all the people He chooses to Save.



Its not difficult at all for someone who reads the bible and is actually saved to reject the free-will philosophy.