s/o about Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't think it matters what I think about a particular subject-I think it matters what the Bible says about a particular subject. Here's a sampling:

 

 

Rev. 17:8

Eph. 2:10

Rom. 8:29-30

1 Cor. 2:7

Eph. 1:5, 11

Phip. 1:29

2 Tim. 1:9

Tit. 1:1-2

Matt. 25:34

Prov. 8:22-31

2 Thes. 2:13

John 6:37

John 17:2

Jude 4

1 Ptr. 2:8

Romans 9:17-23

John 6:37, 39, 44,45, 65,

[Nakia]

This thread makes me grateful to be a Universalist.

 

I don't understand why people choose to worship a God who acts like an abusive husband. "You're nothing but worthless trash without me. You could never do anything right on your own. You'd better love me like crazy, or your punishment will be worse than you could possibly imagine."

 

I just... if that's what I thought God was like, worship and praise would be the last things on my mind. Which proves that I'm evil, right?

 

No, you are not evil. But that's not what I believe God to be like at all. God is a loving Father, a God of grace and love and forgiveness. He loves us so very much He sent His son to die for us. I believe that proves He believes we are far far far from worthless trash. He just wants us to believe in and trust and love Him. We certainly don't deserve His mercy and love, but it is ours, if we will accept it.

[Ginevra]

Rev. 17:8

Eph. 2:10

Rom. 8:29-30

1 Cor. 2:7

Eph. 1:5, 11

Phip. 1:29

2 Tim. 1:9

Tit. 1:1-2

Matt. 25:34

Prov. 8:22-31

2 Thes. 2:13

John 6:37

John 17:2

Jude 4

1 Ptr. 2:8

Romans 9:17-23

John 6:37, 39, 44,45, 65,

 

Not one of the more helpful posts. :glare: Obviously, if everyone interpreted all scriptures the same way, there would be no debate, no wondering, no 1,200 Christian denominations. Perhaps you were trying and I just have PMS, but "Look these up and you'll see what is true" is not terribly helpful.

[Avila]

This thread makes me grateful to be a Universalist.

 

I don't understand why people choose to worship a God who acts like an abusive husband. "You're nothing but worthless trash without me. You could never do anything right on your own. You'd better love me like crazy, or your punishment will be worse than you could possibly imagine."

 

I just... if that's what I thought God was like, worship and praise would be the last things on my mind. Which proves that I'm evil, right?

 

Rivka, you aren't evil. :grouphug:

Edited January 2, 2011 by Asenik

[8circles]

This thread makes me grateful to be a Universalist.

 

I don't understand why people choose to worship a God who acts like an abusive husband. "You're nothing but worthless trash without me. You could never do anything right on your own. You'd better love me like crazy, or your punishment will be worse than you could possibly imagine."

 

I just... if that's what I thought God was like, worship and praise would be the last things on my mind. Which proves that I'm evil, right?

 

You aren't evil. I don't believe that God is like that either. :grouphug:

[Liz CA]

But that's not Calvinism, is it? Or are you saying Adam and Eve had free will, but they blew it for the rest of us, so we don't?

 

I do still have problems with the Fall that aren't solved by Arminianism (see above: why I'm a universalist), but they aren't as...insurmountable to me as the problems with Calvinism.

 

I am sort of in the middle between Arminianism and Calvinism. I believe or agree with some of the basic beliefs of Calvinism but have problems with the "selection for salvation" part. I think it is fun to debate, not a life-changing issue as I see it.

I have to go back and check what post I meant to respond to but I was replying to a post that said the poster could not quite understand the concept of free will and a God who then manipulates circumstances to bring about the opposite of what he supposedly wants to happen. This is an interesting statement as it seems true enough in some instances but IMHO not in all. I think we are being given choices, sadly we often (human nature) choose either a plain wrong/evil/destructive path or we take the easy way out and therefore bring about undesired consequences.

I feel like I need to write another 10 pages on this to be able to express it clearly but I will refrain from that. :001_smile:

 

[Mrs Mungo]

As though it's never been discussed before. :tongue_smilie:

 

I just think the doctrine of election could never be acceptable to me. What about scriptures that say it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all would come to Christ? Limited Atonement as a term even sounds wrong.

 

Luke 15:4: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?" IMO, The Bible is pretty clear that Christ seeks every lost sheep, that He gave His life for all of them. That eliminates the possibility of being part of an ineffable lottery.

 

I have to go back and check what post I meant to respond to but I was replying to a post that said the poster could not quite understand the concept of free will and a God who then manipulates circumstances to bring about the opposite of what he supposedly wants to happen. This is an interesting statement as it seems true enough in some instances but IMHO not in all. I think we are being given choices, sadly we often (human nature) choose either a plain wrong/evil/destructive path or we take the easy way out and therefore bring about undesired consequences.

I feel like I need to write another 10 pages on this to be able to express it clearly but I will refrain from that. :001_smile:

 

Maybe it's because I'm a sci-fi fan. But, I definitely believe God is omniscient, atemporal *and* we have free-will. All possibilities exist, like Schrodinger's cat. People make bad choices, do horrific things to other people and yet God can make good things come of that. That doesn't necessarily mean God meant for the horrible thing to happen to you.

[Liz CA]

Luke 15:4:

Maybe it's because I'm a sci-fi fan. But, I definitely believe God is omniscient, atemporal *and* we have free-will. All possibilities exist, like Schrodinger's cat. People make bad choices, do horrific things to other people and yet God can make good things come of that. That doesn't necessarily mean God meant for the horrible thing to happen to you.

 

Yes, exactly. And I believe that God would love everyone to accept him but accepts the fact that some choose not to.

[Erica in PA]

I just think the doctrine of election could never be acceptable to me.

 

I used to feel that way, but the conclusion I eventually reached is that our feelings and preferences don't determine what is true. There are lots of people who reject parts of the Bible because they: don't find it personally acceptable to believe that God would send anyone to hell, or that a good God could allow anyone to suffer here on earth, or that Jesus is the only way to heaven, or that God would order the killings of women and children in the Old Testament....I could go on and on. My point is: ultimately, if our quest is to know what is true, it doesn't really matter which aspects of biblical teaching appeal to us, or which we want to believe are true. God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. If it's what He thinks is best, it is best, whether we like it or not. If He chooses who will be saved and who will perish, and uses that process for His glory, it is not our place to argue with that, and call it unfair or unkind. He owes us nothing-- we all deserve to perish! Romans 9 explains this concept very directly. It's not for the vessel to complain to its creator about how He will use it.

 

I used to think that I could never accept election or predestination because it seemed unkind and unfair. I also thought it was unbiblical. Through my Bible study, however, it became clear to me that those concepts are in fact taught in Scripture. I had no choice but to accept it, or else put myself in the position of authority and decide that what I prefer is more important than what God's Word says. It took a few years until I really became comfortable with those doctrines, but now they have become a joy to me... I realize now that I did *nothing* to be saved, not even seek for God myself! It was all Him, and nothing of me at all.

[silliness7]

But, iona, his dying does actually save you, but it is like being given a check that you have to endorse. Yes, you actually have the check, but you have to demonstrate your faith in the payment by signing the check and cashing it. (And please don't anyone misunderstand that I'm trivializing salvation as though it were comparable to a cash payment.)

 

I used to believe this too. (I'm now an election/predestination gal.) I personally kept getting hung up on whether I was demonstrating the proper kind of faith or in the proper kind of way. Did I have saving faith? Was my faith good enough? This bothered me off and on for years and through Bible study and prayer it dawned on me that my faith was given to me by God. I didn't have to produce anything in order to cash the check, so to speak.

 

I then discovered that there was a whole branch of Christianity that subscribed to this idea...Calvinists. So I started researching in earnest and the whole TULIP thing made the most sense of any doctrine I had ever heard.

 

Like a pp election makes more sense in the light of total depravity. And I think all of the 5 points are so intertwined that I'm now baffled at college professors who claimed to be 3-point Calvinists. Oh well.

 

I find the doctrine of election very humbling whereas I've heard Calvinists accused (and maybe for good reason) of being haughty about it. To think that God chose me in my sin and that there is absolutely nothing good in me that would ever want to choose God. He loved me and saved me in my rebellion. And now when I think of having to produce faith in order for God to save me it sounds so much like a work. It makes the choosers better and my holy and more pious than the non-choosers. Because hey, everyone has the same opportunity whether to believe or not. Since I believe I must be better than those who haven't.

 

I know on the surface it sounds unfair for God to choose some and not everyone. But to me that is coming from the assumption that God is obligated to choose anyone at all. If he is obligated to choose some people it's only fair that he offer that salvation to all. But what if God is not obligated to save anyone at all. What if in His mercy He chose to save some, not because they deserve it but because they don't. That's what I believe the Bible teaches.

 

....off to read the rest of the thread. :001_smile:

[simka2]

I love this quote from Justin Martyr on the subject. (103-165 AD)

 

"We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be."

Edited January 3, 2011 by simka2

[silliness7]

. Ultimately it is not about us, it is about Him.

 

:iagree:Yes, this exactly!! When we turn it on it's head and make it about us then we get all worried that God might not be fair. I do not desire God to be fair. Fair means I am punished for my sins because that is what I deserve. I desire His mercy and that is what I do not deserve.

[silliness7]

Sure - I don't believe the Calvinist view. Non-Christians can do "godly" things; it is possible for them to be loving, compassionate, altruistic, generous, sacrificial, etc. This would not be possible if all non-Christians were wicked and dead to the things of God. ."

 

Are you sure the bolded is true?

 

Can people be loving and compassionate and altruistic for motives that have nothing to do with God...in fact, for motives that when boiled down to their core are still selfish motives and therefore not from God at all?

[silliness7]

I do agree that none of us are holy, we are not adequate without Jesus. But I don't agree that we are "totally depraved" by nature - it's just not evidently so. My computer dictionary here says the definition of "depraved" is "morally corrupt". I just don't believe that it is impossible for a person to behave in a morally decent way without Jesus. Evidently, it is possible. I would agree that we are not morally perfect without Jesus - we aren't even morally perfect with him, we're only justified in God's eyes.

 

Total Depravity is a theological doctrine with a theological meaning. It is not necessarily the sum total of the English definition of Total plus the English definition of depraved. I think it has been explained by pp very well but you are getting hung up on how you or Webster define depraved. Hating God to the core of your being is depraved. You can hate God to the core of your being and give money to a homeless person. You aren't giving the money because you love God. You are doing it for some other motive that when boiled down is a self-serving motive.

 

And Jacob and Esau - a good example, no doubt. Yet, for Jacob to receive the blessing, he and his mother colluded to dupe his blind father! How can it be said that this was "God's plan"? Could God not simply move the babies in the womb, so that Jacob was the true firstborn? Instead, it is as though God's plan depended on Jacob being the "supplanter" and engaging in deceit! Yet in other places in the OT, we see how man's interference to try and "help" God's promises come to fruition proved disastrous, such as the birth of Ishmael.

 

Jacob was a stinker. It makes you wonder why God would choose him? Well I think it proves the point that God chooses sinners to redeem. God doesn't choose the righteous. Jesus says something similar.

 

I think that even today, there are people that have every chance in the world to accept Christ as their savior. They don't

 

Yes, and I'm not bothered by it. They are making their CHOICE. But to say that they will never be capable of receiving the gift, because it was already long ago determined that they would not be capable - that is repugnant to me.

 

But you making a choice and others making a different choice (wrong choice) inherently makes you better than them. To think that there are "better" people than other people is repugnant to me. We are all equally worthless.

 

.

.

[silliness7]

But it does mean that human decision can thwart God’s purposes in the world, .

 

That is absolutely the scariest thought in the world and one in which I have found no biblical proof whatsoever. Thank God!!

[kokotg]

This isn't really about feelings and preferences for me.

 

1. I don't find Biblical arguments in favor of Calvinism any more compelling than Biblical arguments in favor of Arminianism. We could all post lists of battling Bible verses all day long to support our various positions. Minds greater, I imagine, than any here have prayerfully studied these questions for thousands of years and reached dramatically different conclusions. I don't think any side can claim an open and shut case--to suggest otherwise is pretty insulting.

 

2. I don't really get suggesting that there's some sort of selfish motivation behind Arminianism. Anyone who's debating the issue is already a believer and therefore already one of the elect, no? That's what people here have said, anyway, that anyone with a desire to know God is getting that desire from God and has therefore won the cosmic lottery. I can think of a lot more selfish reasons for believing one's self to be one of God's chosen than for thinking everyone has a shot at what I have. If it's seriously a character flaw to hope that grace is for everyone, then, well, okay.

[Heather in Neverland]

But Heather, that doesn't mesh with the idea that God loves us boundlessly, that it is His good pleasure that we are His sons and daughters. It's like a parent who only feeds and nurtures some of their children, but lets the other babies starve and die of exposure. Should the children who are fed and nurtured say, "Oh, thank you merciful mom and dad! You chose for me to be allowed to live! I know I deserved to die like the other babies you didn't protect, but you protected me! How loving and merciful to me!" If it is not God's wish that all would sup with Him, I don't want to be "lucky" enough to make it to the table.

 

It's not that I think we "deserve" to be saved, but that since God created mankind to commune with Him, it rather makes sense that He would not want any to be lost. Why make people who are ****ed? How could that be loving?

 

 

 

Well my journey through this really started with a study of the attributes of God...some of which you have mentioned. And again, it lead to my own human pride in the end.

 

God is good. There are "man's" definitions of "good" but the the TRUE definition of good is GOD and anything God does, says or wills.

 

God is love. He is not just "loving"...He is LOVE...and anything He does or says or wills is loving whether or not it matches our human (and face it, rather faulty) definition of love. We say "but if God is loving He wouldn't do that" etc.etc. But can we even really trust our own definition of love? As humans we do all manner of terrible things in the name of "love".

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to do anything that is NOT good or loving. Impossible. It goes against the very nature of God. He is also righteous and just and holy. It is impossible for Him to do anything that is sinful, wrong, unfair, etc. IMPOSSIBLE. He cannot even LOOK on sin.

 

So my first hurdle was not just saying "Oh yes, I believe God is sovereign" but actually BELIEVING it and giving up the control to Him (I am a control freak, no doubt). This meant giving up the human concocted definitions of GOOD and LOVE and using biblical definitions. That was hard for me to do because I consider myself a pretty smart person :D so the idea that I could be wrong about all that didn't sit well at first.

 

But with this new framework in place, the Bible just opened itself up to me. When I read it through the lens of the attributes of God as biblically defined, everything fell into place. But that was the HARDEST part for me. Because I wanted a "loving God" to do what I thought a "loving God SHOULD do". What I thought. Me. A sinful human. How ridiculous that I should think God would conform Himself to the image I CREATED of Him. How arrogant of me.

 

But WHY? Why does God elect some and not others? The bible does answer the question but you may not like the answer. It says over and over again it was for HIS PURPOSES. Now, of course, our first instinct is to recoil at that explanation. His "purpose"? You mean, because He SAYS SO? And it grates us. It goes against our ideas of fair play. We think we should get a vote, we DESERVE a better explanation than that! But no, we really don't. As a pp quoted...does the vessel have the right to question its creator?

 

From John Piper: "From all we have seen so far, I would state the purpose like this: God's purpose is to be known and enjoyed and praised (or if you like alliteration: to be seen and savored and sung) as infinitely glorious in His free and sovereign grace. This is the purpose that governs all the works of God. He elects, predestines, calls, redeems, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies to this end and for this purpose."

 

It is essential to a true understanding of the attributes and nature of God that election be unconditional. It is an essential part of His glory that He be unbound in choosing the beneficiaries of His mercy. He would be less glorious; indeed He would not be fully God if He were under obligation to any particular human distinctive. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." (Romans 9:16)

 

If He waited to see how men "will" or "run" before He showed mercy, He would be limited by them and therefore not all glorious. The all glorious God whose glory consists in His freedom to choose whomever He will cannot be determined by or obligated by anything outside Himself.

 

To sum up my frighteningly long response :D ... we are not innocent babies being left to starve. We are sinners. And we have to understand just HOW BAD sin is. That's something else that gets candy-coated. Sin is wretched, and disgusting and awful. It's not just a few naughty things we do. Sin is the polar opposite of God. We are ENEMIES of God. The fact that He saves even ONE of His enemies is a merciful, compassionate, glorious thing.

 

God bless you as you wrestle with this. I pray He gives you the answers you seek. :grouphug:

[deacongirl]

" People make bad choices, do horrific things to other people and yet God can make good things come of that. That doesn't necessarily mean God meant for the horrible thing to happen to you.

 

I really like how the book The Will of God addresses this question.

http://www.amazon.com/Will-God-Leslie-Weatherhead/dp/0687074827

[Jmac]

But what I don't understand is if you believe in predestination of the elect and that God does create people that he plans to torture for all eternity then why on earth are you here? What is your purpose in life? Mine is to seek reconciliation with God and continue to strengthen my personal relationship with Him while spreading the good news of the gift of salvation Jesus made available to all people through his ultimate sacrifice on the cross for the sins of man. What good are you? What is the point of you?

[Heather in Neverland]

But what I don't understand is if you believe in predestination of the elect and that God does create people that he plans to torture for all eternity then why on earth are you here? What is your purpose in life? Mine is to seek reconciliation with God and continue to strengthen my personal relationship with Him while spreading the good news of the gift of salvation Jesus made available to all people through his ultimate sacrifice on the cross for the sins of man. What good are you? What is the point of you?

 

Well, those who are saved should see their primary purpose on earth to be glorifying God in all they say and do.

 

Those who are not saved would probably say something along the lines of be all you can be, make your mark, do good things, be happy, etc.

 

One is God-focused, the other is man-focused. One is seeking reconciliation with God. The other isn't. Those are really the only two categories that exist.

[Jmac]

Well, those who are saved should see their primary purpose on earth to be glorifying God in all they say and do.

 

Those who are not saved would probably say something along the lines of be all you can be, make your mark, do good things, be happy, etc.

 

One is God-focused, the other is man-focused. One is seeking reconciliation with God. The other isn't. Those are really the only two categories that exist.

 

What good is the worship of someone who does it not of his own free will? I don't think God is as mysterious and as difficult to understand as Calvinists would like him to be.

[Heather in Neverland]

What good is the worship of someone who does it not of his own free will? I don't think God is as mysterious and as difficult to understand as Calvinists would like him to be.

 

I worship God because He is GOD...the creator and sovereign ruler of the universe...the author of my salvation. I worship Him because He is holy and deserving of our praise. What other reason do I need to worship Him?

[justamouse]

I love this quote from Justin Martyr on the subject. (103-165 AD)

 

"We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be."

 

wow

 

must read more....

[justamouse]

Not one of the more helpful posts. :glare: Obviously, if everyone interpreted all scriptures the same way, there would be no debate, no wondering, no 1,200 Christian denominations. Perhaps you were trying and I just have PMS, but "Look these up and you'll see what is true" is not terribly helpful.

 

 

Why is my brain remembering someone saying there are more than 33k denominations?

[Jmac]

I worship God because He is GOD...the creator and sovereign ruler of the universe...the author of my salvation. I worship Him because He is holy and deserving of our praise. What other reason do I need to worship Him?

 

But someone who believes they are predestined to be saved while others are not doesn't worship God because they believe they should. They worship God because God decided they would. They are puppets, mindless robots.

[Melissa in CA]

Here's the deal with limited atonement. If you believe that some people go to hell (as the Bible would indicate) then those people are "atoning" for their sin - in hell. If limited atonement was not true and Christ died and atoned for ALL sin universally, then those people who are in hell are paying a second time for their sin.

 

Limited Atonement says that when Christ died, His death actually accomplished what it was meant to do.

 

Amen! :iagree:

[kokotg]

To sum up my frighteningly long response :D ... we are not innocent babies being left to starve. We are sinners. And we have to understand just HOW BAD sin is. That's something else that gets candy-coated. Sin is wretched, and disgusting and awful. It's not just a few naughty things we do. Sin is the polar opposite of God. We are ENEMIES of God. The fact that He saves even ONE of His enemies is a merciful, compassionate, glorious thing.

 

 

 

Then (Calvinist) God should probably stop forcing everyone to sin, if he hates it so much. Yep, no, can't get past that. If I believed in that God, I wouldn't trust a word that guy said, so it wouldn't really matter how I interpreted various Bible verses. The God is good because he's God argument is so broad it allows for...anything. How do you know God isn't tricking you? How do you know that your faith itself isn't an elaborate ruse?

 

Also, I think a good deal of your argument assumes that predestination is sort of the default view, and that the only thing holding anyone back from embracing it is that it doesn't fit in with how we want God to be. For a lot of us, we don't really need to grapple with how God can fit a Calvinist definition and still be good and loving, because we really and truly don't agree with Calvinism. When I say that this whole "God punishes people for doing things they can't stop themselves from doing" thing is the part I don't get, I mean I don't get how Calvinists can get past it themselves...not that if only I could get past that I'd be out searching for a Reformed church tomorrow. Which I suppose could make one wonder why I can't seem to stay away from this thread... :D

[Heather in Neverland]

Then (Calvinist) God should probably stop forcing everyone to sin, if he hates it so much. Yep, no, can't get past that. I can get past that because God doesn't FORCE us to sin...He just doesn't stop us from sinning. There is a big difference. Even when He calls His elect, we still fall into sin now and again. Being "elect" doesn't mean "being perfect without sin".

 

Also, I think a good deal of your argument assumes that predestination is sort of the default view, and that the only thing holding anyone back from embracing it is that it doesn't fit in with how we want God to be. For a lot of us, we don't really need to grapple with how God can fit a Calvinist definition and still be good and loving, because we really and truly don't agree with Calvinism. And that is totally fine. I don't think being being a Calvinist makes me a better christian. It just helps me better understand God and the Bible. But this thread is asking questions about Calvinism so I am just trying to do the best I can to answer them with my own limited human understanding.

 

Which I suppose could make one wonder why I can't seem to stay away from this thread... :D Ditto :lol:

.

[kokotg]

Ah, I guess the part where I laid that out is 4 or 5 pages back now. You were probably asleep ;). I don't see a difference, in practical terms, between forcing people to sin and deliberately creating people incapable of not sinning.

[Melissa in CA]

I used to feel that way, but the conclusion I eventually reached is that our feelings and preferences don't determine what is true. There are lots of people who reject parts of the Bible because they: don't find it personally acceptable to believe that God would send anyone to hell, or that a good God could allow anyone to suffer here on earth, or that Jesus is the only way to heaven, or that God would order the killings of women and children in the Old Testament....I could go on and on. My point is: ultimately, if our quest is to know what is true, it doesn't really matter which aspects of biblical teaching appeal to us, or which we want to believe are true. God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. If it's what He thinks is best, it is best, whether we like it or not. If He chooses who will be saved and who will perish, and uses that process for His glory, it is not our place to argue with that, and call it unfair or unkind. He owes us nothing-- we all deserve to perish! Romans 9 explains this concept very directly. It's not for the vessel to complain to its creator about how He will use it.

 

I used to think that I could never accept election or predestination because it seemed unkind and unfair. I also thought it was unbiblical. Through my Bible study, however, it became clear to me that those concepts are in fact taught in Scripture. I had no choice but to accept it, or else put myself in the position of authority and decide that what I prefer is more important than what God's Word says. It took a few years until I really became comfortable with those doctrines, but now they have become a joy to me... I realize now that I did *nothing* to be saved, not even seek for God myself! It was all Him, and nothing of me at all.

 

Well said, Erica. ;)

[Heather in Neverland]

But someone who believes they are predestined to be saved while others are not doesn't worship God because they believe they should. They worship God because God decided they would. They are puppets, mindless robots.

 

You have a different understanding of "predestined". I am predestined unto salvation.... my worship of God is out of gratitude for that. I am definitely not a robot. Sometimes I think it would easier if I were a robot because then I would not sin again. But seeing as how I do...and seeing as how sinning is a choice I make...there is no way I can be a puppet.

[Melissa in CA]

Well my journey through this really started with a study of the attributes of God...some of which you have mentioned. And again, it lead to my own human pride in the end.

 

God is good. There are "man's" definitions of "good" but the the TRUE definition of good is GOD and anything God does, says or wills.

 

God is love. He is not just "loving"...He is LOVE...and anything He does or says or wills is loving whether or not it matches our human (and face it, rather faulty) definition of love. We say "but if God is loving He wouldn't do that" etc.etc. But can we even really trust our own definition of love? As humans we do all manner of terrible things in the name of "love".

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to do anything that is NOT good or loving. Impossible. It goes against the very nature of God. He is also righteous and just and holy. It is impossible for Him to do anything that is sinful, wrong, unfair, etc. IMPOSSIBLE. He cannot even LOOK on sin.

 

So my first hurdle was not just saying "Oh yes, I believe God is sovereign" but actually BELIEVING it and giving up the control to Him (I am a control freak, no doubt). This meant giving up the human concocted definitions of GOOD and LOVE and using biblical definitions. That was hard for me to do because I consider myself a pretty smart person :D so the idea that I could be wrong about all that didn't sit well at first.

 

But with this new framework in place, the Bible just opened itself up to me. When I read it through the lens of the attributes of God as biblically defined, everything fell into place. But that was the HARDEST part for me. Because I wanted a "loving God" to do what I thought a "loving God SHOULD do". What I thought. Me. A sinful human. How ridiculous that I should think God would conform Himself to the image I CREATED of Him. How arrogant of me.

 

But WHY? Why does God elect some and not others? The bible does answer the question but you may not like the answer. It says over and over again it was for HIS PURPOSES. Now, of course, our first instinct is to recoil at that explanation. His "purpose"? You mean, because He SAYS SO? And it grates us. It goes against our ideas of fair play. We think we should get a vote, we DESERVE a better explanation than that! But no, we really don't. As a pp quoted...does the vessel have the right to question its creator?

 

From John Piper: "From all we have seen so far, I would state the purpose like this: God's purpose is to be known and enjoyed and praised (or if you like alliteration: to be seen and savored and sung) as infinitely glorious in His free and sovereign grace. This is the purpose that governs all the works of God. He elects, predestines, calls, redeems, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies to this end and for this purpose."

 

It is essential to a true understanding of the attributes and nature of God that election be unconditional. It is an essential part of His glory that He be unbound in choosing the beneficiaries of His mercy. He would be less glorious; indeed He would not be fully God if He were under obligation to any particular human distinctive. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." (Romans 9:16)

 

If He waited to see how men "will" or "run" before He showed mercy, He would be limited by them and therefore not all glorious. The all glorious God whose glory consists in His freedom to choose whomever He will cannot be determined by or obligated by anything outside Himself.

 

To sum up my frighteningly long response :D ... we are not innocent babies being left to starve. We are sinners. And we have to understand just HOW BAD sin is. That's something else that gets candy-coated. Sin is wretched, and disgusting and awful. It's not just a few naughty things we do. Sin is the polar opposite of God. We are ENEMIES of God. The fact that He saves even ONE of His enemies is a merciful, compassionate, glorious thing.

 

God bless you as you wrestle with this. I pray He gives you the answers you seek. :grouphug:

 

Excellent post, Heather!

[Heather in Neverland]

Ah, I guess the part where I laid that out is 4 or 5 pages back now. You were probably asleep ;). I don't see a difference, in practical terms, between forcing people to sin and deliberately creating people incapable of not sinning.

 

Yeah, this 12 hour time difference is a pain. I miss out on a lot. :D I will have to go back through and read it but off the top of my head my understanding is this...

 

Adam and Eve were not created sinful (it was impossible because all that God created was GOOD). But they chose to sin. That let sin into the world and into mankind. Once sin is in the world it became tainted and all that is in it became tainted with sin. So God did not create a people incapable of sinning. He originally created two people who were capable of sinning or NOT sinning. Unfortunately, they chose to sin. Since then all their descendants have been born with sin in their nature. God does not create one human after another and each time try to decide if He will create them with the capability of sinning or not and each time He chooses SINNER! Once the original humans sinned that was it...we are all born with sin from there on out.

 

So really what God did was create the original humans with the capability to choose. They chose poorly (massive understatement). They opened Pandora's box so to speak and there was no way to stuff the sinful contents back into the box. So God, who could have sat back and said "Forget it. You lose" instead provided a way for some of us to be saved from all of this. He didn't have to do that. He didn't have to save ANY of us. He is under no obligation to us. He is God.

[Liz CA]

Heather, I have been thinking about this all day.

Lets say you and your dh are "selected" for salvation. All good and well. Then you have children and somehow they are not receiving the message, are not open to the teaching and it looks as though they are not among the "chosen" ones. What horror! Would you then abandon all religious/spiritual guidance and instruction because what good would it do? It's been already decided they are not having eternal life in heaven.

 

PS: I am going to plunge into the paper tomorrow after I had some coffee. 001_smile:

[Avila]

Evert Calvinist I have ever met always starts with the assumption that they are part of the elect. What if they aren't? How do they determine that? What defines the elect? Which Bible verse makes them sure they are part of that group?

Edited January 3, 2011 by Asenik

[JenniferB]

What is the Orthodox view? (I think that is what you are, right? Forgive me if I'm misspeaking.)

 

I'm just learning about Orthodox views. I especially appreciate their view on salvation and the state of man. Here are links to what I've been listening to:

 

First I listened to this 8 part series (starts at the top and works down):

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/foundations_of_the_orthodox_faith

 

Then, I listened to this series (starts at the bottom and works up):

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

 

I'm going to work through this one next week (bottom to top):

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/eastwest

 

I am so refreshed by the Orthodox views. Maybe you will be also.

[kokotg]

 

Adam and Eve were not created sinful (it was impossible because all that God created was GOOD). But they chose to sin. That let sin into the world and into mankind. Once sin is in the world it became tainted and all that is in it became tainted with sin. So God did not create a people incapable of sinning. He originally created two people who were capable of sinning or NOT sinning. Unfortunately, they chose to sin. Since then all their descendants have been born with sin in their nature. God does not create one human after another and each time try to decide if He will create them with the capability of sinning or not and each time He chooses SINNER! Once the original humans sinned that was it...we are all born with sin from there on out.

 

So really what God did was create the original humans with the capability to choose. They chose poorly (massive understatement). They opened Pandora's box so to speak and there was no way to stuff the sinful contents back into the box. So God, who could have sat back and said "Forget it. You lose" instead provided a way for some of us to be saved from all of this. He didn't have to do that. He didn't have to save ANY of us. He is under no obligation to us. He is God.

 

My understanding is that this is one strain of Reformed thought, and that another is that God intended the Fall to happen from the beginning. But I'm certainly no expert. At any rate, either way, God KNEW the Fall would happen. But at that point we get into why I also have some problems with Arminianism and why universal reconciliation is really what makes the most sense to me (I think it also provides answers to a lot of the objections Calvinists raise to Arminianism).

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather, I have been thinking about this all day.

Lets say you and your dh are "selected" for salvation. All good and well. Then you have children and somehow they are not receiving the message, are not open to the teaching and it looks as though they are not among the "chosen" ones. What horror! Would you then abandon all religious/spiritual guidance and instruction because what good would it do? It's been already decided they are not having eternal life in heaven.

 

PS: I am going to plunge into the paper tomorrow after I had some coffee. 001_smile:

 

No I would not abandon our teaching of them because I would not know at what point they would come to believe...I would have no way of knowing if they are part of the elect until they either were saved or died unsaved. I would teach them the truth of God until my dying breath. But ultimately it is God who saves them and I have to rely on that.

 

I will look forward to your thoughts! :grouphug:

[Heather in Neverland]

My understanding is that this is one strain of Reformed thought, and that another is that God intended the Fall to happen from the beginning. But I'm certainly no expert. At any rate, either way, God KNEW the Fall would happen. But at that point we get into why I also have some problems with Arminianism and why universal reconciliation is really what makes the most sense to me (I think it also provides answers to a lot of the objections Calvinists raise to Arminianism).

 

I wish I was a better theologian as I fear my attempt to explain it are just making this fuzzier. :tongue_smilie: Yes, God knew beforehand that they would choose poorly...that He would have to provide a means of salvation for us...and that in the end it would all be to His glory.

 

I sometimes wonder if God had created Adam and Eve with NO capability for sinning. If we were all born one after another and no one ever sinned...no one ever did anything wrong that they needed forgiveness for, etc.

 

How long would it take before we forgot God altogether? You cannot know what a gift salvation is until you know what you are being saved from. You would not know to worship and glorify God for His merciful gift of salvation if your life was perfect and you needed no saving.

 

Well, I am off to take my kids to the movies. All you western hemisphere people sleep well and I will check back later. :D

[texasmama]

This is a link to a simple chart contrasting and comparing Arminianism to Calvinism. I found it helpful to view them side by side. I hope it hasn't been posted previously.

 

http://the-highway.com/compare.html

 

I am split fairly evenly between these two stances. I have no idea what that makes me. Even in the years in my young adulthood when I belonged to the Presbyterian Church (PCA), I couldn't fully accept the doctrine of election. I still do not. I have no idea where this leaves me in terms of a label for my beliefs. What is clear to me is that both Arminianism and Calvinism are Christian positions which focus on the saving grace of Christ. I am not completely convinced that either is fully correct. I am okay with that.:001_smile:

[milovany]

Total Depravity is a theological doctrine with a theological meaning. It is not necessarily the sum total of the English definition of Total plus the English definition of depraved.... Hating God to the core of your being is depraved.

Adam and Eve were not created sinful (it was impossible because all that God created was GOOD). But they chose to sin. That let sin into the world and into mankind. Once sin is in the world it became tainted and all that is in it became tainted with sin. So God did not create a people incapable of sinning. He originally created two people who were capable of sinning or NOT sinning. Unfortunately, they chose to sin. Since then all their descendants have been born with sin in their nature. God does not create one human after another and each time try to decide if He will create them with the capability of sinning or not and each time He chooses SINNER! Once the original humans sinned that was it...we are all born with sin from there on out.

No I would not abandon our teaching of them because I would not know at what point they would come to believe...I would have no way of knowing if they are part of the elect until they either were saved or died unsaved. I would teach them the truth of God until my dying breath. But ultimately it is God who saves them and I have to rely on that.

 

With all due respect, I have really come to not like this "God" that has been created by "dark side" reformed theology (please note that I removed the names in the quotes above, because I'm not attacking a person but an ideology). If I was the kind of parent described by this theology, I'd be arrested and thrown in jail eventually. Thankfully, the Triune God of history is not this same God -- the God of the Christian church predates Calvin and "reformed doctrine" by at least 1500 years. Please understand that -- reformed theology assumes that something needed to be re-formed, and came up with something new 1500 years after the fact. But the church that God created in Christ has stood strong (as He said it would) for 2000 years, and this theology was never a part of it; it's a teaching of man, an innovation that came into the picture late in time. It assumes original sin, which is not a teaching of the apostles and early church.

 

Thank GOD.

 

I find myself asking, "Which theology would a child be drawn to?" (because the kingdom of God is something that draws children) -- one where they're taught that they can't help but to hate their maker, but if they're one of the 'lucky' ones they won't have to spend eternity in hell because he'll pluck them off the path on which he put them *OR* one where they're taught that their Maker made them because He loves them and wants to share all good things with them -- so He set in place a plan for their healing because, as all people do who have free will, they will make choices that do not glorify Him at times and they need to be made whole again. Which Church would a child be drawn to: one where you have to study hard to understand it (which presumes you having a written text, and that you can read) but others can study the same text and come to different conclusions *OR* one where the foundation is laid through the blood, sweat, tears and prayers of the apostles and early church, and now you can enter into a mysterious relationship that certainly respects your mind, but doesn't rely mostly on it, for it to be tangible, real and miraculous?

 

I really, really tried to stay out of this thread. But it is so sad that this theology exists in a world that needs to hear about a gentle, kind, loving, compassionate God.

Edited January 3, 2011 by milovaný

[Mrs Mungo]

I really, really tried to stay out of this thread. But it is so sad that this theology exists in a world that needs to hear about a gentle, kind, loving, compassionate God.

 

"Is Israel my dear son? My darling child?

For the more I speak of him, the more I do remember him.

Therefore my womb trembles for him;

I will truly show motherly compassion upon him." (Jeremiah 31:20)

[milovany]

"Is Israel my dear son? My darling child?

For the more I speak of him, the more I do remember him.

Therefore my womb trembles for him;

I will truly show motherly compassion upon him." (Jeremiah 31:20)

 

Thank you, Mrs. Mungo. That's beautiful. My mommy heart is writhing in pain to think of a scenario that involves us as parents creating these seven children in our home while at the same time creating a specific path for them: their destruction. Yet, woo-hoo for the lucky ones, some of them WILL get to live with us in a happy way after all (and we get to choose who), but as for the rest, well, too bad for them. But it's okay that it works out this way because that's the path they were put on when we created them. Aren't we nice enough for choosing at least SOME of them to get off that path?

 

Forget the path. The path doesn't exist. Instead, I want to help them all become healed, alive and whole in God. And nothing is impossible with God.

Edited January 3, 2011 by milovaný

[Heather in Neverland]

Thankfully, the Triune God of history is not this same God -- the God of the Christian church predates Calvin and "reformed doctrine" by at least 1500 years. Please understand that -- reformed theology assumes that something needed to be re-formed, and came up with something new 1500 years after the fact. Well, to be fair, the intent of the Reformers was not to reform "christianity" but to reform the teachings of the church which HAD gone awry (at least if you agree with Luther's 95 theses).

 

But the church that God created in Christ has stood strong (as He said it would) for 2000 years, and this theology was never a part of it; it's a teaching of man, an innovation that came into the picture late in time. Just because something is old doesn't automatically mean it is right. Humans were part of the original christian church and humans make mistakes...even humans from 1500 years ago.

 

It assumes original sin, which is not a teaching of the apostles and early church. ??? The apostle Paul most certainly DID teach original sin...see Romans 5:12.

 

I really, really tried to stay out of this thread. But it is so sad that this theology exists in a world that needs to hear about a gentle, kind, loving, compassionate God. I certainly did not intend to upset you. I was just answering questions that were asked to the best of my ability. But I do agree that the world needs to hear about a gentle, kind, loving, compassionate, righteous, holy, glorious and just God.

.

[kokotg]

Also in Romans 5...5:18

 

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

 

The Greek is the same for both "all"s there. How can it mean that all men are condemned but only some are (or at least have the opportunity to be) saved?

[Georgiana Daniels]

Also in Romans 5...5:18

 

 

 

The Greek is the same for both "all"s there. How can it mean that all men are condemned but only some are (or at least have the opportunity to be) saved?

 

When I really started studying--intentionally without the pre-conceived ideas I've been taught since childhood--I was astonished how many times the word ALL is used in conjuction with salvation.

 

That's not to say people who have rejected Jesus will not receive their punishment, but that eventually they will be reconciled to God. Much of what UR hinges on is the fact that aion was not translated the same across the New Testament. In some places it's translated as age or ages, and in reference to separation from God it's translated as eternity.

 

Like I said before, I'm still searching/seeking, but if the translation part is true, UR really does have a leg to stand on.

[Nakia]

I could not go to sleep last night because I was thinking about this thread. I am "old" enough in my faith to know, understand, and accept that God doesn't have to make sense to me. I don't have to like His rules, decisions, or ways. But I know He loves us and know best. After all, His ways are higher than ours. I do believe that people accept God because He is God and not any work of man, though I also accept Jesus's call to be fishers of men. I don't think the two have to be exclusive of each other.

 

That said, I was thinking about my own family. My husband and I gave our lives to Christ many years ago. My oldest and my middles daughters have both accepted Christ. But my youngest, at the tender age of 5, has not. According to some of you, she might not ever because she has not been elected or chosen. God might not even want her. He formed her in my womb and knows her every thought, but He created her to fail? That is sooooooo far beyond the most wonderful God that I have known and trusted since I was a little girl. I cannot find that plan anywhere in the bible. I know I am taking this very personally, but it is personal.

 

If you believe God created us all, but that He created some of us to fail (possibly including your own children), does that not absolutely tear you apart? I get that NONE of us deserve salvation. I don't even get HOW God gave His son for our salvation. I accept it and thank Him for it every single day. He sent His very own son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him will not perish, except for those He didn't elect. No, of course, that's not what John 3:16 says. It's not what 2 Peter 3:9 says either, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." I realize we could go back and forth quoting scripture all day. I also realize that I will never be a Calvinist and that's okay. I probably shouldn't read these threads, because it just makes my heart hurt.

[milovany]

Well, to be fair, the intent of the Reformers was not to reform "christianity" but to reform the teachings of the church which HAD gone awry (at least if you agree with Luther's 95 theses)..

 

And to be equally fair, it needs to be recognized that Luther was attempting to bring reformation the Roman Catholic church, but that wasn't the only church at that point. It was the main Christian church in the West, but in the RCC there had been made some significant changes to the faith, and the Orthodox chose not to follow those; instead it continued on as it always had been, with the practices of faith and the theology that had been developed when the church was still one.

 

Did you see TeaTime's analogy in the other thread? I loved it so much I saved it:

 

I don't think the claim is so much that the Church is infallible. Clearly no body of believers have ever managed to be perfect and make no mistakes. They have made huge mistakes, but every time a new denomination comes along they, too, make mistakes (and the atheists have the same problem, bless them). A pure Church does not exist (pure in the sense of free of sinful people). Anyway, if one did exist, I wouldn't quality as a member.

 

So maybe think of it more like a boat. The boat is going to be tossed around, take on water, even have people bail out looking for boats that are more sound. But God said He would protect that boat, that it would never sink, and I believe it. Where in Scripture did God say that anyone would need to come along and build a new boat? Make repairs? Sure. But no authority was ever given to give up on the boat and build another one. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, show me where authority was given to Calvin or Luther (he would have been horrified at the thought) or anyone to make a brand new boat? On the contrary, I think there are verses that would be pretty much against that.

 

The EO and the RCC may argue about who owns the boat, but they, by golly, never did make a brand new one. [Removed a reference to "the captain" since the EO don't believe in the supremacy of the Pope], it is mayhem and all. But we are still afloat!

 

Incidentally, that analogy is not my own. It is Biblical. The boat was foreshadowed by Noah's Ark, and Churches were built for centuries to look like the inside of a boat.

 

Old does mean something if one believes God meant it when He said His church would be One, that the Lord Jesus Christ would be with it forever, and that the gates of Hades would never prevail against it.

 

May you find the fullness of God in your journey, Heather --

Edited January 3, 2011 by milovaný

[iwka]

but in the RCC there had been made some significant changes to the faith, and the Orthodox chose not to follow those; instead it continued on as it always had been, with the practices of faith and the theology that had been developed

1. What changes, according to you, the Catholic Church made, which wasn't in agreement with the Early Church's doctrines (not opinions)?

2. I get that Orthodoxy stopped and did not go with the theological "development", mostly with Scholasticism.

[justamouse]

With all due respect, I have really come to not like this "God" that has been created by "dark side" reformed theology (please note that I removed the names in the quotes above, because I'm not attacking a person but an ideology). If I was the kind of parent described by this theology, I'd be arrested and thrown in jail eventually. Thankfully, the Triune God of history is not this same God -- the God of the Christian church predates Calvin and "reformed doctrine" by at least 1500 years. Please understand that -- reformed theology assumes that something needed to be re-formed, and came up with something new 1500 years after the fact. But the church that God created in Christ has stood strong (as He said it would) for 2000 years, and this theology was never a part of it; it's a teaching of man, an innovation that came into the picture late in time. It assumes original sin, which is not a teaching of the apostles and early church.

 

Thank GOD.

 

I find myself asking, "Which theology would a child be drawn to?" (because the kingdom of God is something that draws children) -- one where they're taught that they can't help but to hate their maker, but if they're one of the 'lucky' ones they won't have to spend eternity in hell because he'll pluck them off the path on which he put them *OR* one where they're taught that their Maker made them because He loves them and wants to share all good things with them -- so He set in place a plan for their healing because, as all people do who have free will, they will make choices that do not glorify Him at times and they need to be made whole again. Which Church would a child be drawn to: one where you have to study hard to understand it (which presumes you having a written text, and that you can read) but others can study the same text and come to different conclusions *OR* one where the foundation is laid through the blood, sweat, tears and prayers of the apostles and early church, and now you can enter into a mysterious relationship that certainly respects your mind, but doesn't rely mostly on it, for it to be tangible, real and miraculous?

 

I really, really tried to stay out of this thread. But it is so sad that this theology exists in a world that needs to hear about a gentle, kind, loving, compassionate God.

 

 

Wow, that is a beautiful post. I'm so happy you posted.