Calling All Calvinists......

[Heather in Neverland]

Warning: this is long but really important (to me). So if you are brave (or bored) grab a cup of coffee and get comfy.

 

Here is where I’ve been most of my life:

 

Salvation is a gift from God through Christ available to all. We don’t earn it…it is through grace alone. We have the choice to accept or reject this gift. Now “accept†is really a euphemism for “acknowledge that we are wretched sinners in need of a savior (often the hardest part for many people), repent of our sin, and surrender our lives to God’s will rather than our own."

 

I am reading through the entire NT right now as part of a class assignment and I have been coming across verses that I know Calvinists use as support for their doctrine of election and I can definitely understand how those verses would point in that direction. I’ve had a love/hate relationship with Reformed theology for sometime now so I need to ask some questions.

 

But first I have to ask, please don’t give me the “reformed theology†party lines. It seems whenever I ask a Calvinist a question they all launch into a lot of theological jargon as if they have all been forced to memorize the same slogans. What I need are real, heart-felt answers to real heart-felt questions. Please.

 

Total depravity- I can see this for sure. The bible says we are dead in our transgressions. So the idea then, is that a sinful, depraved person would never, of their own accord, CHOOSE Christ, right? So then the idea that salvation is a gift that we accept or reject is null and void because we aren’t the ones doing the choosing because if we were, we would always choose sin over Christ?

 

Unconditional election- God chooses to save some and not others and it is based entirely on His choice and not anything we do. That, of course, relates to total depravity because if we are totally sinful and unable to choose the things of the Spirit, then it must be God who chooses us. Right?

 

Limited atonement- Christ only died for the elect, not for everyone. I can see where you get that. If he died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, since everyone would be part of the elect, right? Again, this eliminates the “choice†aspect. If Christ died for all as a gift and it was up to us to accept or reject that gift, that’s one thing. But if he only died for some, then those are the only ones who will be saved.

 

Irresistible grace- If God chooses you, you will be saved. So again, the “choice†aspect is eliminated.

 

Perseverance of the saints- If God chooses to save you, you cannot “lose†that salvation, even if you try? Again, no “choice†there.

 

So it seems to me that the link, the common thread through all of these is the matter of “choiceâ€. The weird thing is that in some ways this all makes sense to me. Of course it is about choice! What do we humans love the most? Having control, making our own choices. This country was founded on freedom, the ability to make our own choices. So of course we want to choose our salvation, or lack thereof, as well. Being a Christian, though, is about giving up our will and seeking God’s will, giving up control of our lives and asking God to guide our steps so in some ways it makes sense that the root of it all is God doing the choosing and not us.

 

BUT

 

The thing that bothers me and that bothers most people who cannot embrace Calvinism is that it doesn’t seem to fit with the nature of God. And believe me, I am not one of the “God is my buddy†crowd. I believe in a Holy, Sovereign God. I believe that He is a God of love but He is also a Just God and will judge the world and this world will receive His wrath. But I still don’t “get†the reasoning behind the idea of saving some and not others.

 

Please don’t tell me it is to glorify Him. Because saving the entire world would be a pretty glorious thing, ya know? Saving some and sending the others to hell when they never had a fighting chance because He didn’t pick them doesn’t seem very glorious. ??? And yes I know we all deserve hell and so it is awesome that He provides another option but providing it for some and not others based on what seems to be a random luck of the draw just seems…well…mean.

 

So how does He choose? I’ve been told that it is based on those He knew would choose Him but that doesn’t make sense to me because then we are back to humans doing the choosing and not God.

 

I’ve been told that He does it so that the ones who are chosen will glorify Him even more (sort of like “whew! I’m glad I’m not one of the non-elect!â€). That doesn’t make sense because, again, if we all had a REAL idea of what eternal separation from God was about and then He saved us all, THAT would be a lot more glorifying.

 

I’ve been told He chose the elect long before the earth was created but that seems even worse because then people are created by Him for the sole purpose of suffering eternal ****ation. I get that once we are born we are sinful and deserve hell but if that’s the case and I was born as one of the non-elect, I would rather not be born at all.

 

And it still doesn’t explain WHY? Why choose some and not others? Is it just for the heck of it? Just because He can? Come on, that seems really petty. I need a real answer.

 

And what do we do about a verse like John 3:16? “For God so loved the world (the elect? Those he chose ahead of time?) that He gave his only begotten son, that whosever (of the elect?), believeth in Him (wait I thought it was irresistible grace, this sounds like a choice), should not perish but have everlasting life.â€

 

This has all been driving me a little batty. I have been going back and forth on this for a long time now and I still can’t reconcile the two opposing viewpoints. They can’t both be true and I am all about truth, ya know?

 

So if you’ve read this far you are pretty brave (or bored). Anyone care to take a stab at it? :D

[JVA]

I've wondered the same things..........looking forward to some thoughtful answers. Thanks for posing the questions. You said it better than I could have.

[Jugglin'5]

I will freely admit that I have no idea why he chooses some and not others. Here's my take: God sees everything, at all times, all at once. He doesn't see only one point in time at a time, if you follow me. It is BECAUSE of His character, and the fact that He has all the information, and I only have a miniscule speck of it, that I trust that He knows what He is doing. He is both just and merciful, and I don't believe anyone will be able to complain of their treatment at the last day. So I guess my answer is that I take it on faith that He will not go against His character, and that I can trust in His competency to run the universe properly. How's that for a non-answer?:tongue_smilie:

[Chris in VA]

I will be watching this thread, because, Heather, you have laid it out so well, and I have some of the same questions. There's an entry on my blog (I think it's under Election or something) that speaks to this, and my own questions.

 

Here are my comments--(and this will be confusing, because I have a hard time articulating my view) I think we cannot choose on our own, but that God comes to us and makes us able to choose. We love, because he first loved us. I believe salvation is for everyone whom God chooses--and he chooses everyone, but not everyone chooses him back. So, if it were not for God reaching down to us (which he has done globally thru the Incarnation, and does personally in everyone's life), we could not reach up to him. I believe he invites us all, even revealing himself thru creation. So he is the initiator. We cannot initiate that contact. But I believe we can respond to it or not respond to it. I believe that is free will, not that we can freely initiate contact with God, but that we can choose to accept or reject him.

 

I also believe that God's grace is not irresistible in the sense that, if He wants you saved, you will be saved, because I do believe he leaves it up to us. It's not that he couldn't save you, it's that he wants your cooperation, because he doesn't want automatons, who must love him. We cannot stop his grace, but we can choose not to accept him. How that must hurt him, y'know?

 

Now, my husband believes something unscriptural-- he says he thinks God will give us a clear choice when we die, and that we will really see the choice clearly. I think he sees it like Thomas--blessed are those who believe without seeing (those who believe without truly knowing or experiencing the consequences of not believing), but some will need to be convinced. He thinks that convincing will take place after we die, somehow, and that EVEN THEN, there will be some who do not choose him (which is hard for ME to believe, but there you go). Like I said, this is not a scriptural belief, simply one he has come to, trying to reconcile his conflicting thoughts on the matter. It's not something he shares from the pulpit. He says he is sure who will go to Heaven, but not sure who won't.

 

Anyway, some thoughts for ya--I think it's good that you are taking responsibility for your own walk with Jesus. And I appreciate your heart.

[KatieJ]

I feel overwhelmed with wanting to help explain this. I see so many errors in this elect idea, according to what I believe.

 

A couple things.

I have not studied Calvanism and until I moved to MI, had truly never heard of it.

The elect is scripture as I see it, refers to Israel as a nation. God chose Israel as his own and they remain his own today even tho they have rejected Christ.

 

I do not see in scripture where God chose to save anyone over anyone else.

He later gave the gentiles access to himself thru the cross.

Salvation is a gift, we can accept or reject. I do not see anywhere in scripture where a "depraved soul" would not ever be able to be saved. That thought really upsets me.

 

Perseverance of the saints. Usually the verses referred to here Mark 12:13, is referring to the end of times, Revelations, when those christians on earth are called on to refuse the mark of the beast. Those that endure to the end, will be saved. It does not apply to the christians living today.

 

 

See...our world has had and will have many dispensations of time.

Before the cross, there was not Christ, no grace. AFter the Rapture and during the millenium, again, God has a differnent plan of salvation.

 

No one will stand before him and wonder why they are going to hell. He has provided a plan for salavation, even tho it is different for each dispensation. I believe you must come to understand that. All of scripture does not apply equally to every dispensation. You have to figure out who God is speaking to and in what dispensation.

 

God knows who will and who has accepted his plan of Salvation, who has accepted his son. He offers that to everyone. The choice is yours.

He knew before time....ahead of time, who would and who would not choose Christ. That's a different thought than he chose for us which of us will be saved.

[Soph the vet]

Considering that Spurgeon and Mueller wrestled with this and Edwards implored Wesley to not oppose these doctrines, I think you are in excellent company with your questions.

I don't know if I am a Calvinist in every way but election has never been a stumbling block for me. I am leaving a link here to Piper's thoughts on this, it is extremely long, even longer than your post;) but he gives such a greater assessment of not just the "how" Calvinists think but also the "why".

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/105_The_Doctrines_of_Grace/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/

[tinag]

Since it is very difficult for me to write clearly I won't even try and explain Calvinism. I would highly recommend Richard Belcher's books on Calvinism. They are written in a story form and really make Calvinism easier to understand.

http://www.graceandtruthbooks.com/listdetails.asp?ID=454

I really think you will enjoy all his Journey books.

[LBC]

Now, my husband believes something unscriptural-- he says he thinks God will give us a clear choice when we die, and that we will really see the choice clearly. I think he sees it like Thomas--blessed are those who believe without seeing (those who believe without truly knowing or experiencing the consequences of not believing), but some will need to be convinced. He thinks that convincing will take place after we die, somehow, and that EVEN THEN, there will be some who do not choose him (which is hard for ME to believe, but there you go). Like I said, this is not a scriptural belief, simply one he has come to, trying to reconcile his conflicting thoughts on the matter. It's not something he shares from the pulpit. He says he is sure who will go to Heaven, but not sure who won't.

 

 

 

I find this interesting. I've sometimes wondered about this. When you say that it's not scriptural, do you mean that there are verses to disprove this theory? Or do you just find no scripture to specifically prove this?

 

As I've wrestled with some of the questions Heather has mentioned, I've found myself following a path of reasoning that makes me wonder if there will still be an opportunity to accept Jesus' sacrifice for our salvation. There are many verses that possibly could point to this. Romans 5 has a passage that makes me wonder:

 

"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

 

There are also some other verses and thoughts in scripture that make me wonder if this is the "key" to reconciling some of the pieces of the mystery that just don't fit (according to my limited understanding). I certainly wouldn't say that I "believe" this deviation from typical Christian doctrine, but I would say that I can't be certain one way or the other.

 

I'll be watching this conversation. I love the element of grace found in Reformed beliefs, but like Heather, I just can't reconcile in my heart that the character of God creates life knowing that those He loves will be eternally separated from Him.

 

Lori

[Tutor]

I don't know.

 

As you have pointed out (and very well, IMO, I might add), Scripture appears to purport the idea summarized in TULIP/ reformed theology. However, although Scripture does seem to clearly lay out what is happening, it appears to be silent (or at least very, very quiet) as to why. I don't know why. I don't think Scripture explains why. Generally, I just take it on faith that it is, God is sovereign, I am not, and am content to leave it there. Other days, God is still sovereign, I still am not, and I am not content, I am confused, I am angry, I am frustrated, and I don't like it. I don't think that my not liking it changes anything. I don't feel comfortable in my not liking it (mainly because skepticism, doubt, and lack of certainty, are often looked down upon by the church, so others hide their questions and put on a good face, so I feel very alone in these times - this is my experience, not objective or exhaustive by any means, so please, no one slam me for making a generalization :001_smile: ). I just wrestle and cry and yell and wrestle some more. I don't know that we'll ever know why. Maybe in the new heaven and new earth, but God will still be sovereign there and may withhold that info then as well. (He did not tell Adam and Eve why they should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just not to do it, so it is quite possible that in Glory, we won't be privy to things just like here, but we will just accept them on faith without all the struggle. Who knows... other than God, of course.)

 

So in short, I see the truth of reformed theology in Scripture, including predestination, based on a preponderance of the evidence. That will have to be enough for me.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Tutor
typos and lack fo clarity

[LucyMcGillicuddy]

...

See...our world has had and will have many dispensations of time.

...

No one will stand before him and wonder why they are going to hell. He has provided a plan for salavation, even tho it is different for each dispensation. I believe you must come to understand that. All of scripture does not apply equally to every dispensation. You have to figure out who God is speaking to and in what dispensation.

 

Heather was asking for some clarification on what Calvinists believe.

 

Dispensationalism is getting into something that is not related to Reformed theology at all.

 

Bonnie

[HappyGrace]

Since the initial "dark side" post on this several months ago, I've been trying to learn more and understand Reformed theology. I see it, I really do (although I struggle with limited atonement, but understand how you must believe that or TULIP falls.) I was raised to believe "people choose." I'm at a point now that I'm seeing Scriptures that seem to apply to both, so I'm confused. If I were to get enough Scriptural support for Reformed, I'd actually be okay with the "why" part of it that you asked, strictly because of God's sovereignty. I also believe that whether we believe Armenian or Reformed doesn't affect our salvation-it's one of those issues we may never know the TRUTH on til we get to Heaven, so we need to stand together as one Church. But I really want to know where *I* stand on it anyway!!!

 

Right now what I'm studying in Romans seems to support Reformed, but other Scriptures (ie Jn 3:16) seem to refute it.

 

You stated this so eloquently! Thank you! I hope we get a lot of help on this!

[TravelingChris]

I am a Calvinist in beliefs and I don't purport to understand why God set it up this way. Most of the time, I find the beliefs comforting. Converting others does not rest on my shoulders. I am called to help spread the Gospel but am not responsible for other's salvation. One's beliefs about others' salvation really makes no difference otherwise. Even if Calvinists are wrong and people are choosing salvation, we chose in that case. The only part that would be very troubling if it was wrong is the part about not losing your salvation. But that part seems among the clearest in the Bible to me. Certainly if we are trying to live a Godly life, there is no chance that we will somehow stumble into the loss of salvation even in the most Arministic church, I would think. I thik that what the Arminians think is that someone like my son sho claims to be now uncertain of God and his nature has lost his salvation. If my son happens to die suddenly now in a car accident I think the Calvinist doctrine would again be more comforting. Where he would end up I wouldn't be certain until my death or maybe later (depending on views of heaven) but in the meantime, it would comfort me.

[Erica in PA]

I believe in the doctrines of Calvinism not because I was raised with them (I wasn't), or because a persuasive Calvinist won me over (no one did)-- I believe in those doctrines because as I read and studied the Bible, that is the plainest, clearest understanding of Scripture. There are verses and passage in the Bible that really have no other clear explanation other than that God does choose who will be saved.

 

It's not for me to say whether I like or don't like what God does. His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways. That's not a cop-out, it's the truth. To me, it's a matter of studying Scripture and understanding the world through God's perspective. We can't come to Scripture and interpret it based on what we like or don't like.

 

Romans 9:10 and following addresses these sorts of issues. It points out that we are all God's creation, and it's not to us to question the way that He chooses some, and not others. It is His right to do with us as He chooses.

 

As far as why God does things this way, I don't know. I don't know *why* God does what He does in a lot of areas. For example, Why does God create children who are born with terrible diseases, who live a short, pain-filled life, then die, leaving their parents in total despair? How does that fit with Him being kind, and merciful, and all-powerful?? In my human mind, it doesn't. And yet I have faith that He is all of those things, and I trust Him in the areas where I don't understand, in faith that I will understand perfectly someday.

 

So my advice is to study the Scriptures, and find your foundation in that alone. When you know what His word says, put your faith in that, and leave the rest to the Lord. Trust God to be all that His Word says that He is, and know that His plan is perfect.

[KristenS]

I have no answers for the Calvinist perspective (I'm a Methodist and my church-friends look at me crazy if I even consider the ideas, LOL) but I love how clearly you spelled out all the questions. I totally get where you're coming from. The 'limited atonement' thing is the biggest stumbling block to me.

 

Enjoying reading the answers here!

[StaceyinLA]

I was raised Catholic, went to Reformed churches for quite a few years (though I never fully bought their theology - I tend to be of the "free will" mindset, but I LOVED other aspects of the church), and now I am studying Catholicism again, and really learning it.

 

I guess the issue I have with the theologies, and I know it doesn't help you in your studies, is that there are SO many different protestant religions, all with different beliefs, and all with scripture backing (supposedly), that it makes it really hard to trust in which one is right. I think this is what has, ultimately, brought me back to the Catholic faith (though I'm still not 100% there). There are just too many MEN making decisions based on their own interpretations of scripture. How can that many different denominations have Biblical support??

 

I'm reading this thread with great interest because I'm struggling big-time in these areas myself...

[Jenn in Mo]

Heather, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!

 

This is exactly what has been running through my head and heart and driving me insane. I tried asking (though not so eloquently) during the last 'dark side' thread, but I apparently killed the thread which stunk because I REALLY need answers. I am anxiously following this thread.

[Guest janainaz]

I will be watching this thread, because, Heather, you have laid it out so well, and I have some of the same questions. There's an entry on my blog (I think it's under Election or something) that speaks to this, and my own questions.

 

Here are my comments--(and this will be confusing, because I have a hard time articulating my view) I think we cannot choose on our own, but that God comes to us and makes us able to choose. We love, because he first loved us. I believe salvation is for everyone whom God chooses--and he chooses everyone, but not everyone chooses him back. So, if it were not for God reaching down to us (which he has done globally thru the Incarnation, and does personally in everyone's life), we could not reach up to him. I believe he invites us all, even revealing himself thru creation. So he is the initiator. We cannot initiate that contact. But I believe we can respond to it or not respond to it. I believe that is free will, not that we can freely initiate contact with God, but that we can choose to accept or reject him.

 

I also believe that God's grace is not irresistible in the sense that, if He wants you saved, you will be saved, because I do believe he leaves it up to us. It's not that he couldn't save you, it's that he wants your cooperation, because he doesn't want automatons, who must love him. We cannot stop his grace, but we can choose not to accept him. How that must hurt him, y'know?

 

Now, my husband believes something unscriptural-- he says he thinks God will give us a clear choice when we die, and that we will really see the choice clearly. I think he sees it like Thomas--blessed are those who believe without seeing (those who believe without truly knowing or experiencing the consequences of not believing), but some will need to be convinced. He thinks that convincing will take place after we die, somehow, and that EVEN THEN, there will be some who do not choose him (which is hard for ME to believe, but there you go). Like I said, this is not a scriptural belief, simply one he has come to, trying to reconcile his conflicting thoughts on the matter. It's not something he shares from the pulpit. He says he is sure who will go to Heaven, but not sure who won't.

 

Anyway, some thoughts for ya--I think it's good that you are taking responsibility for your own walk with Jesus. And I appreciate your heart.

 

 

I agree with this perspective AND somewhat even about what your dh believes.

 

The more I learn the less I know and the more questions I have. I believe that God is so big and that his love is so incomprehensible because of our human minds that we only see a partial glimpse of who He really is.

 

As simple-minded as this thought is - I wonder what happens to a person who never encounters a Bible or the name Jesus. Is it possible for that person to know God?

 

God is bigger than the Bible. Everything that I have learned about God, all the truths that I have come to know I did not learn from the Bible. The Bible only attests to the truth that is in my heart already. As children of God, we are supposed to have the laws of God written on our hearts. Christ is in us, He is part of us and yet we continue to push our noses in a book for answers. I'm just making an observation and one I've made from my own frustration. I have doubts - many of them, about what I think I know and believe about God. I absolutely believe Jesus was his son and sent for our salvation. I understand the deep concept of it all. But, I don't think I could go before any individual and tell them I have all the answers. God is love and that is where the problem lies for us humans. We can't comprehend the true meaning of that.

 

Heather, I think you would find it interesting to do a study on "hell". My dh went to seminary at Calvary right out of high school and just recently he did a study on it. There are a LOT of holes and wrong teachings that stem from the Bible and words that were translated from their original meanings.

[Jenn in Mo]

Just sharing an article I'm in the midst of reading as I also look for answers: http://www.layhands.com/WhatIsCalvinism.htm

[Bess]

I think that these are things that aren't neccessary to reconcile. The Bible says that he chooses his elect, but it also tells us to believe on Him. For some reason, I'm okay with not knowing how or why both can be. Like the concept of the Trinity, it is not something that one can explain ...but I'm okay with that. Who can know the mind of God?

 

I can state that I believe in election and also state to someone that they must put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. I can do both those things because the Bible has told me that both those must happen to be saved.

 

This isn't the theological answer you were probably looking for, but for me it's just the simple matter of believing what God has said.

 

As to feeling like the whole idea is mean... do you feel the same about God choosing the Jews as his "chosen people"? Most people, I think, would not think that was "mean"... but something that God chose to do for a specific purpose... I believe the same is for his "elect", his "church".

[Bess]

Most of the time, I find the beliefs comforting. Converting others does not rest on my shoulders. I am called to help spread the Gospel but am not responsible for other's salvation. One's beliefs about others' salvation really makes no difference otherwise.

 

I agree with this as well. It is the hearing of the gospel and the power of God that saves... not my witty words. Comfort indeed!

[Alice]

I consider myself a Calvinist but feel woefully inadequate to fully defend it. I think for me it makes the most sense of any theology or understanding of the Bible. But I would also say that I think Calvinism vs. Armenism or differences in opinion on baptism, end times, communion, etc are not at all where our salvation lies. To me, Reformed Theology makes the most sense and I believe it to be true....but I don't think that my salvation (or anyone else's) rests on believing in Calvin. It only rests on believing in Jesus.

 

I have struggled and still struggle with many of the things you mentioned. The idea of limited atonement doesn't seem "fair". It can seem "mean" or "petty". Part of the problem I think is that those concepts just don't apply to God. He is so far beyond anything we can imagine in terms of Holiness and Righteousness that I think we cannot ever grasp it. The Bible is chock-full of examples of God choosing one person over another ...think Abraham, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, David to be king over the other brothers that were more "kingly" in men's terms. In my mind, all these examples are unfair. But yet they point to His sovereignty and to the very concept of election.

 

I think Erica said it well. I don't know why God chooses some and not others. I agree with her that I don't understand a lot of things in this world. And yet, I believe because I have faith. I believe God is good. He is holy. He is righteous. I believe He is merciful and chooses to extend His grace to those He chooses. In my prayer life, I am honest with God about not understanding these things and sometimes being angry about what to me seems unfair, unjust and un-understandable.

 

I find that for me Reformed Theology is the most comforting. I know I didn't do anything to deserve God's grace. I know I didn't somehow "choose" to do good. I know it's only through His grace and mercy. I have no idea where anyone else's heart or faith is and it's not my place to judge or condemn anyone. There but for the grace of God go I.

 

If you are interested in reading Calvin himself, there are several websites doing the Institutes in one year in celebration of Calvin's 500th birthday. I'm using this site http://www2.ptsem.edu/ConEd/Calvin/. The old readings aren't available because of some copyright issue but you can probably find it somewhere else or just pick up now....we haven't really gotten into the meat yet.

[Jugglin'5]

I would also recommend reading the original Reformed confessions, creeds, and canons if you have not already. They strive to answer the very questions you have because they were some of the same questions that people had back then.

 

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

[angela in ohio]

I'll try to help, but I don't know how much help I'll be. I don't know any of the party slogans, so I can only explain it in my words. ;)

 

John 3:16 doesn't bother me, because it is clear to me that there are two interpretations at work. The key issue seems to center on "whosoever believes in Him." I interpret it as those who are belivers - those chosen. Other interpret it as those who choose to believe of their own free will. I don't see the word choose in the passage.

 

Heather (and the other poster who mentioned it): an understanding that TULIP stands or falls all together is foundational. That's a long way toward understanding.

 

I wish I knew why God chose some and not others. I'd like to think I'll know someday. Of course, I heard a wise preacher one time say that once we get to heaven, we'll forget all the questions in the face of Christ's glory. :) Either way, I won't have to be curious anymore.

 

I try to remember that it takes no faith to believe in something we can see. If all of the mysteries were explained, what would my faith be worth? Pondering two things that seem contrary to my little brain, but yet knowing that God understands them makes me feel so in awe of Him. Maybe that's the reason? Maybe not.

 

I've prayed and prayed and I'm at a place where I can say to myself, "Because God says so." That doesn't help, I know, but I say it to encourage you to pray that God will give you peace about this, if not the total understanding you desire.

[Sarah CB]

The whole "sovereignty of God" and focus on grace really intrigue me, but what I can't get over is that if we are God's children then as a parent would God want to exert that control and "make" us believe in him?

 

As a parent, I love my children so much. I take great delight in watching them grow and mature (as I nurture and encourage them) and I also give them increasing responsibility as they grow. I am working towards a day when they can make their *own* choices. I wouldn't want to control their most important choices later on because really, what's the point? Then it would be like I had puppets instead of children.

 

I don't think a sovereign God who loves us and adopts us into his family would go around forcing people to love him.

 

And as for the total depravity of man...I get that, I really do. But, I think even the totally lost are still seeking. There's a reason people continually strive for more money, or more power, or more conquests - and it's usually because there's an empty place somewhere in them that they are trying to fill. I think we all have that space because we're meant to be in relationship with God and when we're not we feel as though something is missing - because something actually is missing. So even the totally depraved are trying to fill this hole. I think that, much like the hopeless addict who finds a rehab unit, even though we are full of sin we still know that something is missing and some of us figure out that that something is God.

[LibraryLover]

--Total depravity- I can see this for sure. The bible says we are dead in our transgressions. So the idea then, is that a sinful, depraved person would never, of their own accord, CHOOSE Christ, right? So then the idea that salvation is a gift that we accept or reject is null and void because we aren’t the ones doing the choosing because if we were, we would always choose sin over Christ?--

 

 

How are you defining "depraved person" ?

[Heather in Neverland]

--Total depravity- I can see this for sure. The bible says we are dead in our transgressions. So the idea then, is that a sinful, depraved person would never, of their own accord, CHOOSE Christ, right? So then the idea that salvation is a gift that we accept or reject is null and void because we aren’t the ones doing the choosing because if we were, we would always choose sin over Christ?--

 

 

How are you defining "depraved person" ?

 

I am not totally sure how a Calvinist would define it but I see it as everyone who is not saved...born into original sin...the state of all human beings before regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

[Heather in Neverland]

As to feeling like the whole idea is mean... do you feel the same about God choosing the Jews as his "chosen people"? Most people, I think, would not think that was "mean"... but something that God chose to do for a specific purpose... I believe the same is for his "elect", his "church".

 

 

Well, no. That's not the same thing because, although Jews are His chosen people, salvation has been extended to the Gentiles as well so we have a chance at eternal life. Election from before time began for some and not others means those not chosen have no chance.

[Heather in Neverland]

And as for the total depravity of man...I get that, I really do. But, I think even the totally lost are still seeking. There's a reason people continually strive for more money, or more power, or more conquests - and it's usually because there's an empty place somewhere in them that they are trying to fill. I think we all have that space because we're meant to be in relationship with God and when we're not we feel as though something is missing - because something actually is missing. So even the totally depraved are trying to fill this hole. I think that, much like the hopeless addict who finds a rehab unit, even though we are full of sin we still know that something is missing and some of us figure out that that something is God.

 

This is a really interesting point. Thank for bringing this up.

[Erica in PA]

I don't think a sovereign God who loves us and adopts us into his family would go around forcing people to love him.

 

 

 

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that for a loving God to go so far as to give us, (who are totally depraved and truly enemies of God, as the Bible describes mankind), to give *us* the supernatural ability to love Him and seek Him, so that through that faith we can be saved from the natural consequences of our sin-- that is an incredibly loving gift! To me it shows both His sovereignty and His love.

[CAMom]

Heather, you know I'm a "Calvinist.";) For the record, I'm a follower of Christ whose theology aligns best with that espoused by John Calvin and the Westminster Confession. I am not a "follower" of Calvin.:D

 

That said, I think that a lot of the problem that Christians have with Calvinism lies in the fact that they set up some of God's attributes (ie mercy and love) over and above others (ie justice, sovereignty and holiness). On the contrary, each of God's attributes exists in complete harmony with each other.

 

I think you hit on another key point: we want to be in control! Even if just a little bit. We can't bear the thought of being completely unable to choose God in our natural state because it interferes with out control over our own destiny.

 

We don't know why God chooses some. It's not for us to know. Isaiah 55 tells us that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways higher than our ways. Sometimes, we just have to accept that there are things which He has done that are not for us to know and we need to accept them on faith.

 

We consider our lack of choice as "unfair" or "mean" because we are thinking in a human economy instead of a heavenly economy. God would be 100% just to not save one single person. We are all sinners and none of us are worthy of His love. The fact that He chose even one is a demonstration of His mercy. It is for God to decide on whom He will have mercy because it is His alone to bestow.

 

I also think it's important to distinguish that God does not send anyone to hell. They send themselves. Remember, the natural man is at odds with God. He doesn't want to be saved. He is perfectly happy in His sin so God merely gives him over to His own will. The beginning half of Romans 8 handles this subject.

 

So, the fact that God gives some over to their own desires while intervening in the life of others is not at all "mean" or "unfair." Nobody gets less than what they deserve.

 

(One last point on "L". If Christ payed the penalty for the sins of every human ever born and some still go to hell-thus paying the penalty for their own sins as well-then Christ's death was ineffective and God is unjust for punishing the same sins twice and refusing the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of some.)

 

I don't know if any of this is helpful. I'm with the others, though, in saying that our salvation is based on the work of Christ and that I consider my Arminian friends by brothers and sisters in Him.:grouphug:

[Chris in VA]

I also think it's important to distinguish that God does not send anyone to hell. They send themselves. Remember, the natural man is at odds with God. He doesn't want to be saved. He is perfectly happy in His sin so God merely gives him over to His own will. The beginning half of Romans 8 handles this subject.

 

So, the fact that God gives some over to their own desires while intervening in the life of others is not at all "mean" or "unfair." Nobody gets less than what they deserve.

 

 

This is the part I have trouble with, especially if I take the discussion out of my head and into my life. Does the Calvinist say that one does not choose Heaven, but one does choose Hell? I agree that the natural man, without God's intervention, does not choose God. But where I differ is that I believe God, thru Jesus Christ (the fact that he came and is now), offers us the choice. He has intervened. He holds out the gift of salvation to all--it exists. We have to take it to make it ours. What I see as unfair is to create someone who has no chance of taking that gift. I do believe His ways are higher than mine, he can do whatever he wants, and he is good. I do believe he is just and merciful. As far as the punishment aspect of hell, I don't think he's punishing twice, exactly, it's like the people who choose not to believe are choosing to pay their own fine. They haven't said to God, ok, I'll take you up on your offer to pay my fine for me. Because there has to be justice, the fine has to be paid, and the fine is eternal separation from God (ie Death).

 

Thanks for letting me share my view. Thanks for this thread, Heather. I am in agreement that doctrine doesn't save, Jesus does--but I appreciate the deep thoughts that went into those doctrines, even as I struggle with them.

[Alice]

I think part of the issue is that God exists outside time. He knows everything that will happen before it happens. So for me that's part of the problem with the concept of "choice". If God gives us the choice to accept or reject salvation either He knows what we will choose because He is omniscious or He doesn't know because it's truly our own choice. And then if we "choose" to reject salvation either He can force us to accept or not force us. I'm not sure how it's any less mean than the concept of election to say that God offers us the gift of salvation, knows we won't "choose" it, but doesn't force us because of free will. That to me is a God who is too interested in letting us choose for ourself to reach in and save us. One who is unremoved from His creation. I guess you could say He doesn't know what we're going to choose or can't force us because of free will....but I think that would go against His nature of being omnipotent and omniscious.

 

I don't really see the idea of election as being forced to do something against my free will. To me it's more that God's glory and power and love are so amazing that once you get a tiny glimpe of them through the Holy Spirit it is truly irresistable. So to those He chooses, the Spirit reveals a tiny bit of that glory/power/love and they are drawn to him. I guess in a way that is being "forced", certainly to go against the natural tendency away from God. But I see it more as a gift from God that is truly so wonderful it's impossible to resist.

 

Not sure if that added much to the discussion. Two interesting novels on the topic are Home and Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. They aren't just on Calvinism but deal with a lot of these topics and are fantastic books in and of themselves.

[Heather in Neverland]

Heather, you know I'm a "Calvinist.";) For the record, I'm a follower of Christ whose theology aligns best with that espoused by John Calvin and the Westminster Confession. I am not a "follower" of Calvin.:D

 

That said, I think that a lot of the problem that Christians have with Calvinism lies in the fact that they set up some of God's attributes (ie mercy and love) over and above others (ie justice, sovereignty and holiness). On the contrary, each of God's attributes exists in complete harmony with each other.

 

I think you hit on another key point: we want to be in control! Even if just a little bit. We can't bear the thought of being completely unable to choose God in our natural state because it interferes with out control over our own destiny.

 

We don't know why God chooses some. It's not for us to know. Isaiah 55 tells us that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and His ways higher than our ways. Sometimes, we just have to accept that there are things which He has done that are not for us to know and we need to accept them on faith.

 

We consider our lack of choice as "unfair" or "mean" because we are thinking in a human economy instead of a heavenly economy. God would be 100% just to not save one single person. We are all sinners and none of us are worthy of His love. The fact that He chose even one is a demonstration of His mercy. It is for God to decide on whom He will have mercy because it is His alone to bestow.

 

I also think it's important to distinguish that God does not send anyone to hell. They send themselves. Remember, the natural man is at odds with God. He doesn't want to be saved. He is perfectly happy in His sin so God merely gives him over to His own will. The beginning half of Romans 8 handles this subject.

 

So, the fact that God gives some over to their own desires while intervening in the life of others is not at all "mean" or "unfair." Nobody gets less than what they deserve.

 

(One last point on "L". If Christ payed the penalty for the sins of every human ever born and some still go to hell-thus paying the penalty for their own sins as well-then Christ's death was ineffective and God is unjust for punishing the same sins twice and refusing the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of some.)

 

I don't know if any of this is helpful. I'm with the others, though, in saying that our salvation is based on the work of Christ and that I consider my Arminian friends by brothers and sisters in Him.:grouphug:

 

 

Hi Ronette!

I was hoping you'd pop in. :D

 

I completely get everything you are saying. The only thing that troubles me is this: Yes, once we are born, we are born into sin and deserve hell and it IS merciful of God to save even just a handfull. My question is why have ANYONE born as non-elect? Once you are conceived, if you are non-elect, you are done for...no hope. But if the ONLY children that were conceived were the elect then we would all be saved.

 

I know that sounds weird but hear me out. The same refrain from non-calvinists is why would God choose some for Heaven and the rest are going to hell and they don't get a choice in the matter, right? And the response from calvinists is always "we all deserve to go to hell so it is merciful that God saves even a few."

 

But we don't deserve to go to hell before we are even conceived...before we exist. And God is the author of life so then the argument goes to the fact that God is deliberately creating people that He knows are doomed. THAT's where the struggle is...... at least for me.

[Chris in VA]

Yes, this is my struggle, too--Heather, you are so articulate.

I think God woos us all our lives--I'm really hoping so. My son has not made a profession of faith yet--quite the opposite. It hurts me beyond measure to think that maybe salvation is not possible for him, and never was. Why would God create him then? As I said, when I take that doctrine out of my head and apply it to my life, I just can't

accept it. I can accept that maybe Peter will not choose God--but not that God created him with no possibility for redemption.

 

Anyway, I'll shut up now! Great thread.

[KristenS]

But we don't deserve to go to hell before we are even conceived...before we exist. And God is the author of life so then the argument goes to the fact that God is deliberately creating people that He knows are doomed. THAT's where the struggle is...... at least for me.

 

Heather, you are really good at summing up the confusing questions!

[Jugglin'5]

Hi Ronette!

I was hoping you'd pop in. :D

 

I completely get everything you are saying. The only thing that troubles me is this: Yes, once we are born, we are born into sin and deserve hell and it IS merciful of God to save even just a handfull. My question is why have ANYONE born as non-elect? Once you are conceived, if you are non-elect, you are done for...no hope. But if the ONLY children that were conceived were the elect then we would all be saved.

 

I know that sounds weird but hear me out. The same refrain from non-calvinists is why would God choose some for Heaven and the rest are going to hell and they don't get a choice in the matter, right? And the response from calvinists is always "we all deserve to go to hell so it is merciful that God saves even a few."

 

But we don't deserve to go to hell before we are even conceived...before we exist. And God is the author of life so then the argument goes to the fact that God is deliberately creating people that He knows are doomed. THAT's where the struggle is...... at least for me.

 

 

From my perspective, you are just pushing the "choice" or free will question back another level. It seems to me that what you are doing is disapproving of God's choice rather than man's, in election, but then wanting Him to override man's free choice to procreate so that there won't be anyone born who might be condemned. Believe me when I say, I totally get your discomfort with this. Why does God make vessels for destruction? I don't know. I'm just not sure there is an answer that will satisfy you apart from, "God is infinite, omniscient, just , loving, and sinless. I am finite, extremely limited in knowledge, unjust, unloving, and sinful. In whom should I trust, my understanding, or God's?" I quit tying myself up in knots about it a long time ago, because to me the question came down to who or what did I trust? My intellect or the Maker and Sustainer of the universe? I think God's questions to Job (why did you let this happen to me?) and Paul's answers (election with the potter and the clay) are the ones we have to be content with, as much as we might dislike it. Most of us do, and we either learn to make peace with our questions by faith in a Holy God, or we don't. In short, I am not sure that there is an answer that will satisfy you in all respects. I hope this doesn't come across as snarky or sarcastic, because that is not my intention AT ALL.

[CAMom]

 

But we don't deserve to go to hell before we are even conceived...before we exist. And God is the author of life so then the argument goes to the fact that God is deliberately creating people that He knows are doomed. THAT's where the struggle is...... at least for me.

 

Hey, friend! :)

 

This is a deep theological issue that theologians discuss ad naseum. It deals with the order of God's decrees. What did He decree first? Creation? The Fall? The $10 words are infralapsarian and supralapsarian.

 

Like I said before, we have to be willing to accept, on faith, what God's told us and believe what He's explicitly revealed in His Word. Some things are hard from a human perspective. Deut. 29:29 says, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."

 

Let's look at it this way as well: God ordains all things that come to pass. Nothing is out of His control. So take these two analogies...

 

There is going to be a major pile-up on the interstate today. There will be some fatalities, critical injuries, totaled cars, etc. Should God take all cars off of the road so that the accident is prevented? Is it mean for Him to allow anyone to experience that?

 

Or, here is one much more personal for me. You know that my daughter died when she was 6 weeks old. We prayed for her for years and wanted her with our whole hearts. Knowing that she was going be born with a severe heart defect that would take her life, would it have been better for her not to have been born at all?

 

I know you didn't want to hear the answer that God does it for His own glory but that is the biblical answer. It's not just the "Calvinist refrain.";) "What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy...." (Romans 9:23)

 

These are, indeed, tough questions. We need to remember, however, that there are incommunicable attributes (namely sovereignty) that belong to God alone and that we cannot understand because they don't belong to us. A great book on the treatment of the attributes of God is The Knowledge of the Holy by A. W. Tozer.

[Miss Marple]

There is going to be a major pile-up on the interstate today. There will be some fatalities, critical injuries, totaled cars, etc. Should God take all cars off of the road so that the accident is prevented? Is it mean for Him to allow anyone to experience that?

 

Yes, I think it would be "mean" (I prefer unholy) of him *if he caused the pile-up in the first place*. That's the problem with the analogy. God would be mean to cause a child to be born knowing that *he* has doomed him to hell without providing a way of escape.

 

Here's a (IMO) good article on God's sovereignty http://francisschaefferfoundation.com/20042.html (this is the one I meant to post originally, but the other is excellent (again IMO) also.

http://www.francisschaefferfoundation.com/open.html

Edited January 29, 2009 by CynthiaOK
wrong link

[CAMom]

Yes, I think it would be "mean" (I prefer unholy) of him *if he caused the pile-up in the first place*. That's the problem with the analogy. God would be mean to cause a child to be born knowing that *he* has doomed him to hell without providing a way of escape.

 

Here's a (IMO) good article on God's sovereignty http://www.francisschaefferfoundation.com/open.html

 

I think the point of the analogy is missed. God doesn't cause the pile up and he doesn't cause sin. So, *He* didn't doom anyone to hell. The cars (in the accident analogy) were already on the natural course on their way down the interstate. In the same way, babies are born in the natural course of human reproduction.

 

I don't have time right now to read the Schaeffer piece but I will later.

[Miss Marple]

But the Calvinist position as I understand it is stated in Jugglin5 above:

 

Why does God make vessels for destruction/QUOTE]- The Calvinist contrasts vessels for destruction with those who are "chosen". So, according to what has been said, God does indeed doom some to hell (destruction).

[Heather in Neverland]

I can't put it all in words right now but I want you all to know how much I am learning from all of these posts and differing viewpoints.

 

Ronette, those $10 words made me laugh so hard my diet coke almost came out my nose! You are one smart cookie! ;)

[Tutor]

But we don't deserve to go to hell before we are even conceived...before we exist. And God is the author of life so then the argument goes to the fact that God is deliberately creating people that He knows are doomed. THAT's where the struggle is...... at least for me.

 

This is something I am wrestling with myself, but I think that a clue to reconciling this (as much as we can, anyway) is in our view of predestination. There seem to be two views of predestination:

1) A person is conceived and just before that conception, God predestines that person's path.

2) God predestined all of time before the creation of it.

 

I think that if we look at the world, as much as we are able, from the second point of view, we will see that all of the history of time has been created to reveal God's glory. I am not sure why it must be this way, but apparently it must be this way. In this view, any given person does deserve hell before he is even conceived because it is in his nature to do so and serves to glorify God in some way (John 9). It depends on your view of sin. Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners? If the first is the case, then you are right... no one would deserve hell until they committed a sin (although we could then debate when that is possible). If the latter is the case, then all deserve hell before they are even born because they can do nothing but sin because it is who they are. (I believe this view is supported by Scripture, John 9 mentioned above I think speaks to this.)

 

Further questions to ponder (like you need more, right? :D ) :

How do you feel about predestination/ election in the Old Testament? Are all saved in the Old Testament or just Israel? What do you do about the passage "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated?" Or "I will have mercy on who I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion?" (see Romans 9; Genesis 25:19-34; Malachi 1:2; Exodus 33: 12-23)

 

Thanks for opening up a discussion on this. I wish more Christians were willing to openly struggle with these questions and that the church provided an environment that encouraged it. Thanks!

[CAMom]

Ronette, those $10 words made me laugh so hard my diet coke almost came out my nose! You are one smart cookie! ;)

 

Yeah, well, it comes from years of living with my resident theologian. Now my son is following his dad's footsteps. Our latest conversation has been on "higher" and "lower" criticism. Don't ask me to explain that one yet, though.;)

 

It is exciting to see my son digging into deep theological topics. He's participating in the apologetics event in NCFCA (the Christian homeschooled speech and debate league). Fun stuff!:D

 

But the Calvinist position as I understand it is stated in Jugglin5 above:

 

Why does God make vessels for destruction- The Calvinist contrasts vessels for destruction with those who are "chosen". So, according to what has been said, God does indeed doom some to hell (destruction).

 

Except it's not the "Calvinists" who say the above. It's Paul. The reference is Romans chapter 9. I know it's hard doctrine. But, I've don't think I've ever seen a non-"Calvinist" really deal with that passage. I'd be interested to hear their take on it, though.

[Heather in Neverland]

Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners?

 

I guess my answer would be we are neither until we are conceived (since we do not exist until we are conceived) and once we are conceived we are sinners. So my wish is that if I am not going to be born one of the elect than I would rather not be born.

[CAMom]

I guess my answer would be we are neither until we are conceived (since we do not exist until we are conceived) and once we are conceived we are sinners. So my wish is that if I am not going to be born one of the elect than I would rather not be born.

 

But, see, Heather, you feel that way because you *are* elect! Those who are dead in sin are happy there. They don't walk around lamenting the fact that they were born because they're not elect. They don't want to be saved. They don't want to be elect. They are enemies of God and are content with that.

:grouphug:

[Melinda in VT]

I also struggle with the idea that God does things in order to bring glory on himself. It's not a very attractive quality in a human, and I don't much care for it in a God either.

 

I'm a horrible heretic, I know.

[Miss Marple]

then all deserve hell before they are even born because they can do nothing but sin because it is who they are./QUOTE]

 

So then our sin nature is what dooms us to hell. But if that is true, why do Christians believe babies go to heaven (before the age of accountability)? If the total depravity of man, as defined by Calvin, is to be believed, then a baby who is chosen goes to heaven and one who is not goes to hell. There is a story in the OT about a wicked king's son in whom God found some "good" and God removed him and took him to heaven. Or the story of David and Bathsheba's son: But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will nt return to me." (II Samuel 12:15-23). David evidently knew his son was "chosen" and was in heaven. But according to Calvinism, we cannot know who is "chosen" which is why Calvinists evangelize. This seems to be a rather circular argument - we can't know, the "chosen" will be saved, but we must evangelize.

[seanda]

Let's start with the statement that I am not a Calvinist. I understand the doctrine but just as you say that there is overwhelming evidence FOR Calvinist doctrine, I see overwhelming evidence in the opposite direction.

 

Some of you stated that it freed you from the pressures of leading others to Christ, that you had to share the Gospel but the rest is up to God. And in a way I agree with this. It is not ME that is responsible for whether or not they accept the message, for whether or not God has softened their hearts or opened their ears... but I see a much greater responsibility.

 

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20

 

Here we have several commands... go and make disciples... go baptize them... go teach them to obey.

 

I see Acts 1:8 as part of this same command. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

 

We have the Holy Spirit in us as we live in the age past the Pentecost, and we are believers... and we are called to be witnesses.

 

The main concept I see pervasively throughout Scripture that does not fit with a strict Calvinist ideology is the statement repeated over and over and over again to believe and to have faith. If God is the one who causes us to believe and have faith this command is useless. But if God is offering us the choice, then the statement to us to believe is understandable and vital.

 

And because I believe in this verse: 1 Timothy 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

If God desires all men to be saved.. and did not allow for free choice... then all WOULD be saved. This is totally inconsistent with Calvin doctrine... if Calvin doctrine is true then all would be saved. All are not saved. Logically this is because although God DESIRES that all men be saved, He offers us free will and a choice whether or not to accept Him.

 

And btw, I would agree that I am not saved because of ME... But by God's grace and mercy, and His love for me, offering His Son on the cross for me. I came not because I am worthy but because God kept on calling... and by God's grace I heard and listened and said yes. At first a very faint yes but God grows that faith like the mustard seed. All praise and glory and honor belong to Him!

[Jugglin'5]

then all deserve hell before they are even born because they can do nothing but sin because it is who they are./QUOTE]

 

So then our sin nature is what dooms us to hell. But if that is true, why do Christians believe babies go to heaven (before the age of accountability)? If the total depravity of man, as defined by Calvin, is to be believed, then a baby who is chosen goes to heaven and one who is not goes to hell. There is a story in the OT about a wicked king's son in whom God found some "good" and God removed him and took him to heaven. Or the story of David and Bathsheba's son: But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will nt return to me." (II Samuel 12:15-23). David evidently knew his son was "chosen" and was in heaven. But according to Calvinism, we cannot know who is "chosen" which is why Calvinists evangelize. This seems to be a rather circular argument - we can't know, the "chosen" will be saved, but we must evangelize.

 

I actually believe that because "sin is not imputed where there is no law" Rom.5, and the verses that you mentioned, that infants go to heaven when they die. Calvinists hold many different positions on that topic, though.

 

 

 

Exodus tells us both that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Which is true? Both are. How does that work? Darned if I know. In the same way God tell us that we are to go and evangelize, and asks, "How will they hear unless they have a preacher?" Yet He also says:

 

 

John8:47 "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

 

 

And John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

 

God commands the preacher to preach or the disciple to tell and uses the words to draw the new believer to belief. He commands us to believe, knowing that we won't unless He gives us a new heart and desire first. I don't understand how that works. How does God accomplish any of His plans, leaving the issues of salvation aside, without having sovereignty? How did everything workout with the crucifixion and resurrection to fulfill so many prophecies if God has no power to bring them to fruition? Why do you pray for God to do a specific thing or change somebody's heart (maybe you've had an enemy who was persecuting you or a friend who was treating you unkindly), if He has no power to do it? It seems to me that everyone wants God to be sovereign when it comes to our protection from others, control of the atoms in the universe so that they don't explode, and bringing our salvation about through the cross, but nobody likes the idea of God messing with their personal sovereignty.

[Hapax Legomena]

(Part One of Two-Part Answer)

Here is where I’ve been most of my life:

 

Salvation is a gift from God through Christ available to all. We don’t earn it…it is through grace alone. We have the choice to accept or reject this gift. Now “accept” is really a euphemism for “acknowledge that we are wretched sinners in need of a savior (often the hardest part for many people), repent of our sin, and surrender our lives to God’s will rather than our own."

 

The Bible does not use the word “accept.” We are told to “believe the gospel.”

Total depravity- I can see this for sure. The bible says we are dead in our transgressions. So the idea then, is that a sinful, depraved person would never, of their own accord, CHOOSE Christ, right? So then the idea that salvation is a gift that we accept or reject is null and void because we aren’t the ones doing the choosing because if we were, we would always choose sin over Christ?

 

We must be careful not to draw conclusions the Bible doesn’t make. The way you have framed the issue, salvation is a gift, but it is not a gift. That is a contradiction.

What the Bible says is that salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast; it is the gift of God. However, the Bible also commands us to believe the gospel. Those are not contradictions.

Unconditional election- God chooses to save some and not others and it is based entirely on His choice and not anything we do. That, of course, relates to total depravity because if we are totally sinful and unable to choose the things of the Spirit, then it must be God who chooses us. Right?

 

Right.

Limited atonement- Christ only died for the elect, not for everyone. I can see where you get that. If he died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, since everyone would be part of the elect, right? Again, this eliminates the “choice” aspect. If Christ died for all as a gift and it was up to us to accept or reject that gift, that’s one thing. But if he only died for some, then those are the only ones who will be saved.

So called “Five Point Calvinists” hold this view. I don’t hold this point. Rather, I believe the better view is that although Christ died for the sins of all mankind, only those who put their trust in Him will have eternal life. There are several reasons to reject the limited atonement view, but there are many godly people who hold to limited atonement. I am not at war with them.

Irresistible grace- If God chooses you, you will be saved. So again, the “choice” aspect is eliminated.

Yes, you will be saved. However, the Bible also states that people must put their trust in Christ as Savior. From a human perspective we are making a choice.

Perseverance of the saints- If God chooses to save you, you cannot “lose” that salvation, even if you try? Again, no “choice” there.

 

This is true. However, people define perseverance of the saints in different ways.

So it seems to me that the link, the common thread through all of these is the matter of “choice”. The weird thing is that in some ways this all makes sense to me. Of course it is about choice! What do we humans love the most? Having control, making our own choices. This country was founded on freedom, the ability to make our own choices. So of course we want to choose our salvation, or lack thereof, as well. Being a Christian, though, is about giving up our will and seeking God’s will, giving up control of our lives and asking God to guide our steps so in some ways it makes sense that the root of it all is God doing the choosing and not us.

 

BUT

 

The thing that bothers me and that bothers most people who cannot embrace Calvinism is that it doesn’t seem to fit with the nature of God. And believe me, I am not one of the “God is my buddy” crowd. I believe in a Holy, Sovereign God. I believe that He is a God of love but He is also a Just God and will judge the world and this world will receive His wrath. But I still don’t “get” the reasoning behind the idea of saving some and not others.

Perhaps we would not make the world to work the way God has made it. However, of all of the possible plans, He picked this one. It involves heaven and hell, sin and a Savior, the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, etc.

The Bible says that the potter can do what He wishes with the clay. God has done just as He has wished. There is nothing inconsistent in what He has done. There is nothing sinful about what He has done. In fact, this plan reflects the limitless wisdom, love, power, grace, mercy and justice of God.

Please don’t tell me it is to glorify Him. Because saving the entire world would be a pretty glorious thing, ya know?

We need to be careful when we say, “Please don’t tell me….” If we are not careful, we begin to put ourselves in the place of God and imagine that we can think of a plan which is better than the plan he devised and implemented. When we take that approach we begin to imply that we know more than God, or that we are more loving than God, or that we are more just than God, etc.

I know that you are not meaning to go to that point; I just raise that thought because we all need to keep things in perspective as we think about the wonderous and oftentimes hidden things of God.

Saving some and sending the others to hell when they never had a fighting chance because He didn’t pick them doesn’t seem very glorious. ???

Again, there is a difference of opinion concerning this point. The formal idea would be whether the Bible teaches double-predestination or not. The Bible teaches that people must put their trust in Jesus in order to be saved; by that I mean they must believe that He died for their sin and rose again.

The Bible does not teach that He sends people to hell. Further, it never condemns God for the fact that people do not believe the gospel. Man is held responsible for his choice.

And yes I know we all deserve hell and so it is awesome that He provides another option but providing it for some and not others based on what seems to be a random luck of the draw just seems…well…mean.

Again, it may seem mean; but it is not. It is the work of a God who is all loving and all just.

On a human level, we don’t say that a judge is mean for sending a murderer to jail. Why? Because the judge is administering the law and the murderer has harmed society by his own actions.

In the same way, God has created hell for those who do not put their trust in Jesus.

Third, we must also keep in mind that God is holy. When we sin; we offend His holiness. Since He is both holy and just; He has provided a plan which includes both salvation and judgment.

So how does He choose? I’ve been told that it is based on those He knew would choose Him but that doesn’t make sense to me because then we are back to humans doing the choosing and not God.

Some people like to think that God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would trust Him and who would not. On that basis, He then elected those who would later choose Him anyway.

The Biblical notions of predestination and foreknowledge do not contain that concept. God’s choosing is not based on anything that we have done or would do.

 

The Bible tells us that He has acted according to His good pleasure.

I’ve been told that He does it so that the ones who are chosen will glorify Him even more (sort of like “whew! I’m glad I’m not one of the non-elect!”). That doesn’t make sense because, again, if we all had a REAL idea of what eternal separation from God was about and then He saved us all, THAT would be a lot more glorifying.

 

Again, we must be careful to think that something might be more glorifying. There is no basis to think that what you have said is true or would be true had God made things to work as you suggest.

Again, we do have a real idea of what separation from God is like. Even so, people choose not to trust Him.

It is possible that if the doors of hell were left open, people suffering there would still decline the opportunity to go to heaven.

I’ve been told He chose the elect long before the earth was created but that seems even worse because then people are created by Him for the sole purpose of suffering eternal ****ation.

Ephesians tells us that He chose us before the foundation of the world. However, the Bible does not say that people are created by Him for the sole purpose of suffering in hell.