Why were the Elect DESERVING of being chosen by God before the foundation of the world, if, by your own belief system, God just chose them according to His sovereign will? Please provide Scripture to back up your belief.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
I am hoping he was speaking infelicitously and will see how what he wrote can be misunderstood. Watch this space.
AMR
I really like you and respect you AMR. Please don't give him any coaxing. We need to choose our words wisely, to begin with. Trying to give him help isn't really helpful in this case. I say this with due respect.
Rosenritter
New member
Your first error is that you don't realize the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness, is at its essence, a sacrifice. When I forgive someone I am sacrificing something of myself, my right to justice, or retribution, or right for restitution, and absorbing that damage and letting the conflict end there. Christ's sacrifice is the message of God's willingness to forgive.
Your second error is that your question contains a flawed assumption. The Bible never says that Jesus was sacrificed to appease God. But among other things, it does says that Jesus was sacrificed so that if he were lifted up, that he might draw all men to him.
Your third error is a descent into crude language. Let's forgive that?
I make it a habit of praying before I post on TOL. I ask God to show me what to say and not say. I'm not saying everything I say comes from God. I merely ask for His guidance. Sometimes I've begun to post something and something inside tells me "Don't post that." And, I don't.
Judging by the passing of time, I would suggest that Crucible is asking for help on his answers or looking up commentaries or his church's doctrines? He may even have asked for help from some of the other Calvinists on TOL. Perhaps, the Cavalry will come to his aid?
I'll be back later to see what help he's been given, by others.
Rosenritter
New member
Answer the questions.
1. According to your doctrine, can the elect choose damnation?
2. Or can the elect earn damnation and receive the punishment of sin?
As a reminder, this is in response to post 3298, where it had been stated,
And you replied,
So answer the questions and let's see if the elect have a choice of whether to be saved or not.
Last edited:
It's relative to those after the fact of the Crucifixion in contrast to the wicked. But even before Christ, the elect were placed in Abraham's Bosom, so while human will is depraved, they were predestined to be worthy.
The whole "we don't deserve salvation" that the contemporary, more Puritan brand constantly spams is misleading.
Reading the verses speak for themselves.
You are using a view from outside of the Bible to misinterpret the Bible.
LA
So, you're basically saying a certain group of "Elect" was chosen to be worthy. Why were they chosen to be more worthy than, any other beings? Merit still had to be a part of the situation. Did God just say: "This person is worthy and that person isn't?" Was it just a toss of the coin sort of deal? If all are depraved, how are some chosen to be less depraved than another?
Crucible, you need to come up with better answers than the one you posted. It had HUGE gaping holes in it.
By what process are the DEPRAVED of humanity made acceptable? Scripture please?
If all of humanity are equally DEPRAVED how are some of those DEPRAVED made acceptable? There has to be some reason why they are acceptable over those others? God didn't just say: "I'll make these people worthy and those people unworthy for no reason." Please show Scripture, not just opinion.
popsthebuilder
New member
That explained no thing what so ever.
I was not speaking against or for osas.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Regarding The Number Of Calvinism's Elect
Regarding The Number Of Calvinism's Elect
The Calvinistic Theological System will allow the number of the elect to be the vast overwhelming majority of the human race, according to two of America's most respected and prominent Calvinist theologians, the late doctors Loraine Boettner and William G.T.Shedd:
Says Dr. Boettner:
"When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost.
But why should any one draw that conclusion?
God is free in election to choose as many as I He pleases, and we believe that He who is infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great majority to life.
There is no good reason why He should be limited to only a few.
We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to emerge victor even in numbers.
Our position in this respect has been very ably stated by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd in the following words:
"Let it be noticed that the question, how many are elected and how many are reprobated, has nothing to do with the question whether God may either elect or reprobate sinners. If it is intrinsically right for Him either to elect or not to elect, either to save or not to save free moral agents who by their own fault have plunged themselves into sin and ruin, numbers are of no account in establishing the rightness. And if it is intrinsically wrong, numbers are of no account in establisbing wrongness.
Neither is there any necessity that the number of the elect should be small, and that of the nonelect great; or the converse.
The election and the non-election, and also the numbers of the elect and the non-elect, are all alike a matter of sovereignty and optional decision.
At the same time it relieves the solemnity and awfulness which overhangs the decree of reprobation, to remember that the Scriptures teach that the number of the elect is much greater than that of the non-elect.
The kingdom of the Redeemer in this fallen world is always described as far greater and grander than that of Satan.
The operation of grace on earth is uniformly represented as mightier than that of sin. 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.'
And the final number of the redeemed is said to be a 'number which no man can number,' but that of the lost is not so magnified and emphasized.
There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven.
It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning.
When the Calvinist insists upon the doctrine of Election, his emphasis is upon the fact that God deals personally with each individual soul instead of dealing merely with mankind in the mass; and this is a thing altogether apart from the relative proportion which shall exist between the saved and the lost.
In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken.
The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved.
So far as the principles of sovereignty and personal election are concerned there is no reason why a Calvinist might not hold that all men will finally be saved; and some Calvinists have actually held this view. "Calvinism," wrote W. P. Patterson, of the University of Edinburgh, "is the only system which contains principles—in its doctrines of election and irresistible grace—that could make credible a theory of universal salvation."
And Dr. S. G. Craig, Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and one of the outstanding men in the Presbyterian Church at the present time, says: "No doubt many Calvinists, like many not Calvinists, have, in obedience to the supposed teachings of the Scriptures, held that few will be saved, but there is no good reason why Calvinists may not believe that the saved will ultimately embrace the immensely greater portion of the human race.
At any rate, our leading theologians—Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield—have so held."
As stated by Patterson, Calvinism, with its emphasis on the intimate personal relation between God and each individual soul, is the only system which would offer a logical basis for universalism if that view were not contradicted by the Scriptures."
Source: Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, section titled Unconditional Election, pages 130-131
_________________
"At any rate, our leading theologians—Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield—have so held." [Add Loraine Boettner and Dr. S. G. Craig to that list.]
And THAT list of Calvinists up there is about as Calvinistic as you can get.
Link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.vii.html
Regarding The Number Of Calvinism's Elect
The Calvinistic Theological System will allow the number of the elect to be the vast overwhelming majority of the human race, according to two of America's most respected and prominent Calvinist theologians, the late doctors Loraine Boettner and William G.T.Shedd:
Says Dr. Boettner:
"When the doctrine of Election is mentioned many people immediately assume that this means that the great majority of mankind will be lost.
But why should any one draw that conclusion?
God is free in election to choose as many as I He pleases, and we believe that He who is infinitely merciful and benevolent and holy will elect the great majority to life.
There is no good reason why He should be limited to only a few.
We are told that Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, and we do not believe that the Devil will be permitted to emerge victor even in numbers.
Our position in this respect has been very ably stated by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd in the following words:
"Let it be noticed that the question, how many are elected and how many are reprobated, has nothing to do with the question whether God may either elect or reprobate sinners. If it is intrinsically right for Him either to elect or not to elect, either to save or not to save free moral agents who by their own fault have plunged themselves into sin and ruin, numbers are of no account in establishing the rightness. And if it is intrinsically wrong, numbers are of no account in establisbing wrongness.
Neither is there any necessity that the number of the elect should be small, and that of the nonelect great; or the converse.
The election and the non-election, and also the numbers of the elect and the non-elect, are all alike a matter of sovereignty and optional decision.
At the same time it relieves the solemnity and awfulness which overhangs the decree of reprobation, to remember that the Scriptures teach that the number of the elect is much greater than that of the non-elect.
The kingdom of the Redeemer in this fallen world is always described as far greater and grander than that of Satan.
The operation of grace on earth is uniformly represented as mightier than that of sin. 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.'
And the final number of the redeemed is said to be a 'number which no man can number,' but that of the lost is not so magnified and emphasized.
There is, however, a very common practice among Arminian writers to represent Calvinists as tending to consign to everlasting misery a large portion of the human race whom they would admit to the enjoyment of heaven.
It is a mere caricature of Calvinism to represent it as based on the principle that the saved will be a mere handful, or only a few brands plucked from the burning.
When the Calvinist insists upon the doctrine of Election, his emphasis is upon the fact that God deals personally with each individual soul instead of dealing merely with mankind in the mass; and this is a thing altogether apart from the relative proportion which shall exist between the saved and the lost.
In answer to those who are inclined to say, "According to this doctrine God alone can save the soul; there will be few saved," we can reply that they might as well reason, "Since God alone can create stars, there can be but few stars." The objection is not well taken.
The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all will be saved.
So far as the principles of sovereignty and personal election are concerned there is no reason why a Calvinist might not hold that all men will finally be saved; and some Calvinists have actually held this view. "Calvinism," wrote W. P. Patterson, of the University of Edinburgh, "is the only system which contains principles—in its doctrines of election and irresistible grace—that could make credible a theory of universal salvation."
And Dr. S. G. Craig, Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and one of the outstanding men in the Presbyterian Church at the present time, says: "No doubt many Calvinists, like many not Calvinists, have, in obedience to the supposed teachings of the Scriptures, held that few will be saved, but there is no good reason why Calvinists may not believe that the saved will ultimately embrace the immensely greater portion of the human race.
At any rate, our leading theologians—Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield—have so held."
As stated by Patterson, Calvinism, with its emphasis on the intimate personal relation between God and each individual soul, is the only system which would offer a logical basis for universalism if that view were not contradicted by the Scriptures."
Source: Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, section titled Unconditional Election, pages 130-131
_________________
"At any rate, our leading theologians—Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield—have so held." [Add Loraine Boettner and Dr. S. G. Craig to that list.]
And THAT list of Calvinists up there is about as Calvinistic as you can get.
Link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.vii.html
The Presbyterian Church is going the same route as the Anglicans, it seems. They've slowly become ambiguous in their notions concerning many things, particularly with homosexuality and male clerical leadership.
So why should I be surprised that, being a reformed church as it may, is still falling to the same errors?
Calvinism does not undo the simple truth that that few are chosen- the Bible comes out and outright declares it, and I don't think John Calvin would disagree.
I call 'revision' on the presbyters
lain:
So why should I be surprised that, being a reformed church as it may, is still falling to the same errors?
Calvinism does not undo the simple truth that that few are chosen- the Bible comes out and outright declares it, and I don't think John Calvin would disagree.
I call 'revision' on the presbyters
lain:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
popsthebuilder
New member
You say that we can confidently state from scripture the three people of the Godhead.
I ask you to kindly do that now please sir.
Thank you.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Rosenritter,
Firstly, I generally enjoy reading your posts. Your leveled head and concise points are very welcome, always.
On your third point; the crude language is needed to show the faulty logic unfortunately, unless you were speaking of my use of the word "butt". In which case, it could have definitely been worded differently.
On your first assumption you claim I don't understand how forgiveness is a sacrifice of one's own want for justice, revenge, retribution, or whatever else one may feel entitled to. However, as stated; this is an assumption. Not only am I quite aware that what you stated is true, but I generally understand it and use it in daily life, consciously.
I have no qualms with the self sacrifice of the Christ being for the sake of others. I have no problem understanding that GOD is a merciful, long-suffering, forgiving GOD.
Your second point states that I myself make a flawed assumption in that GOD sacrificed himself to appease himself. But who's will was the Christ doing? It wasn't his own. So if Christ always was GOD then he sacrificed himself for his own will. I'm sorry but you cannot dance around that.
Speaking of what isn't in scripture; the trinity isn't in scripture, and if I'm not mistaken; the one reference made to the Father, son, and Holy Ghost, within scripture, is said to have been added at a later date.
The doctrine of the trinity was slowly formed by man over the span of 400 years. Pretty much all things involving what GOD allows man to know of GOD are simply obvious truths to the believer. The trinity is anything but. Not that I deny it, I just don't exactly agree with the coeternal thing and I don't believe it to be pertinent to salvation.
I look forward to your reply, and meant no disrespect whatsoever.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Firstly, I generally enjoy reading your posts. Your leveled head and concise points are very welcome, always.
On your third point; the crude language is needed to show the faulty logic unfortunately, unless you were speaking of my use of the word "butt". In which case, it could have definitely been worded differently.
On your first assumption you claim I don't understand how forgiveness is a sacrifice of one's own want for justice, revenge, retribution, or whatever else one may feel entitled to. However, as stated; this is an assumption. Not only am I quite aware that what you stated is true, but I generally understand it and use it in daily life, consciously.
I have no qualms with the self sacrifice of the Christ being for the sake of others. I have no problem understanding that GOD is a merciful, long-suffering, forgiving GOD.
Your second point states that I myself make a flawed assumption in that GOD sacrificed himself to appease himself. But who's will was the Christ doing? It wasn't his own. So if Christ always was GOD then he sacrificed himself for his own will. I'm sorry but you cannot dance around that.
Speaking of what isn't in scripture; the trinity isn't in scripture, and if I'm not mistaken; the one reference made to the Father, son, and Holy Ghost, within scripture, is said to have been added at a later date.
The doctrine of the trinity was slowly formed by man over the span of 400 years. Pretty much all things involving what GOD allows man to know of GOD are simply obvious truths to the believer. The trinity is anything but. Not that I deny it, I just don't exactly agree with the coeternal thing and I don't believe it to be pertinent to salvation.
I look forward to your reply, and meant no disrespect whatsoever.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
marhig
Well-known member
The three with the same nature I agree with, God coming in a man I agree with seeing as God was in Jesus and Jesus was dead to the flesh, not living by his will but by Gods will, and he was in the express image of God. I've never said that there was Jesus the man before Mary, the angel told Mary to call him Jesus, the fleshly Jesus was born of Mary and the Christ was in him.
What I am saying is, that Christ is subject to God, as it clearly says in the Bible
1 Corinthians 15
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
And why would God need to come into a human body and be sacrificed for all humanity at all? Why not just forgive them all? Seeing as he's God?
Jesus sacrificed his whole life for God, he was dead long before he went in the cross, dead to this world. And by sacrificing his life and not living by his will but by God's will, he was able show us a perfect example to follow, a new and living way teaching us how to live right before the father, showing us how to forgive, love, and obey and live right to come back to God. Thus he was reconciling us God, God was in him and through him and by not living in the flesh being dead to this world, he came to bare witness to the truth, he is the way, the truth and the life, and we are saved by his life. By faith, by following him and by his life manifest in our hearts through the holy spirit!
You say it is unchristian not to believe in the trinity, yet nowhere in the Bible is it said that we must believe in this to belong to God, and it clearly says that we are to believe that Jesus is the son of God, not God the son to be saved.
Last edited: