We wonder HOW anyone got to be IN Him when [this form of] Calvinists claim it was for no condition at all that He chose us...since unconditional election is a hard doctrine to hold.
I amended the above, not necessarily that all Calvinists don't hold to this, but you are dialogging with a particular kind that embraces all of your observations. I'm not that kind of Calvinist, so heads-up regarding the difference.
In a nutshell, no matter how you'd think God chooses us, it is always 'conditional' unless it was random selection. What that 'something' is, I've no idea, but it doesn't matter your particular theological bent, the other positions will see election as 'conditional.' I've never been able to escape this, just acknowledge the legitimate question concerning it (before I was a Calvinist as well).
Every verse that states or implies our GOD is loving, righteous and just.
Incomplete sentence, its missing a verb unless you remove "that" but I don't want to second-guess here your intended meaning.
1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels. Since there are elect angels we can assume that the demonic angels were passed over for election or not considered for election. Angels do not presumably have any racial solidarity, ie, they all are holy or sinful by their own choice, not by anyone else's choice. So now we have to answer the question: were some elected before or after the fall of the Satanic rebellion?
IF some were elected / chosen before the fall then there is no stated reason for the non-election of those not so elected. Unmerited election then also means unmerited non-election, ie, for no lack of merit at all some were passed over for salvation and NOT chosen to be saved if they should ever sin.
Romans 3:23 however cuts us away from 'us/them.' Rather we all were under the curse of sin. Because of this, the if/then juxtaposition doesn't work, if you follow.
[
QUOTE]What can we make of such a supposition? Can we say it is loving? Righteous? Just? The best we can say is HE is sovereign and if HE chose this way then who are you to argue, which is not a real answer at all. Why teach us HE is loving, righteous and just if it has no meaning in the biggest question in their existence: Why were some passed over for election!!!
In this, other theology perspectives say "they weren't." The idea is that it is, according to them, available to everyone. "No one can come to Me unless the Father draws Him." John 6:44 1 Corinthians 2:14
The point of wrestling for every believer is this: Why won't they? What is it in their make-up that this doesn't/cannot happen? What is it in ours that it did/does? Hence, without regard to theological position, there is difficulty explaining 'unconditional' and 'conditional.' The Calvinist simply embraces the 'un' (tUlip) and leaves it to the counsel of God. Salvation is of God. Your statement above, if I read it correctly, says God can and is to be trusted. My caveat (what I have to add for me), is 'regardless of what it may or may not look like to me, it is a trust issue.' God
is Good, Righteous, Loving, Just, etc.
It is entirely possible that the decision for some to receive unconditional election and others to receive unmerited rejection for election with no indication that this decision was loving, righteous or just could have precipitated the Satanic war in heaven by the perception that non-election was without any reason or condition or dis-merit which was NOT loving, righteous or just so they committed themselves to war, putting their faith in the belief that YHWH was a false god and a liar, unworthy of being their GOD for acting in this capricious manner.
This is what 'unconditional' implies. It implies 'no reason', not just an 'unknown reason' because if there was a reason there would be merit by not rebelling against that reason! Unconditional non-election means they were just as acceptable for election as everyone but did not receive it....that is, without merit or condition means that THEY WERE IN THEIR INNOCENCE WHEN THEY WERE PASSED OVER FOR ELECTION. That does NOT sound like my GOD at all or loving, nor righteous, nor just. IF they were passed over for an evil they did then there is righteous justice in the election of those that were not passed over, those who got the promise of election because they did not do that evil!!
As given above, it isn't a necessary logical juxtaposition because we all were guilty, and we all sinned. It is only when one looks at 'how and why' we are saved and others are not. In a sense, it must surely be our new-godly sense of love for fellow men that seeks answers to "If I'm to love them (my relative and my enemy), then why can't I do anything about their salvation?" or some other goodly sentiment from care and concern. It is, I believe, this same objection that is addressed with 'unless you hate your mother and father more than me, you are unworthy of me' or some other harsh-seeming statement from the Lord of Love. I do remember in my early days of devotion reading 'get thee behind me Satan!' and wondering. It seemed to me, at the time, Peter was expressing love and desire to be with his Savior forever with "Surely not!" The problem? It may have been well-intended but the Lord Jesus Christ explained Himself that He'd been telling Peter the rest of the disciples for a long time, what MUST take place for Peter and we, to all be loved in the first place, to be saved.
My point: It was 'my' maturity in understanding and love, that made this difference. With the Lord Jesus Christ, nothing has changed. Rather, I have learned that what may not look loving to me today, may look incredibly loving and indeed the only action for love when I better understand. The LARGEST problem with Calvinism is that we aren't able to give the mature-love version at every instance. Worse? Nor can we, I don't believe. We have no choice but to trust and hope where we don't understand and I'd suggest we Calvinists, who learn more, learn there is much more we don't know. THAT is what we don't often convey as often as we ought. "Up-in-the-air" just doesn't convey the kind of confidence one needs to embrace a systematic theology. For me, however, it came with the package and while I see our theological flaws, I've embraced the label of Calvinism for it most accurately reflects the form of my own theological understanding.
If election was a response to the Satanic rebellion to reward those angels who did not rebel and to pass over those angels who did rebel and condemn them on the spot, then merit makes sense. The rebellion of the Satanic to the command to put their faith in the Son and to love one another which they heard in the beginning is the reason they were passed over to be HIS Bride. The choice by some to accept HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in HIS Son was the reason they were elected based upon the merit of this choice to obey the commandment.
This is still reactionary, however, thus 'conditional' upon something. The Arminian Remonstrance thus said that election was conditional and that God is only able to do so much to save, at the hands of sin. The problem I see is: Hebrews 7:25 I do believe He is able, to the uttermost.
Thus we probably have a precedent for election being based upon merit and proper free will decisions being the condition of being elected or not elected. And since unconditional election is false in the first people elected, the elect angels, I strongly suggest that it is wrongly used for some sinners sown into the world as sinful men who were also elected before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4, you know, at the beginning, the time of the Satanic fall, perhaps.
The parable of the wheat and the tares, is us. Some are wheat. Some are weeds. The angels don't know, thus are forbidden. Some insist God doesn't know either, along with His angels until the time of harvest. This, to me, ALSO signals unconditional election where men are going to be what 'they' are going to be with no conditions against salvation. However, such is still argued 'conditional' because then it counts against men where they build or stumble upon the Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems likely that this false doctrine arose for thefact that our salvation is without condition in that no one can earn their salvation by works at all..
Why then would it be false? If even you are arguing against meritable salvation, isn't that in and of itself without conditions? The problem, as I've stated is the very slippery definitions of conditional vs unconditional. We often look to the O.T. concerning conditions vs. none. God promised to bless all through Abraham with no conditions. It was simply a statement, a promise akin to Romans 8:28 God also made a promise that 'if' Israel followed God's directives, He'd give them the land and drive out all their enemies. Whenever 'if' comes Hebrews 3:15 into context, we may infer (at least) salvation is conditional. However, if salvation is for all men and without regard, at least the availability would be understood as unconditional. Point: I believe we have to make very clear what we respectively mean by unconditional and conditional. The Calvinist specifically is saying Titus 3:5-7 that God is no respecter of persons.Acts 10:30 Romans 2:11 This doesn't mean (for all or most of us Calvinists) that God has no idea who will be saved. Because of this, there is often a retroactive claim that God condemns in foreknowledge. This doesn't have to be true at all. All who God can save, will be. 2 Peter 3:9 John 17:12
And if salvation is unconditional then since it is founded upon election, election also must be unconditional. Once this is accepted then the idea grows that our GOD would condemn some for no reason, no dis-merit nor evil condition found in them, that is THEY WERE IN THEIR INNOCENCE WHEN THEY WERE PASSED OVER FOR ELECTION, a blasphemy.
Romans 3:10
But election is not salvation. Election as given or withheld from innocents (pre-sin) according to their free will decison to meet HIS requirements of election or to reject them, the first sins. Salvation is for sinners, for those who have lost their free will to the enslaving addiction of evil. Is it rational to expect that the same experience would be had in both election and salvation? That the same rules would apply? Election was the acceptance by GOD of those who responded to HIS claims to be our GOD with faith and non-election was HIS response to those who rejected to put their faith in HIM, rejecting HIM as a false god and a liar.
You realize you are saying 'unconditional' then proceeding to describe conditions, yes? You are saying God only favors those who say 'yes.' In a way, I think I can agree BUT the Saul had to be struck blind and given little choice. Some on TOL have claimed that God gave them no or little choice either. It would then be arbitrary whether you believed in 'condition' or 'uncondition' based on your own salvation experience? :think:
That salvation is unconditional in that no sinner can merit salvation by their works cannot mean it is not founded upon a reason and that reason is our election.
My problem: This only allows those with 'reasoning' ability to be saved. It inadvertently condemns the handicapped, for instance. It'd also condemn children who die (or anyone who dies) before being able to wrestle with salvation questions. I've a few thoughts and questions spurred by such, but for now, am trying to simply show the other side of the discussion as well as some of the thinking behind those thoughts.
Election is the promise of salvation to every elect person should they ever choose to sin in the future after their election. Salvation is the fulfillment of HIS promise of election in the elect sinner, totally outside the control of the sinner because they have become sinners, corrupt and evil.
I believe you are confusing 'election' with 'security.' I'd like to see you develop your definition of 'election' and what you mean, a bit further (paragraph or two).
In Him -Lon
