"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

However if we look at the whole bible i think the principal still applies in that God does not favor any nation or any person and if this principal is universally applicable then it is contrary to the Calvinistic view of the "chosen few."

If I squint, I can follow that reasoning.

Either that's because I'm so entrenched in my Reformed background that I'm blind to the simple truth that's so apparent to you, or it's because the "simple truth" that's so apparent to you is really just emotional non sequitur.

Now what should I do from here? How should I proceed? How should I decide? I can carefully reconsider, immersing myself in Arminian reflections to see if I can pierce the veil of Calvinism that you probably think lies across my eyes. I can evaluate the philosophy. I can seek to be wise in figuring out if your argument is logically sound using good, Biblical definitions of "partiality" and using my own perception of what Calvinistic election implies.

I can do that...But I would much rather spend that energy evaluating the exegesis. For me, TULIP will stand or fall on the strength of passages like Romans 9-11, John 6, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 6, 1 John, Hebrews 10, and so on. It will stand or fall on passages that speak directly to the nature of salvation, to the natures of perseverance & apostasy, to the ways we come to believe or to the reasons we don't, to the interaction between God's sovereignty and man's will, to how God seeks salvation for man. It will stand or fall on how strong I think the arguments are from all sides on those passages.

Saying something like, "Calvinistic election seems inconsistent my understanding of God's character"... Well, I suppose that can be a motivation to take a second look at what the Bible says. It can be a reason to test the Scriptural grounds for that doctrine very carefully.

But that's it. If I were to decide my theology on that kind of reasoning... I can think of little that would be more dishonoring to God's word and to my responsibility to rightly divide the word of truth. I want my theology to be based on direct teaching from Scripture, not my own speculation about what various ideas seem to imply. It would be no different than those who reject the idea of hell because they think a loving God wouldn't punish sinners that way. They might say things like, "But the Bible says God is love, so He could never send anyone to hell!", and think that's Bible study. But it's not--it's philosophy, it's tradition. It's pride.

I have no idea how you have made your decisions. I don't know you; I'm not accusing you. I have no idea how much you've studied, or how you've studied, or whether you derive your theology through solid Bible study or through philosophical speculation. Since you're a fallible human being, like me, it's probably a combination of both.

What I'm doing, though, is explaining why your argument goes nowhere with me. And why it frustrates me very much to see people argue that way.

[Guest]

David,

So tell me, why do you put so much faith in the Bible? If the Bible told you that you should murder your first-born son, and torture the rest of your children, would you still believe it was God's word? Is there nothing it could say that would convince you it wasn't inspired?

I mean, you tell me I should not trust my common sense, but it is my common sense that led me to believe in God, to believe that if He existed and created us He would try to communicate with us. Having reached that conclusion, I determined that Christ and the Bible seemed to me to be the most reasonable of all the so-called communications from a divine being out there.

Yes, me in my fallen nature used "common sense" to come to those conclusions.

Having determined the Bible is true, my thinking continues this way:

1) God created all things.
2) Into His wonderful creation He put a couple of naive, innocent people and told them one thing they couldn't do.
3) Next He places a tester into the creation, the cleverest of all the creatures.
4) When this clever being talked the innocent, naive people into disobeying God. He cursed creation. Each of us born since then have been born with a natural tendency to make bad choices. Choices which lead to our own destruction.
5) Our thinking, sensations, ego, etc, all naturally encline us to choose that which against God. Add to that pressures from society and dark spiritual forces, and we have a considerable weight pushing us in the wrong direction (aka, the wide road leading to destruction).
6) There is much resistance to making wise choices, choices that lead to life (the narrow path).


Why would God do this, I wonder? Why would He set it up so that we are bound to fail, that few would choose to swim upstream? Why is choosing the right way so very difficult, and choosing the wrong way so easy?

--> The Calvinist says God decided everything that would happen before any of us were born. That He decided to choose some of His creation to be blessed by Him, and some (most?) of His creation to be damned for all of eternity.

I say this does not make sense. The Calvinist says I cannot determine what makes sense because I am fallen. But even though I am fallen, God will judge me for making bad choices (aka, sin).

--> The Arminian says God truly wants all to be saved, but we must choose wisely. They say it is not God's fault if some do not choose to have faith, that they willingly rejected God's saving plan.

This also does not make sense to me. If God had this great saving plan, why would He entrust the spreading of the word to us selfish, fallible people? Why would He make the right way so hard to choose? There I go again trying to use my common sense. Guess there is no hope for me.

So I try to come up with an understanding of scripture that is consistent with all the things it says, and that makes sense to me. A plan that I believe is worthy of the wonderful God that you and I both believe in.

I know you do not believe that universal reconciliation with God is consistent with scripture, but I do. And I believe it makes a lot more (common) sense than either of Arminianism or Calvinism.

It took me a long time to get from believing in traditional doctrine to where I am now. And I suppose I have quite some way to go before my belief system stops changing, perhaps that will not happen this side of the grave. I do not expect you to embrace what I believe based on anything I say. I suspect you are on a similar path as I, just headed in a slightly different direction (at least for now). What I mean is, you are studying and growing on a path of your own (as I am), and what I or others say will not change that much. You will have to find it for yourself.

When I told you to do a little research, I was not meaning to imply that you weren't. What I was trying to say was that a little research (by anyone) will demonstrate that smart guys come up with good arguments on all sides of the various doctrines. That is why I wish that people would not be so dogmatic about what they believed.

Yes, I believe that we are saved by grace. By that I mean that I do not have to earn it. I do not have to do some work to be saved. I am saved (ie: delivered from my sin) by faith. Trusting God. Relationship.

I sometimes think, however, that we overstate it when we say He does not owe us anything. That is why I used the example of parenting.

I believe God is working a plan. A very good plan. It is right on schedule. He is not frustrated with the progress. He knows what He is doing. He deeply loves all of His creation, and someday He will have the rewards of His patient work. God is gently working within His creation, using love and consequences to teach us to choose wisely. Some of us will need a little more work than others, and there will be a judgement day where we will all give account and be rewarded and/or corrected. But the refining fire of His love will do its redemptive work and eventually all will humbly bow at His "feet" and praise His glorious name!

Blessings,

Mike

[Guest]

I can do that...But I would much rather spend that energy evaluating the exegesis. For me, TULIP will stand or fall on the strength of passages like Romans 9-11, John 6, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 6, 1 John, Hebrews 10, and so on. It will stand or fall on passages that speak directly to the nature of salvation, to the natures of perseverance & apostasy, to the ways we come to believe or to the reasons we don't, to the interaction between God's sovereignty and man's will, to how God seeks salvation for man. It will stand or fall on how strong I think the arguments are from all sides on those passages.



Jug, Calvinism is an overwhelmingly important belief system that colors virtually everything in the bible. Like i mentioned before no one ever tries to prove it from the OT which is the first 70% of scripture. Yes it's true no one initially saw the trinity in the OT but we can look back now and recognize it. Where do we find calvinism upon looking back?
So i'm all for evaluating exegesis but the verses you referenced are a very small number and questionable for such an all encompassing doctrine as Calvinism.
I find Calvinism very lacking in that everything comes down to two reasons, either God wills it and/or it's a mystery.
I don't feel the need to look at the bible and call certain things "mysteries" because it makes sense to me.
But Calvinists claim we should'nt use reasoning but it's OK to call things a mystery. I thought Isaiah said "Come let us reason together." 1.18

[leeweiland]

Mike,

I would encourage you to re-read the Bible and see whether it says that we are now in relationship with God because we made wise decisions and used our common sense. It says just the opposite. Paul talks about us walking in our former lusts with our futile thoughts and our foolish hearts having been darkened. It talks about God granting people repentance that they might escape the snare of the wicked one. It talks about people suppressing the truth, and deliberately changing the image of the incorruptible God into things that in their deepest heart they know are not God but they do it anyway.

If the gospel were common sense, Paul would not have said in I Cor. 1 - consider your calling. Not many wise are included.

I think it would be difficult for you to reconcile your post which is peppered with references to how your common sense lead you to God with the statements of Jesus that no one comes to the Father unless he is dragged to His feet. Why the need to drag if we are so reasonable? Was Paul reasonable when Jesus said "You are kicking against the goads"?

You asked about how far I would go with simply taking God at His Word. I notice your argument was that if God gave a plain statement but one that seemed very odd to me, yet it was clear what He wanted, you asked if I would do it? This is not the first time this kind of reasoning has been brought up to a brother or sister. In the garden of Eden, God told Eve that even though this one particular fruit tree seemed like every other one, that in fact, contrary to her human reasoning, it was different, and that if she simply ate a piece of fruit, she would die! The devil was quick to point out that they just did not seem to compute. The fruit looked good to the eye, harmless, appetizing. Would she trust God's declaration that it was dangerous for her to eat that fruit, or would she reason and rationalize as the devil tempted her to. The rest is history, unfortunately.

With your trust in your common sense, I fear you are constantly trapped between two idealogic antipodes. On one hand, you wish to follow God, but first, you must determine if what is being commanded in reasonable. If that is the case, then the ultimate sovereign in your life would be your reason, because it would be the final arbiter of whether you believe or do something.

When we think logically, we are not being disobedient, but we are learning to think in a cogent and rational way, like God does. God made logic; it is valid and correct to think this way because it is a small sample of how God correctly reasons. However, to make our logic the final authority in interpreting the Scriptures is immoral. We become a judge of the Word of God, deciding whether or not we will or won't do a particular command to us.

Why is choosing the right way difficult - I wish it were not, but by nature it is impossible with us just as by nature a leopard cannot change his spots. To say it is not difficult for an unregenerate person to swim upstream borders on full orbed Pelagianism. I do not wish to pin this on you brother, but in your post you do not mention even an empowering from God to swim upstream, but simply act as if anyone at any time can do it.

Actually, I would argue that the Arminian theology has many of the same difficult questions to deal with that the Calvinist does. If God knew that certian people would die lost and go to hell, He could simply not create them. He could create only those who He knew would believe. Or if He did not know who would believe, He might decide to create no one to avoid even the risk of someone going to hell. What is clear is that God cares for us, but we are not the ultimate object of what He does - He is. He is the only justifiably self-centered being in the universe. He did make people He either knew or decided would not be saved. Therefore, God's highest goal was not keeping hell empty, but must have been something else. Calvinists believe that God's grace is magnified in the saved and his justic and holiness are displayed in the lost (as has been discussed on the topic of Romans 9, where Paull talks of God fitting vessels of glory and wrath for specific purposes).

The most you could say Mike is that God values self-determination more than preventing people from going to hell, since God could either have made them without the ability to self-detruct or else not made them at all. Yet He made them anyways.

In terms of universalism, we can discuss that on a different thread if you choose. However, no Christian should be impressed with an argument that says "As a convicted criminal, it just seems to make so much common sense that the Judge should pardon me." Sure it does, but that is not common sense speaking, it is self-preservation. Common sense would say "Punish him". Grace beyond all measure of understanding would say "I, the Righteous One, will die in his place".

That's why Paul would break into doxologies in Ephesians when speaking of this grace. It defies common sense.

[Guest]

"As a convicted criminal, it just seems to make so much common sense that the Judge should pardon me." Sure it does, but that is not common sense speaking, it is self-preservation. Common sense would say _Punish him". Grace beyond all measure of understanding would say "I, the Righteous One, will die in his plac



Just for the record David, Christian Universalism does'nt believe in pardons it believes in justice as in eye for an eye. So since God changes not , we think in our human reasoning that eternal hell for a few decades of sin or perhaps a few weeks of sin seems unreasonable to us. CU generally believes in hell but not for eternity. And we believe that scripture supports this because there are far more verses strongly alluding to CU then Calvinism although it's not beyond the realm of possibility that both could be true since we know what God's will is.
It seems to me what Calvinism does in general is take a few verses like "you did not choose me, i chose you" or "those who can see have been made blind" and projects these verses over the entirety of scripture with little justification IMO.
Yes God judges certain nations and judges certain individuals like Pharoah or the Pharisees but those instances are clearly identified because they are not the norm.

[Guest]

As Mike was kind of trying to answer various people here I will jump in on his comments below and make some comments. I found his answers incredibly problematic and disingenuous to say the least, especially as they are a response to statements that were otherwise quite clear and quite biblical, not merely Calvinistic!

Quote:

Since God does not owe anyone anything, He is not a respecter of persons if He should choose to reveal Himself or hide Himself, or if He gives one person a gift that He withholds from another. Since all of us deserve nothing but His wrath, and since He is Lord over everyone and our Maker, He is free to treat us however He chooses. It is really graciousness beyond all comprehension that He offers even one of us the opportunity to be saved, let alone the multitude of saved souls that John saw in heaven in his Revelation.


I do not understand this type of thinking.

1) God does not owe us anything.

I suppose this is true, strictly speaking. But would you say that parents do not owe their infant children anything? He brought us into existence. It seems reasonable to expect certain things from Him, such as provision for life until we are able to sustain ourselves (as if that could ever happen), truthfulness, at least an even chance at a happy life, etc.

Are you serious?
Anyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ and yet does not understand grace and mercy, could and would write what you just wrote there.

Grace cannot be expected, demanded or in any way construed by us sinners to be something that should be provided to us.
Your thoughts of man are way too high and your thoughts of God’s grace way too low!

2) "Since all of us deserve nothing but His wrath".

What does this mean? Why do I deserve nothing but wrath (according to the Calvinist system anyway)?

Are you serious? Are we reading the same Bible? Forget Calvinism, you do not even seem to grasp basic Christian theology let alone a systematic expression of it.

Did not God decree everything that would ever happen, and am I not totally depraved because of this?

Total misrepresentation of Calvinism.
I suggest you either study the subject more, and stay out of such conversations until you have grasped the basics of reformed thought.

No Calvinist teaches that we are depraved merely because God decrees everything! How does such a misrepresentation facilitate intelligent reasonable discussion on these issues?

If I understand Calvinism correctly, I have no chance to do or think any way except according to what God decided before I was ever born. So why do I deserve nothing but His wrath? I cannot follow this thinking.

You cannot follow this thinking because it is a straw-man argument, that the sooner you get rid of, will straighten out your thinking about these important matters. You only insult us with this kind of misrepresentation.

I can understand how you can say that God can do whatever He wants, and He can choose to be wrathful to me if He chooses. And He can choose to bless you if He chooses. But I cannot understand how you can say I deserve the wrath and you do NOT deserve the blessing.

What sort of nonsense is this?

If the God of the Calvinist exists, I want no part of Him.

And if the God of Calvinism was what you are saying, neither would I! But He is not like that.

He would not be the person I am finding revealed in scripture, and He would not be a God of love, at least according to any definition of love I am aware of.

I have little interest in your definition of love, for whatever it is, it will be far less that the Love found in Jesus Christ alone. A love that saves every single sinner that it was intended to save.
A love that God is free to give by His grace and not under obligation to give or demanded by men in a mess.

3) "It is really graciousness beyond all comprehension that He offers even one of us the opportunity to be saved, let alone the multitude of saved souls that John saw in heaven in his Revelation.".

What does this mean? In what way is it "gracious" to decide that the majority of people on planet earth are going to burn forever while choosing to bless the few forever (in order to show His "power" and "justice" as well as His "mercy").

Is this statement meant to convey any meaningful input into this discussion? How about interacting with what we say. Open the scriptures up, exegete them etc

I have watched the give and take between the Calvinists and the Arminians here, and it just blows me away the talk about "taking verses out of context" and looking at the original languages to determine who is right.

What on earth are you contributing to this discussion? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Sometimes I wonder if God is up in heaven just snickering away at our foolish attempts at understanding Him. Such arrogance and pride thinking *we* have the proper understanding of Him, *we* have the best biblical hermeneutic.

I can assure you that God is snickering at your ignorance of this discussion.

Listen, I am reasonably certain that you will call me proud and arrogant, blah blah blah, be that as it may.

God does not snicker at His people when they study hard to understand Him more and more. Thinking His thoughts after Him and all that.
That is what reformed (Calvinist) thought is all about. It is all about humbling man and glorifying God, and yet nothing you have said comes across in that vain at all.

Personally, I have a feeling that God loves ALL of His creation, and He had a better plan than either the Arminians or the Calvinists give Him credit for. (Yes, I guess that makes me a heritic, eh?)

I would say whether or not your a heretic is irrelevant to this discussion, and your feelings are likewise irrelevant regarding God's sure Word, but you are certainly a person who has no clue about Calvinism, and by extension, the scriptures and God Himself.

You really need a massive shake up in your feel good Christianity from what you have written here, even if you are the nicest guy anyone could ever meet, your statements above are so missing the mark, it is a real worry.

Not many these days will attempt to come at you the way I have, because such a passion for God's truth is not politically correct, and the Postmodern mindset is well ingrained in all of us.
Please get past my abrasiveness and deal with the substance. Be offended, that's ok, nothing wrong with being offended.

Be angry even, just do not sin. Eph 4:26

Blessings,
Mark

People like Mike should thank God that they were not born at a time where they might have been sitting inside the Church of Jonathan Edwards when he preached his famous sermon "sinners in the hands of an angry God!"
People like Mike would have run for the Hills me thinks.

[leeweiland]

Steve7150,

I am well aware that Universalism does teach in a hell, at least as a temporary holding place. Mike seemed to argue that it is just "common sense" to believe that all people are going to be saved, and made inferences that it would be unjust if God made the right way "so hard", as he put it. This does not logically follow to me. Does the difficulty of a path somehow affect its necessity or morality?

I think all of us would confess that we are saved by grace and not by works, yet when Scripture speaks of our salvation and how gracious it is, it talks about the gracious offer of this salvation in addition to the gracious means by which we are saved apart from works. Saying that we are saved by grace does not just mean "not by works", although that is true; it also means that the offer itelf is gracious, unmerited, and not deserved. When Scripture speaks of the wrath of God abiding on those who do not believe, and talks of us coming out of that wrath and into fellowship with God when we turn to Him in faith, I do not think that it leaves room for any incling that God owed it to us. I suspect most people here would affirm that. However, that would indicate that God could offer salvation to an many or as few as He desired, and there would be no injustice on His part. He could save all or some or none and He would be doing nothing that violates His good nature.

This is a truth that all Christians, regardless of their view of election, should and must affirm. Perhaps, for the sake of argument, God runs this world in the Armininan manner, let's say. Yet, the offer of salvation itself is still of grace - and therefore not deserved or owed. I have not read much from Arminius, but he was much closer to the Reformers on man's nature and undeserved state than what I have been reading lately on this forum.

I would disagree with your summation of my theology, that I hold to a system that takes a few verses and clings to them like a theological life raft. To say that God does not make choices over nations or people except in a few cases is hardly an impressive argument to me. After all, Mike acknowledged that the right way is hard to find - he seems to agree that revelation of God though universal in creation is not of equal intensity. Do you believe that all people everywhere have an equal opportunity to find the truth? If you do, then could you explain how being born in a country like North Korea would provide as many opportunities to hear the gospel as say being born in the USA? Did God control where you and I were born, or into what families we were born into? What time period? What about the person born into a Hittite family? Now, I agree, that this question would not settle the issue of whether God wanted that person to be saved as much as someone else born into the covenant community, but all would have to agree that being born into the Hittite family would certainly put someone at a disadvantage. Why else did God command the Israelites over and over to teach their children His commands, and yet He placed people into families where He knew they would never learn His commands (unless He did not know the future outcome for that newborn)? Even Paul, in Romans 3, said that being born Jewish gave people advantages "much in every way".

[leeweiland]

Mike,

I wanted to add one more comment about your previous post. At first reading, I did not see your statement that "If the God of Calvinism exists then I want no part of Him". I know these discussions become heated; I have had discussions where people were so focused on winning the debate that it became personal and self-cenetred and , frankly, sinful. I have also been guilty of that in the past myself. I am not accusing you of this, but please read on.

I am hoping that you did not mean what you wrote in this quote or that your point was misconveyed. Regardless of what God is like, He is God and we are not His judge. We, after all, are the bent ones, not Him. We should not assume that if there is some aspect to God's nature, character, or dealings with the world that seem odd, flawed, or wrong to us, that our judgment in the matter is just as valid as His. In other words, we cannot rightly talk about an Arminian God, a Calvinist God, or any God this way, because ultimately, we are the gods of a system where we judge the Judge. I hate talking about God with this wording, as if my Arminian brother worships a different God than I do, but I am borrowing from your language.

I realize you disagree with Calvinism, and this forum has the potential to be a place to hash these things out, if everyone does so in a calm and Christian manner. I think what we should discuss, it seems to me, is the issue of the authority of Scripture and what a Christian's epistemology is. You and some of the Calvinists keep having disputes over how we know truth. You make appeals to common sense, as if your points have an a priori truth. Perhaps this would be a more constructive place to start.

One last thing - God does not make me, David, totally depraved. I am born with a sinful nature that I inherited from my original earthly ancestor, Adam. I also believe based on my understanding of Romans 5 that Adam's sin was imputed to each person who descended from him; that is not essential for you and I to debate right now, but I mention it so that you understand how I view my lousy "inheritance" from Adam.

[Guest]

David, I have to leave overnight for a wedding but for now let me leave you with this. Jesus said "what God has joined together let no man separate EXCEPT for the cause of adultery." Matt 19

Notice that despite the fact God joined the two people together each individual has the free will to commit adultery. The reason is that God created the marriage covenant and if you DECIDE to ACCEPT it then you have been joined together by God by accepting His covenant. You see here Jesus describes God joining two people together YET they can walk away. God doesn't micromanage individual people here, i think salvation has the same principal.

[leeweiland]

Steve7150,

Enjoy the wedding! A word of advice - when they throw the bouquet, don't get in the way of the crowd of single bridesmaids. I made that mistake once and ended up on the floor.

I think you are eisogeting this passage and reading into it things which Jesus did not comment on. Jesus told people, based on His correct understanding of God's law, that marriage was to be for life and that it could not be ended prior to the death of one or both spouses for just any reason. This is a precept of God and describes what each of us should do when we marry. However this verse does not comment on several things:

1) It does not comment on whether a person is equally able to believe or not believe in Jesus, with equal, libertarian facility in either direction and at every moment in their life. Salvation is not in view. We all know that unbelievers can get married just like Christians, and they need no special enabling from God to do so. What you and I are debating is how people come to faith, whether in a synergistic or monogerstic way.

2)Jesus does not comment on what the married couple can do, but rather He tells them what they should do.

3) It does not comment on whether a person can, in every circumstance, avoid adultery; it simply says they should. Many people do, but unbelievers do so for reasons that are not glorifying to God. They may wish to avoid scandal, divorce, or any of a number of things, but unless they do so out of obedience to God, they are doing the right outward act for the wrong inward reasons.

It is wrong to commit adultery, not because we are necessarily able to avoid this sin or any other sin out of complete freedom of the will, but because this sin and every sin are violations of God's law, which is a reflection of His character and nature. The morality of an action is derived from how it relates to God, not how likely we were to commit this particular act versus another one.

If I get drunk and drive, this is considered immoral in our society and I would also argue that it is wrong on the basis of Scripture. If I am so drunk that I fall asleep at the wheel and pass out, and afterwards run head on into another vehicle and kill someone, am I responsible for the death of that person? Do you think the judge would buy this argument: "Your honor, I am responsible for my actions up to the point when I passed out - after that I was not equally free to stay awake or to fall asleep, and therefore it was not really my decision." I doubt any court would agree with this strained form of logic.

In that example, I am responsible for getting drunk in the first place, and therefore I am responsible for my physical incapacitation that ensued, and all of the misdeeds that resulted. I believe Paul teaches this principle in Romans 5, where he compares the imputation of Adam's sin to all of his descendants with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to all of His "descendants". In Adam, it is as if we all sinned with him in the garden, and thus our consequent moral incapacitation is not unjust. Therefore, it is not that God makes people sin but tells them not to, but rather God's message, unchanged from beginning to end, is the same, while our ability to follow it has been greatly changed ever since Eve and Adam ate the apple.

We often rejoice that God graciously imputes Jesus' righteousness to us and that He imputed our sin to Jesus. No one cries foul when we discuss this, how God deals covenantally and federally with us in Christ. It is the same for those in Adam, of which you and I used to be but are now in Jesus by the grace of God.