"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

STEVE150 just posted the following over in the thread on 2 Peter 3:9. I'm creating this thread, devoted to the topic.

I don't have much time now but i don't see how God can at the same time not be a respecter of persons yet elect a few to salvation and damn the rest unless of course we all get elected at various stages even in the Lake of Fire and Calvinism leads to Christian Universalism, which s/b the logical outcome. After all Jesus is the Savior of the World and God wants none to perish and God's will is always done, is it not?

I'll reply later tonight.

[Guest]

OK, I'm sure everyone here will agree with Greg Koukl's catchphrase, "Never Read A Bible Verse"--let alone a single phrase. We always, always, always read the verses before and after, to get an idea of what topic the author is addressing, and what the various terms mean. Always. (Not that I always remember to do it...But it's what we should always do.)

So, "God is not a respecter of persons" is in Acts 10:34. In Acts 10:9-16, God gave Peter the vision with a great sheet descending from heaven, full of all kinds of animals--including unclean animals--and a voice told him to kill and eat. The voice also said, "What God has made clean, do not call common." Peter didn't know what the vision meant. Three men started calling out at the city gate, looking for someone named Simon Peter. An angel had told Cornelius to send them to find Peter and hear what he had to say. Peter said in verses 29-30, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me."

And Cornelius responded that while he was praying in his house, a man in bright clothing appeared and told him that his prayer had been heard, and he should send for Peter to heard what he has to say. In verse 33, he said, "Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Acts 10:34-35

(ESV)
"So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

(NKJV)
"Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."

(KJV)
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

So, Peter says that God's not partial, but accepts people from every nation the same way.

It's certainly good to know that God's not a racist--that the gospel is for Gentiles, too.


(Side note: We could have an interesting conversation about verse 35. Taken by itself, it could imply that salvation is based on works. I don't think it's hard to understand v. 35 in either Calvinism or Arminianism, but that's another topic.)

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I have to make this post short, but in regard to your comment about God respecting persons - I think it would be a mistake to take that verse to mean that God does not differentiate people on any basis. For example, most people at this forum would agree that God will save those who believe in Jesus but not those who reject Him. Does that make God a respecter of persons? Was God a respecter of persons because He chose Israel from among all of the other nations and revealed Himself to her in a way that He did not reveal Himself to other nations?

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.

God certainly does not respect persons in any manner that is unjust, unlike humans, who for their own selfish and skewed reasons might regard people of different value based on gender, race, or money.

[Guest]

So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."



Good post Jug because you did bring out the context that this particular verse related to.
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."
For example the Israelites supposedly were the apple of God's eye , the chosen people yet God repeatedly brought judgment against them. If they were'nt favored by God , i think it's safe to say that universally speaking , "God is not a respecter of persons."

[Guest]

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.


David, I agree God owes us nothing and if we are blessed beyond belief to be saved it's because of God's unmerited mercy.
I have to point out something though and it's nothing personal but sometimes when i hear Calvinists speak it sounds to me that they actually like the ring of Calvinism so much that it may affect how they understand scripture.
The lure of Calvinism IMHO is that it makes the recipient feel as humble as humanly possible by crediting God with everything. Virtually everything even to the point of not acknowledging that man can even respond in any way to God. I think believing in man's total depravity makes Calvinists feel more humble and holy and perhaps affects how they read scripture. Just my opinion, i could be wrong.
One thing that's hard to understand is that if we are totally depraved, why would God hold us responsible for our sins?

[Guest]

Steve7150,

Well, those are deep questions. Yes, I think that one's view of the nature of man does affect how they view God's grace. As I have stated in previous posts, when I was an Arminian I was deeply appreciative of God having forgiven me and saved me, and so I feel every confidence that you and I can talk about the grace of God and both speak from experience.

You probably know this, but total depravity does not mean that every person is as bad as they could be, but it does mean that every aspect of a person in his or her natural state is out of kilter with God. That is, every part of man in his natural state has been marred by the fall, including his intellect, his emotion, his will, and his reasoning faculties. People make decisions in their unregenerate state, but Calvinism argues that they will always be decisions that are commensurate with their fallen nature, sometimes to greater or lesser degrees, but always in accord with their unregenerate nature. So people who are unsaved have a real will and make real decisions that are compatible with their nature. What Calvinists argue is that by nature, since we are at enmity in our minds with God (Romans chapter eight), we cannot accept the gospel unless God first graciously changes our heart and mind, which Calvinists believe happens at regeneration. This must precede faith as I understand the Scriptures.

I believe God can hold people accountable for their sinful actions because they truly make a decision to sin. The fact that by nature they are not able to commit righteous acts dedicated from the heart to the Triune God, which I believe is the definition of a good work, does not mean that they cannot perform evil deeds. God holds them accountable on this basis. They truly perform wicked deeds, and this would have no bearing on whether they can or cannot perform good deeds.

[Guest]

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.

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

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.

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

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").

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. 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.

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?)

Blessings,

Mike

[Guest]

Mike,

I must confess that for as many times as you stated not to understand my thinking, I am having a difficult time understanding your difficulty.

God, as near as I can remember, and please correct me if I am wrong, does not refer to all people as His children, at least not in the sense that you are referring to. In Numbers, Moses does call God the "Father of the spirit of every man", but this is not to be taken in the relational or salvific sense. God is in a sense the Father of all in the sense that He gave each person life. Jesus said that He causes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust, and this common grace I would say is loving in a sense. However, there are aspects to our relationship that transcend that of earthly parental relations. God is also the just judge of the universe, and He sends unbelievers to Hell, which as a father, I am not sure I could do to my children! The Fatherhood of God is such a blessing and extremely important to understand, but it must not be pressed over against His relationship to us as Lord.

Since there are many NT passages that speak of us having passed out of darkness and out of His wrath into His family, there is a distinction in how He feels about people and how He deals with people based on their faith or lack thereof.

You asked what I meant when I wrote that we deserve His wrath. From reading your post, you are raising an argument against Calvinism that has been discussed at length before, and that is the issue of God's foreordination and man's will. I do not believe that God has to make me sin in order for me to sin, but rather I do it by nature. God does not take me as a morally neutral person and create evil in my heart. If anything, God restrains evil men from doing as much evil as they are certainly capable of, which is why Jesus describes the church as salt, stopping the more rapid moral decline of our world. I believe that the Bible teaches that God ordains all things that come to pass and that it also teaches that people make decisions that are truly their own and that they are responsible for. An example would be the death of Jesus Christ, which the Scripture said was ordained by God and yet God still held Jesus' accusers accountable for murder, as Peter stated in Acts. How this works exactly, I do not know. But I believe the Scriptures teach this. Judas, who was appointed to betray Jesus, was also called by our Lord a "son of perdition". Again, though I know m any disagree, I see this as an example of God's ordaining an event but the people involved as making decisions and being culpable.

You asked how God saving multitudes was gracious if many are in hell. I see no problem with this, since those who are in hell are guilty of violating God's law. I feel no pride over them, since I am just as guilty. If the Judge pardoned me and not someone else, has their been injustice? He has not withheld anything that justice demands He hand over, but rather, He has graciously given what He did not have to give to some who deserve Hell but will graciously receive heaven.

Your last comments, which appear to me to be an allusion to my earlier posts, I found to be quite arrogant. You do not know my heart, Mike, and I did not post those comments to be haughty. I admitted that I do not know Greek, I posted a link discussing the Greek on a controversial verse, and I also posted information on a website where you can purchase books to learn Greek. I never said anything prideful. Therefore, gird your loins brother, so that you won't be so easily blown away.

I have no idea if you are a heretic. I think, however, I detect a different approach to the Scriptures between the two of us. Whether you are Reformed or not, all of us as believers should attempt to practice Sola Scriptura; perhaps I do not at times, but I attempt to and where I fail, I sincerely want God to teach me. I do not think this issue or any doctrinal issue should be approached based on how the Scripture strike us or the general gist we feel from them (maybe you did not mean feel in this sense, but it is what you wrote). Part of exegesis at any seminary involves studying the original language a text was written in; it is not the only part, but it is a part. I seriously doubt God snickers at that.

[Guest]

David,

First of all, I was not responding merely to you. It was to all the back and forth going on between the Arminians and Calvinists. I took a quote from your post, but it could have just as easily been any one of many many posts I have been reading.

I did not say that God was father of us all. I compared parenting to His creation of us all. It seems to me that having brought us all into being it is not unreasonable to expect certain things from God. And I fully expect Him to live up to those. I just keep hearing that He doesn't owe us anything, and it doesn't make sense to me.

My understanding of the Calvinist position is that God decreed everything that would happen before He created anything. It seems you feel this way also (quote: "I believe that the Bible teaches that God ordains all things that come to pass "). Yet you do not find anything wrong with Him choosing you for heaven and me for hell, and calling that loving.

We will probably never agree on that.

I do not believe that God has to make me sin in order for me to sin, but rather I do it by nature.

But if God ordained everything that would happen, including who and what I am, and if I am Totally Depraved (by His decree) and without hope unless He shows me "Irrestible Grace", why should He be mad at me? Why should I deserve His "Wrath"?

If anything, God restrains evil men from doing as much evil as they are certainly capable of

Why would He have to "restrain" anything since only what He decreed will happen?

And is the idea of saving some ("Mercy") and damning many ("Wrath") the best idea He could come up with? Does this make sense to you? (And would you still feel that way if you found out you were one of the damned?)

Would you be able to bow your knee and declare that Jesus is Lord (willingly)?

I know these are common objections to Calvinism. But I think they are valid, and I don't think your answer addresses them adequately.

You said my comments were arrogant. I am not sure which comments those would be. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

When you say we should practice "Sola Scriptura", I want to know what you mean?

It seems to me that people too often use that phrase to justify illogical thinking. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it".

Personally, while I take the Bible as fully authoritative, I still try to use common sense when I interpret it.

If the Bible says that God is love, and there is no darkness whatsoever in Him, and that He does not want any to perish, and that in the fullness of time He is going to gather together in one all in Christ, I take it at face value.

I do not try to redefine love, I do not try to redefine "all", etc.

Do a little research. For every argument you have for Calvinism, there is another one for Arminianism. I have read both. Every time you say that a verse is taken out of context, or that someone is mis-translating, they will throw another verse or another argument back at you. You think you're right, they think they are right. Really smart people have taken both sides.

I was not trying to single you out in any way. I have been lingering on the sidelines reading for some time. I am not trying to judge your heart. I am simply asking all of us (not just you - including me!) to be a little more humble about our opinions and realize that there is a VERY good chance that we are wrong about many of the things we believe.

Part of exegesis at any seminary involves studying the original language a text was written in; it is not the only part, but it is a part. I seriously doubt God snickers at that.

No, you are right. I don't really think He snickers. But I do think that He is disappointed when our pride (now I am not pointing a finger at you, so please do not take it that way) makes us think we are better at exegesis than others.


Blessings,

Mike

[Guest]

Mike,

It is late in the evening in my time zone, so let me address just some of the points you raised. I will try to double back tomorrow but I will be working and cannot promise anything.

You keep referring to using your common sense, as if your common sense is somehow the final arbiter of whether or not to believe something. While I think that we should apply reasoned and rational thinking to whatever we investigate, I do not agree with your approach to this topic. The idea of weighing whether God could have come up with a different plan that I think is better is not my place to do. In the end, if the Scripture says something that is hard to understand, but it is the witness of Scripture that it is so, then I am obligated to believe it and not decide further based on whether it seems fair to me or strikes me as reasonable. Since I am fallible and by nature self-centered, as are all people, I am not the judge of what is fair - God is. I am not a judge of the Lord or His Word nor am I to test God. This is why I mentioned Sola Scriptura - what God says from the Scriptures is our only infallible source of truth regarding Christian faith and practice. I know many Arminians who strive to practice this as well, though none of us do so perfectly. This is different than posing rebuttals based on references to common sense. Common sense is not a reliable guide and there is never an appeal in Scripture to use it for discovering doctrine. We are to learn the mind of Christ and learn to think His thoughts. After all, Paul teaches us that unbelievers view the gospel as foolishness - very far from common sense - yet you and I know it is the power of God unto salvation. Here is an example where common sense has misled many. Nor is it common sense for a Father to send His Son to die for criminals - thank God for the "foolishness" of the cross!

I am not calling people into a fideistic, irrational walk with God, but let us recognize the epistemic authority of Christ. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, not the end arrived at after application of our common sense.

The comment I found arrogant was the last comment in your post, where you pictured God as snickering at people making a sincere attempt at dealing with deep topics. There is nothing wrong with recognizing differences in languages where appropriate. Indeed, to not do so is naive and unnecessarily so.

As I mentioned in another thread, I came to a place in my walk with Christ where, though at the time I was still an Arminian, I understood that God had the right to rule as He pleased, whether in the Calvinist sense or the Arminian sense. I was not convinced of Calvinism because I thought God had to be such a way; rather, I believed God was free to be who He was, and I was determined to study the Scriptures the best I could and see what He said about Himself. There were no preconceived philosophies that I used to embrace this doctrine.

You keep asking the same philosophical questions but in with different wording in each post. God is justly mad at impenitent sinners for breaking His law. They make decisions that are sinful, which is not surprising since they have a sinful nature. The rightness or wrongness of a decision is not dependent on how free my will is, but whether I transgress God's commands willfully. God does not make people sin. We do so quite willingly in our natural state, and therefore rightfully incur the wrath of God for our willful and wanton behavior.

Yes, I can bow my knee and declare Jesus is Lord willfully, but only because I have a new nature in Christ, and thankfully I have a new Spirit which cries out Abba Father.

I do not seek to redefine anything to fit my beliefs - in fact, I attempt to understand the context of the author's writing by looking at, for example, the language he wrote in, just to make sure I am not misunderstanding him. However, since everyone on this forum believes in grace, let us at least agree that if it is grace by which we are saved, then this gracious offer is not owed to us. It is not a matter of justice to us that God send Jesus to die for us or to offer any forgiveness. It would also be God's right to save all and to save them on whatever basis He decides. Since He is the Law Giver, He gets to decide. So we can disagree that the Scripture limits the atonement to a certain group or that people cannot come to Jesus unless they are irresistibly drawn, but we could not disagree that whatever God offers us is by grace, not owed, and not deserved. It is not deserved because we are not just His creation, we are criminals against His law, and his just nature will not overlook that without a propitiation.

Do a little research? Brother I have and only plan to read more as time allows. I have a wife and 2 children and a bookshelf full of books I am slowly working on. Only some of them are on Calvinism.