This is from Reclaiming the Mind - I'd rather comment there, but for whatever reason, my browser doesn't want to show me the combox...
This interaction was interesting.
~~~
@MzEllen:
(I asked)Why does one fear Him and another does not? Intelligence? Random Chance?
(another answered)Have you had children? Have you examined your body and how incredibly it is made? Have you gazed at the starry host and wondered at the vastness of what God has created? Have you considered the amount of energy within a single atom and how it holds itself together? How about the energy present within the fabric we call space and often thing of as a vast expanse of nothing? I have watched the BBC Earth series and my jaw literally drops to the floor when I consider the incredible creation of God.
We have more information today than we have in the past, but all the big stuff is easily within reach. And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to recognize the obvious about God.
~~~
yes. I have children. Yes, we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
This is a wonderful answer...but I have no clue what the question was.
The answer given has ZERO to do with the question that I asked.
If our salvation depends on our decision to choose to accept Christ, why did I choose, and why didn't the person next to me in the pew choose?
What makes me so smart? spiritual? special?
If the answer to that was "because God chooses those who fear Him" - why do some fear Him, and others not?
If the answer lies with the person, what is the answer?
If the answer lies with God - isn't that "election"?
Pingback:
Why Doesn’t God Save Everyone? (Sam Storms) | Parchment and Pen
Ryan Schatz
Hi MzEllen,
I think they closed the post to comments for some reason... maybe because Hodge and Michael were calling me a heretic? I don't know... That was the first time I was called a heretic though.
To continue our conversation and answer your question:
If the answer is with God, that is not election in the way that the Bible presents it, but it is Calvinistic election. In other words, God is not predetermining what He will do for those who have faith in Him, but He is predetermining who will have faith in Him.
I believe the answer is with the person, but we don't know why one chooses and another does not because we don't have access to read a person's heart. Some answers might be:
1/ An unwillingness to acknowledge one's sin.
2/ Living for the moment is chosen over the future promise.
3/ Believing the lie of evolution and others like it can keep people from the knowledge of God.
4/ A refusal to believe that God exists.
(add your own answers here)
MzEllen
Post authorYes - I understand that those are reasons - but what are the reasons for the reasons?
If it is not God working in the heart to overcome the sin nature - we are either a slave to sin or a slave to Christ
- what makes a person acknowledge one's sin?
- what makes a person believe in the future promise?
- what opens a person's heart to the truth?
- WHY - if not for an act of God - did I (or anybody) choose to believe that God exists?
Are you able to choose to stop believing? Why or why not?
(by the way) - If a Calvinist - who believes that it is God who violates "free will" cannot pray for God to change a person's heart - how can an Arminian (who believes that God refuses to change a person's heart, since that would violate their "free will") make that same prayer?
Ryan Schatz
Good questions. It's good you are continuing to press me until you get the answer to the question you are asking.
It sounds like you are asking what is the inner motivations why someone chooses and another doesn't. Well, I believe that this can depend on many factors, including how they have been raised to think, any intellectual or emotional barriers they may have, how they feel about the person or place they received the information from, etc. Some may reference mystical feelings they have experienced, perhaps something that was more than coincidence in their lives convinced them... In the end, people make choices for their own personal reasons. Some may choose because they have a personal distaste for one thing and a taste for another (treating which religion they follow like ice cream preference). Some reasons are wrong, though God can use them; some are like sand (don't build your house on them...there better be a better reason coming soon, or that person won't last); others are well reasoned and hold the will even in light of significant challenges, tests and trials.
This will sound like heresy to a Calvinist, but what it does NOT depend on is God flicking a switch in the will or heart of someone. There are all kinds of motives, some like sand, some like haw and straw, some like wood and others like bricks. At the core, it depends on the human will. The new birth doesn't depend on the human will; that is an act that only God can perform. But it follows an act of the human will to exercise faith. Only God can free a person from the bondage to sin and death. However, each person must request circumcision of heart by presenting themselves before God in faith, and He fulfills His promises by doing exactly that - circumcising the heart and creating new life.
I simply agreed with my conscience. God convicted my when I heard the law, I said... "Oh my, I do that... I have offended God" - I simply agreed with God's testimony against me. Not everyone wants to do this. It puts you in a very vulnerable position. If I believe I have nothing to bring, that I am totally unable to please God in the flesh, what do I have left? I may love my life and not be willing to part with it. I may love money, family, etc. and not wish to disturb them for the sake of the gospel.
For me, I saw I was left with nothing and that the only way out was Jesus - He was the one with the only cure that would fix my problem. My problem was temporal; but really it was a fear of death and the loss of everything I cared about. So I was trusting that Jesus would not only deal with my temporal sin issues, but avert the second death. Again, it was because the law shined on my darkness that I thought was ok in my ignorance, sin sprang to life (I now saw my real condition), and this put me to death (I now realized I was in big trouble).
I believe that without acknowledging our sin, we cannot be open to the rest of God's truth. This is something I had to do. It was my own estimation of my measure of myself against the law of God. And I was in a bad place...I could see that. But if I had not come to this place, God may block my understanding of other truths. We see this even with the disciples in the gospels.
That's easy... I just looked around me. For some, the fortress called scientific naturalism needs to be dismantled first. That might be through convincing, or through witnessing a miracle that cannot be explained through naturalistic means.
Absolutely. In fact, God promises that nothing in all the universe can take us out of His hand. If we trust Him, He will be faithful to the very end. But we got into His hand through faith, we can just as easily step out of His hand by losing our faith. Maybe someone convinces us evolution is true. Instead of seeking God on the issue, we have an internal crisis and stop believing in God. This kind of thing happens all the time. But, if we return to him while we still have the breath of life in us, God will receive us back.
First, the Calvinist believes that God has predestined from the beginning of time. So God is going to do what he planned to do ahead of time. How can you then pray and ask Him to change what He predestined before the creation of the world? The Arminian doesn't have a problem because, according to their doctrine, God has already enabled all people to be able to freely choose God by fixing just enough of their nature. They call this prevenient grace. This is also switch flicking, but Arminians don't apply it to a select few -- they apply it to all. So now, people have real freedom to choose. I think they feel they need to say this because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of Romans 3. I don't believe their is any switch flicking, though I arrive at the same conclusion in this area as the Arminian. Anyways, the Arminian doesn't believe God will make them believe like the Calvinist (irresistable grace); so his prayer would likely be that God would continue to convict them and provide opportunities for them to hear the gospel and be confronted with the offer God is making.
Hope that helps...
MzEllen
Post authorHow can you then pray and ask Him to change what He predestined before the creation of the world?
Because I don't know what He has predestined. That's why we pray "according to Your will, to Your glory."
All the rest of your answers can be what I would call your responses to the Spirit's act of regeneration.
Are you able to choose to stop believing? Why or why not?
Absolutely.
Your answer is the opposite of mine. I interact with atheists on a daily basis and I'm confronted with their arguments.
I cannot not believe. Christ cannot lose me.
MzEllen
Post authorI also want to add a sincere thanks for returning.
I grew up Arminian and I know your answers...shoot...they were my answers.
The more I recognize me the more I can no longer give those answers.
Ryan Schatz
Woops... sorry that got all messed up. You can delete my previous post. Here it is again fixed.
Ok.
You attribute these things to regeneration because that’s what you have been told. But this is not true. Whether or not I respond favorable to the gospel is not because I have first been regenerated.
Right, Christ won’t lose you… it would have to be of your own doing. The atheist arguments are honestly not that convincing, but they are for some. For you, it might be something else that challenges you.
You wrote...
Well, you can believe what you want to. I can’t change that. But just because you ‘can no longer give those answers’ doesn’t mean that what you believe about these things is correct.
Thanks for the interaction. 🙂
MzEllen
I'll delete your first (non-edited) post as you ask 😉
> You attribute these things to regeneration because that’s what you have been told.
Here's my history. One set of grandparents where Methodist. The other set was Free Will Baptist. Currently, one of my brothers-in-law pastors a Free Methodist Church; the other is very active in a Missionary Church. My father-in-law was a pastor in various Baptist churches and can only be described as vigorously anti-Calvinist.
My entire family is hard-core Arminian so I hardly grew up "being told" that Calvinism was the right way.
Most of my adult life was spent in the Nazarene Church. Again, not a Reformed church by a long shot.
It was not until after my husband died and I had to make a break from the church where I would always be knows as "Art's wife" that I started looking for another church and decided that I needed to study Scripture and (rather than simply following what I'd been taught all my life) discover what, from Scripture, what made the most sense.
I read many, many books from both sides of the debate. It took nearly 2 years of internal struggle - not liking Reformed doctrine, but lining it up with Scripture. I read the doctrinal statements of denomination after denomination, squaring them up against what I was reading in Scripture.
So no...I didn't merely follow what I was told.
😉
Most of my adult life
Ryan Schatz
Hi MzEllen,
Sorry to hear about the death of your husband.
I didn't mean that you grew up with Calvinism, but that you were told it through the books you read. I wonder if you would arrived at Calvinism if you hadn't read their books?
I was almost convinced of Calvinism at one point. Some of their arguments can seem pretty convincing, and there are a lot of well-spoken spokespersons for Calvinism out there.
Let me ask you a question: did Judas participate in communion at the last supper?
MzEllen
Post authorI wonder if you would arrived at Calvinism if you hadn’t read their books?
Since I made a point of reading both sides, and I didn't really want Reformed theology to be right...in fact it made me angry...yeah.
Let me ask you a question: did Judas participate in communion at the last supper?
I do not believe so.
In two of the Gospel accounts, Jesus tells the disciples that one of them will betray him and tells them that the one who dips his bread with Jesus is the one.
In John's account, Jesus gives Judas the morsel of bread and
John's account does not include the delivering of that first sacrament, but the "immediately" does seem to indicate that Judas left.
Ryan Schatz
One of the blessings we have in the scriptures is that we have 4 separate and unique testimonies in the gospel accounts. However, sometimes this means we have to put on our forensics hat, gather all the evidence and make sure all the pieces fit before making a judgment.
You are correct that John does not give us an account of the first sacrament. But as you will soon see, his account is only part of the events which occurred at the meal. We are so used to treating communion as a completely separate event with tiny broken crackers and a sip of grape juice; however, this was the passover meal which Jesus was celebrating with His disciples:
More than just the sacrament occurs at this meal. I believe that this portion in John is after the sacrament has been given where the meal continues and ends for Judas after he dips his bread with Jesus in the bowl.
Let's look at the account in Matthew 26:
Here we see more details on the part from John 13:26-30. "Dipped" is an active, aorist, participle describing an antecedent event. We know from John that right after this, Judas immediately leaves. The problem here is that Matthew doesn't tell us about Judas leaving and what follows in the Matthew account is the sacrament. However, I believe that Matthew is recounting what happened before Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas. Matthew often shifts events in time around like this and it is well known that his account is not Chronological. So let's look at the account in Luke who we know set out to write an "orderly account."
Here we see in Luke's account a clear description of the order of events with no mention of the morsel of bread shared with Judas and his exit. It is unmistakable that Judas is present and sharing in the sacrament because of v23, "the hand of the one betraying Me IS WITH MINE on the table." He was present through the sacrament and nothing indicates that Jesus was excepting him, but including him with the others. He washed Judas' feet, and now he shares the sacrament with him.
Now, in case we are not fully convinced let's go back to the Matthew account of the sacrament which we now know that Judas was present for.
Matthew ensures that we know for sure that Judas was included. Jesus' command to drink is in the imperative and includes all of them.
By comparing all the accounts, we have reconstructed the order of events and all the necessary details to know for sure that Judas was included, not only in the foot washing, but also the sacrament. Unfortunately, for Calvinism this poses a very, very significant problem. If Judas was predestined to not believe, and Jesus not only knows that Judas is betraying him but tells the rest, how is it that Judas is given the sacrament unless the blood of Jesus is also meant for him? Yes, even though Judas is unrepentant and will be cast into Hell, the blood of Jesus was also meant for him.
How then can Calvinism's 'Limited atonement' be true? And if the atonement is not limited, then how is it that those whom Jesus died for are predestined to unbelief?
MzEllen
Unfortunately, for Calvinism this poses a very, very significant problem.
Given that Judas repented, I'm not sure I'm in a position to judge his eternal destination.
And if the atonement is not limited, then how is it that those whom Jesus died for are predestined to unbelief?
If atonement is not limited, why is there a hell?
Judas aside, you quoted Matthew:
Here is a question: was Judas doing the will of the Father?
Ryan Schatz
Judas didn't repent. How do I know this?
The word translated here as "remorse" is not the same word used for repent. The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the NT has this description:
This kind of repentance is what is spoken of in 2 Cor 7:10 "For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death." Judas had seen Jesus escape many attempts of people trying to take his life. He thought this time would be just like all the others...and so he thought he'd profit from it!
Second, the scriptures make it clear to us what Judas' destiny was, so we are not left guessing:
- "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve." (John 6:70-71).
- "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, and let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ ... And they prayed and said, 'You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.'” (Acts 1:20,24-25)
You asked:
First, Hell originally had nothing to do with man. It was intended for the devil and his angels (see Matt 25:41). Even if all of humanity were to have faith there would still be a Hell. The existence of Hell has no bearing on the question of the atonement being limited. The fact is that the atonement is universal, but the righteousness is applied only by faith. The fact that Jesus said that His blood was shed even for Judas and Judas is assigned to Hell is proof that the atonement is not limited.
I think Jesus answers this very question for us:
It was prophesied that the Messiah would suffer and die, nevertheless, it was the will of the Father that Jesus enter the world and suffer on behalf of the world. While the Father selected Judas knowing ahead of time what he would do, it was not God's will for Judas to betray Him. If it was God's will for Judas, then it could not be held against him. It was God's will that the people of Israel kill the Canaanites... so was it held against them for doing this? But we know from Jesus' words that the one who does this will suffer damnation for it. If it would be better that he had not been born, he is not in a good place.
Moonshadow
I enjoyed reading the comments here.
Scripture tells us about the sorts of people God calls, and why:
Consider your own calling, brothers and sisters. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God. It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”
The Trappist Thomas Merton was so struck by this that he wrote of the contrast between those intellectuals who hold the things of God at bay and those fools who enter in:
In a certain sense, these people have a better appreciation of the Church and of [Christianity] than many [Christians] have: an appreciation which is detached and intellectual and objective. But they never come into the Church. They stand and starve in the doors of the banquet -- the banquet to which they surely realize that they are invited -- while those more poor, more stupid, less gifted, less educated, sometimes even less virtuous than they, enter in and are filled at those tremendous tables.
Ryan Schatz
Hi Moonshadow,
While God includes also those of low esteem in the world, I don't think Paul himself was one of them. God's grace is open to all.
That being said, the original conversation was on what is within a person such that God chooses one and not another. Since MzEllen is a Calvinist, what follows God's choosing her is her choosing God. But why did God choose her in the first place? This is the question I asked od Dr. John Piper, and the response I got was, "There was nothing in you worth choosing... So we don't know why. It's a mystery."
Sure, God includes the weak as well as the strong, but why only some of them and not the others? This still remains to be answered Biblically by Calvinists.
I have proved that the atonement was not limited, and therefore why would God not choose those He already died for?
MzEllen
I have proved that the atonement was not limited, and therefore why would God not choose those He already died for?
perfect argument for a universalist.
But why did God choose her in the first place?
It's not because I was so smart, not because I was so spiritual, not because I was so wise or good or any of the other things that would have me play a part in the choosing.
Ryan Schatz
So you don't have an answer then? The answer, of course, is that despite the fact that He already died for ALL, only those who exercise faith in the Messiah are credited with His righteousness.
Universalism says, "All are saved" - but the Biblical account says that "All are atoned for, only those who exercise faith are saved." Why are not all saved? Because not all exercise faith. Why don't all exercise faith? Because some people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge God (who has made Himself sufficiently known) and their sin. It is not because God did not enable them to recognize Him or see their sin.
Faith is saying that you CANNOT do anything and must rely on another. You used your God-given intelligence which has been endowed on all cognitive humanity enough to admit your sin to God and take the free gift. If you want to admit the intelligence is from God, fine... but every good thing is from God! Where in scripture does it say that God doesn't give this to everyone made in His image?
This passage is not saying, "Why did you make me unable to recognize my sin, turn from it and put my Faith in You?" It is talking about God's perogative to use, out of those who reject Him, one for betraying the Messiah and another for putting the nails in the cross; one to be made Pharoah of Egypt, and one to drive his chariot.
MzEllen
Post authorSo you don’t have an answer then?
Yes, the answer is that relying on Judas to "prove" unlimited atonement proves nothing.
So there doesn't need to be an answer to your "proof"
Because some people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge God (who has made Himself sufficiently known)
Why not? If God has made Himself sufficiently known - and has called everybody -
WHY NOT?
What is it about you that made you respond? Lucky? Smart? Spiritual?
If you don't have an answer other than "well...because I did," you've still proved nothing.
It is talking about God’s perogative to use, out of those who reject Him, one for betraying the Messiah
Except that it clearly says that it was about those who never rejected him.
at what point did Esau reject God?
Moonshadow
Thanks, Ryan. I'll sign off, however, and return to lurking for the practical reason that I'm not notified via email about new comments.
MzEllen
Post authorthe practical reason that I’m not notified via email about new comments.
I didn't even know I could do that? (I'll try to figure it out)
Ryan Schatz
I didn't notice until now, but there is a "click here to be notified of comments" button below the comment box.
Sorry, I've been busy the last few weeks and haven't been able to return. I hope you didn't think that it was because I was stumped. 😉
MzEllen, I don't think that its helpful to tell us that it doesn't prove anything without sharing the reason for why you would think this. Here's my reasoning, and I would certainly love to hear yours.
The logical conclusions we can draw from Judas are as follows:
1. That Jesus died for more than the elect.
2. That Jesus could offer the blood of the covenant for even the worst of the worst of sinners. Who could be worse than the one who betrayed the Son of God to death?
3. That Jesus' death for a person does not guarantee their salvation, yet we know that Jesus is never called a failure in the case of Judas.
4. That when the Bible says that He died for the "world", the "world" includes Judas and is not referring only to the elect.
5. That the death of Jesus does not "save" anyone without the blood of Jesus being APPLIED THROUGH FAITH to our account just as the Passover lamb did not "save" anyone when they were eating it if its blood was not APPLIED onto the posts of the door. The death "paid for" our sins but that price was not applied to our account until we came to faith.
6. That it is not unjust for God to send Judas to hell even though Jesus died for him on the cross. Judas never had the payment applied to his account so he rightly suffered punishment by rejecting God's righteousness payment.
I came to fear God and put my faith in Him for the following reasons:
1. His revelation in nature shows that He is awesome and magnificent in His works, both from the awesomeness of the sun and stars to the intricateness of the smallest creature and how Holds together the seemingly vast energy of every atom. This is why I fear God, the creator.
2. Despite my greatest efforts to do what I believe is right, the law convicts me of sin. It tells me that my thoughts are the precursor to the acts, and I will be judged on what I do with those thoughts. God's law has put me in a cage I couldn't find any way out of. THIS is why I recognized my awful state and acknowledged my sin.
3. While I was yet in my sin, God manifested in the flesh and died on my behalf. The atonement was paid for me while I was in my sin, undeserving of anything. Nevertheless, He showed me mercy, and so because He first loved me, I love Him.
So as you can see, all 3 of the above are initiated by God and are yet are inclusive towards all people. It is not because of some smartness in me above someone else, but because I responded to the Spirit's work by fearing God, confessing my sin and accepting the remedy and love and mercy that was the only thing that could save me. All of the above God does for all of humanity. There is no one that He chooses to leave out and other that He chooses to be in.
It is not so much that we "chose" God, but that we "responded" to God. It was God's initiative to come to all, and all we did was respond to Him and let Him have His way with us. The big question is not why we came to God when others did not, but why others refused God when His greatness and His mercy are so obvious and His love is so strong that it draws all of us? I think we have to go to the Scripture to see what it says.
The Scripture says that those who do not respond to God, are ones who:
1. Are lovers of pleasure more than they are lovers of God: "...treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." (2 Timothy 3:4)
2. Will not leave their other gods and they are proud of their sin: "...whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things." (Philippians 3:19)
3. Despise authority, and are self-willed without the fear of God: "...and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties..." (2 Peter 2:10)
4. Hardens his heart against God: "How blessed is the man who fears always,
But he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity." (Proverbs 28:14)
I will answer the part about Esau in a follow-up comment...
Ryan Schatz
I'm not going to pretend that this part of Romans is not difficult to understand, but if we prayerfully consider the text in context, He will give us the wisdom to see its meaning.
Romans 9 is not talking about election to flick a switch in someone's heart so that they will respond and be saved or harden their heart and be damned, but an election to be the one through whom the Messiah would come, an election of the "Father" of the people of God.
Just as not all of Abraham's sons were elected to be in the line of the Messiah... "nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: 'through Isaac your descendants will be named'" (Romans 9:7) ...so too, the descendants were to continue through the line of Jacob. The election that Romans 9 is speaking about is that the physical line of the Messiah would be chosen by God alone, not by any "work" that these men would do, but by the blessing of God at His own choosing.
In Romans 9:10-13 we see several things.
First we see that God made a choice between Jacob and Esau that did not depend on the goodness or badness of the babies. Before they were even born, God's choice for the line of God's people was made through Jacob and not Esau. Therefore although this is said about two people, it ultimately was about them as the source of two nations. Jacob was chosen to be the Father of the people of God and this act of mercy had nothing to do with his deserving of this merciful act, but was God's choice alone. As a sign of this act of mercy their mother was told that the older would serve the younger. Is the older one going to serve the younger one from his place in hell? Of course not. The election is obviously not about ultimate salvation. What was said to Rebekah was that one would be chosen and the other not and the one who was not chosen would serve the chosen one. This was not literally fulfilled by the brothers but as "heads" (or sources) of their progeny, the nation that came from Esau would serve the nation that came from Jacob.
Second of all we can see that Rebekah was not told that one of her sons would be sent to hell by God's choice while the other one would be God's choice for salvation. That concept is foreign to the choice that God revealed to Rebekah. It is an assumption that Calvinists make that is not revealed here.
In verse 13, the mercy of God and His choice that allowed only one of the twins to be of the line of the Messiah is shown as a love to one and a hatred to the other.
The term "hated" does not always mean a feeling but means to "love less" because one is not chosen. It is the same thing as God tells us that we must hate our mother and father in order to serve Him. This doesn't mean that we are to actually hate our parents, but to not chose them as first in our lives. We must put God as first and everyone else behind Him so that in comparison to the love that we have for God, those who are not first in our lives can see this as not loving them or hate.
So God put Jacob first and gave Him special treatment thus appearing to "hate" Esau because He did not choose Esau for a special place. Yet in reality God loved Esau and his descendants because through the Messiah who would come through the line of Jacob, the sin of the world, including the sin of Esau and his descendants would be paid through the Seed of Jacob thus benefiting all.
Notice also that God didn't tell Rebekah that He hated Esau, just that He chose one over the other.
It was in Malachi that God said He hated Esau: "but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.” (Malachi 1:3)
First of all the word for hate in the Hebrew can also mean "loved less":
God loved Esau less because He chose Jacob instead of Esau as the source of the line of the Messiah. It was Esau's descendants that received the consequences of an inheritance of desolation in their mountains and desolation in the wilderness. Yet hating Esau had nothing to do with appointing him to unbelief and therefore Hell; but the failure to give Esau an inheritance of this blessing would certainly be seen as "hate" even though "all nations" would be blessed through the line of the Messiah including the nation belonging to Esau.
In conclusion, not choosing someone for an honor in this life can be seen as "hate" yet God still loved him and provided equally for his salvation through the Messiah since all nations (not just some nations) would be blessed through the seed of Abraham and that includes the nation of Esau (Gen 26:4).
Do you see it yet? God chooses one for noble purposes and another for common?
MzEllen
Post authorThe big question is not why we came to God when others did not, but why others refused God when His greatness and His mercy are so obvious and His love is so strong that it draws all of us? I think we have to go to the Scripture to see what it says.
So it seems like those who reject him are just not as smart as we are.
Ryan Schatz
Hmm... looks like the "email me" link is not working. Oh well.
MzEllen, I think I carefully worked through what I believe scripture says. Do you agree with what I have written?
Scripture does not lay the blame on God as the reason why some people reject Him and others do not. The Bible says "the fool says in his heart there is no God," so perhaps we can say that if you recognize and fear God you are not foolish, though its not about how 'smart' you are as though you had to have a post-secondary education to figure this out.
MzEllen
Post authorI agree with Scripture - that doesn't mean that I must agree with your interpretation of it.
I could just as easily go through all of the proof texts for election and all of the rest of TULIP.
who are you, oh man, to talk back to God? What IF< ?em> if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory
Ryan Schatz
It is fine for you to disagree, but you don't seem to be communicating to me where my interpretation is wrong or unsubstantiated. Are you suggesting that Calvinism and my interpretation are BOTH correct and that it is simply a matter of preference why you choose to believe Calvinism?
But why are you moving on when you haven't responded to what I have challenged on the 'L'? I can prove to you that the Calvinistic understanding of the scriptures is wrong, but you don't seem to be willing to consider that this may be true... or am I misreading you?
I'm confused... how does this lay the blame on God as to why some reject Him and others do not? You can't just regurgitate these scriptures; you have to explain to me how they prove your case. That's the only way you are going to convince me. Believe me, I can be convinced of your view...if only it was actually what the scriptures teach.
Again, here is what I believe Paul is intending to communicate in context.
- In Rom 9:1-5, Paul declares that the Jewish people are elect according to the purpose of God. It is to them that the spiritual fathers such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are connected. It is to them who are given a special covenant in the tabernacle, its promises, the law and adoption as sons of God. When God looked at the lump of clay of humanity, He chose Abraham to bear His name and to display His glory and to bear the Messiah who would benefit all of humanity.
- However, in Rom 9:6-8 Paul acknowledges that election through physical decent doesn't mean that they will all believe and become the "true" Israel. Those who are of the true Israel are born through faith in the promise.
- Paul then goes on to describe in Rom 9:9-13 how God elected physical Israel. It was not because of their works; not from anything they had done...but was solely at His discretion. When God selected Jacob as the line of promise (ie. the Messiah), it was not on account of his works; when He didn't choose Esau, it wasn't on account of his works either. This is why we are told that God made his decision before they were born. In doing this, He is showing us that they represent two peoples. But Jacob or anyone descended from him, or Esau or anyone descended from him could have become a child of promise (the true Israel, of which even you and I are a part) by demonstrating the faith of Abraham.
- Rom 9:14 - the Jews of Rom 2 believed that God predestines those who will be in the physical line of the Messiah by their works. Paul has said in the example of Jacob and Esau that this is NOT true. So is God then unjust? Absolutely not! Cannot God choose whom He wants to be in the physical line of the Messiah and whom He doesn't want to be in the physical line of the Messiah? This has nothing to do with true spiritual descendants, but physical descendants only.
- Rom 9:15-17 - Paul demonstrates God's election in choosing out of the unbelieving to raise up Pharoah. He chooses to bear with great patience Pharoah, who as one who doesn't fear God is an object of God's wrath, in order to demonstrate His glory in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt with a great demonstration of power which would spread His fame throughout the earth.
- Rom 9:18-20 - Paul declares here that God decides on whom He will show mercy and whom He will harden. It would have been better for Pharaoh that God did not raise him up only to test him and judge him. It would have been better for Judas had Jesus not chosen him to be the unbeliever who would betray Him. The fact is that it was Pharaoh all along who refused to bend his neck to God, and Judas who refused to fear God. For God to harden Pharaoh, all He had to do was provoke him with the right events and Pharoah would stiffen his neck and rebel. Rom 9:19 does not say that God made Pharoah a rebel, but that GOD MADE PHAROAH THE PHAROAH! This is what the following verses go on to describe.
- Rom 9:21-23 - God chooses from the same lump of clay, one to be of His physical people (physical Israel) and one to be of the Gentiles (in this case physical Egypt). Or perhaps He chooses one to be Pharoah, and one to scrub Pharoah's toilet. God does not choose to not regenerate some and then bear with them to show how great His mercy is to the ones He does choose to regenerate. You may well indeed feel much relieved that God chose you, but you would feel much more justice if He didn't aggravate those He doesn't regenerate so that they experience greater wrath and judgment. This would make even the 'chosen' sense the despotic nature of God. Rather, God bears with those who rebel against Him and selects from among them one to be the chief among them (Pharoah) so that He demonstrates the reality of free will choice and what kind of wrath it results in from God. This has the effect of making the 'chosen' fear God, not just be gratified in being selected. God is only glorified by those who fear Him.
- Rom 9:24-26 - God now chooses for Himself the church from among both the Gentiles and the Jews.
- Rom 9:27 - but the tares and the wheat will grow together until judgment day. Only the remnant who exercise faith will believe. What is true for physical Israel is also true for those who associate themselves with the church.
...to be continued later...
MzEllen
Post authorIn other words, if that's what Scripture taught, you'd believe, but since you already believe that it isn't true, you can't be convinced.
I'm convinced of your open mind.
If you want to browse through the "what I believe" page, you'll see that I've done a bit of study on issues.
Given the number of years that I spent studying both sides of the debate, given the number of times that I spent debating with Arminian pastors (my brother in law among them), I find your dismissal a little insulting at best.
The thing about Calvinism (in general) is that it wipes away my pride.
You may want to debate Limited Atonement - the post was not about that. If you want to continue, go for it.
Ryan Schatz
MzEllen, I happen to have a viewpoint, but that doesn't make me closed minded. Why don't you try to convince me instead of just quoting the scriptures, why don't you describe how they can mean what you believe they mean in context? Prove to me how my interpretation is wrong. Try me.
Good, then you should be able to prove to me what these passages mean rather than just quoting them.
I'm not an Arminian, though I am sypathetic to their conclusions. The reason I said what I did was not to insult you, but to hopefully stimulate you to explain to me what these passages you are quoting from actually mean. If you cannot do this, that is okay. Then prove that what I have described cannot be substantiated. If you cannot do this, then at least admit that my view is tenable.
I am glad that Calvinism has resulted in you having no pride in yourself. At least it is doing you some good. But this is not a general result of the teaching. I know many a Calvinist that struggles with pride as can be evidenced in how they get along with others who disagree with them. After all, God has chosen THEM and not others. For what reason remains a mystery, but He did choose YOU (and THEM), didn't He?
I have no reason for pride according to my view, unless you think that it is wrong to be proud about your weaknesses. Because my pride is in the fact that I put my trust in Jesus. He is my pride. Faith is an explicit declaration of weakness and dependence on another. And so I will boast in my weakness, as it puts the focus on God where it should be.
The post was about why God chooses one and not another. As I said before, Calvinism stands or falls on this premise of predestining belief in people, or selective "switch flicking" as I like to call it. I can say what I believe is the case, and you can say what you believe is the case, but if we listen to the scriptures, then neither of us will be convinced unless the scriptures are explained, right?
I have already proven that Judas himself disproves that the atonement is not limited. Why don't you show me how he doesn't disprove this instead of just telling me that he proves nothing?
I'm all ears.
MzEllen
Post authorWhat I'll do is this - rather than continue here, on a post that's about to go off the bottom of the page, is to just do another post. Most likely tomorrow.
Limited Atonement - the "L"
MzEllen
Post authorAlso - for whatever it's worth, I think that the "U" should be first. If you don't have the "U" in place, the "L" doesn't matter.
I struggle to see how the "L" makes any practical difference even with the "U" in place.
Ryan Schatz
Sounds good.
They are all related, so it doesn't really matter what you pick first, in my opinion. But I'm quite happy if you want to start with 'U'nconditional election.
If Jesus really did pay for the sins of Judas, for instance, then why would He predestine someone to unbelief whom He already died for? So they are related, but certainly feel free to start with U.
Ryan Schatz
Hi MzEllen,
Sorry if I missed it, but did you make this post?
MzEllen
Sometimes...life takes precedence over blogging.
Keep checking back, I'll get there.
Question: are you any relation to Cheryl Schatz?
Ryan Schatz
I understand. I have 3 kids. 🙂
It would be great if the "Click here to be notified of new comments" actually worked. Must be something wrong with your webhost or the WordPress installation.
Doubly: one is my mother, and the other one is my wife.