My main problem with Calvinism is that we can't believe unless God chose us before creation while not choosing so many others. I am not so attached to having my own autonomous free will that I can't believe that God worked in me, opening my heart to receive Jesus Christ and believe before I could do it on my own.
What of a person that lives a better life than me and hasn't sinned as much as me, yet does not believe? I know unbelief is a sin and I've seen it said that unbelief is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is unforgivable. Why would God not allow some to believe when Christ died for all?
Well, as to that last bit, I would answer that if Our Lord died for all, then all would be saved. I do not think of the atonement as something
potential. I believe it was an
actual atonement for the very word implies the wrath of God is propitiated for the atoning offering on the cross that was made. The offering had to be for a precise number, else all are atoned and thus there is no righteous Godly wrath towards anyone. We know this is not the case from Scripture. But, this is the topic of dozens of threads, so I will refrain from derailing this one by saying more.
As to the other aspects of your post, thinking about
merit usually gets one into these waters. What one
does or
does not do played no part in the decree of God to elect a multitude no man can number and leave the rest in their state of sin after
the fall of Adam. God did not
peek ahead, see who would do what, and then rubber-stamp their wise decisions, declaring them
elect,
chosen. God is not a debtor to man, nor a contingent being.
God's choosing (to elect some, leave others) incorporates the will of those chosen. God's decree formed all creation. That decree included all the physical properties at work that we discover in science, biology, etc. That decree included the
establishment of the liberty of the
will (the mind choosing) of mankind. That liberty of the will means that we are self-determined, that is, we choose according to our greatest inclinations when we so choose. God created the free will we are all claiming, yet not fully understanding.
So, when we say God
predestined in His decree, we are saying something along the lines, "
PJ, of his own liberty of spontaneity, with no violence done to his will by me, God, will do this or that at some specific time and date."
Once decreed, that becomes genuine
knowledge to God, what we call
foreknowledge. More
here.
Man did not sin because God foresaw him; but God foresaw him to sin, because man would sin. If Adam and other men would have acted otherwise, God would have foreknown that they would have acted well. God foresaw our actions because they would so come to pass by the motion of our free-will, which God would establish and permit, which God would concur with, which God would order to His own holy and glorious
ends for the manifestation of the perfection of His nature.
Which is to say, that God
knows something is because He volitionally willed it to be so. That God knows this does not mean God is the
direct cause of what you will do on that date and time. Yes, God is the
antecedent cause, the
First Cause, of all things. After all, He caused all that exists. Yet, God is not the
proximate cause of what you will do...
you are that proximate cause. You are the moral agent that does moral acts and you are held to account for these acts by God.
The
decree of God is worth a deeper look because not a few are confused about what that means. For example, in the debate Matt Slick was reminded that at his site, CARM.org, he called the decree "
an order". This is a terribly imprecise and easily leads to error, as the discussion in the debate gave evidence. Matt Slick was simply not well studied on the matter of what the decree actually entails, especially since the vital point concerning the decree is that God's decree incorporates
the means by which what is decreed is to be actualized.
Below is a more thorough explanation of the decree of God:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Mr-Religion&p=2251901&viewfull=1#post2251901
Yes, my post at that link is somewhat lengthy, but it is precisely so to avoid the pitfalls that were evident on both sides in the debates last week.
Unfortunately, discussion of the decree leads many to frustration and to making attempts to explain exactly
how God pulls off this business of being wholly sovereign and holding mankind accountable. No explanation is offered in Scripture. When God shuts His mouth, we are well advised to do the same (Deut. 29:29). Instead, I am happy to rest satisfied that since God merely
spoke and the universe appeared, that He is able to govern all things while rightfully holding his moral creatures accountable. I suspect that even in our glory we will not know the answer, nor will we care.
Nevertheless, some, perhaps with good intentions, seek to cobble together some explanations of the
how, hoping to let God
off the hook, as it were, for evil, sin, suffering, etc. Enter
open theism.
Per the open theist, God, existing in time, does not know the future for it does not exist. God does not
know what His moral creatures will do until they do it. God sometimes even has to actually show up on the scene to see what is going on, then He
knows some new facts. God learns from the acts of His moral creatures and continually adjusts His strategies to bring about His ends. In effect, God is a master chess player, predicting with high degrees of probability what folks will do.
AMR
