Unconditional Election vs. Total Depravity

[MennoSota]

Amen!

Indeed we do as sinful humans but what of when we were elected before the foundation of the world??

I contend that the sinful elect are perfectly and justly punished for their sins...

All? is there then no wrath for the Satanic?

Ah, now I can agree - all the wrath for HIS Sinful elect fell on our Christ to ransome us, perhaps, if Jn 3:18 is accepted in a certain way, (John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned,) sinful believers are never condemned for their sins...though our debt must be paid.

Surely fairness is found in treating everyone, well, fairly... IF HE has a reason for electing some and does not apply that blessing to others for no reason, is that fair? Yet iff some measure up to HIS reason for election but others do not, how is that not fair?

I am not arguing against GOD when I argue against a theology that mifiestly claims GOD is unfair!!! I mention that unfairness not because I believe GOD to be unfair but to show there is a theology that it claims GOD is unfair but pretends they do not.

IF there is no merit to our election, then there must be no merit to the non-election of others. IF there is a reason for their not being elected that we don't know about, then there is merit for those elected for not being identified with the reason that caused the others to be not elected. Capish? Unconditional election doesn't mean that we don't know the reason for our election ! it claims there is no condition for our election, no merit at at all! Replay this doctrine about the non-elect and how they are treated without condition or merit to end in hell and it all goes to hell in a handbasket!

Unconditional election or election without merit means we have some going to hell for no reason and no dis-merit of their own. Do we really believe that God is this arbitrary? Well, yes I did for a while because I could think of any other way to proceed but, as many of you know by now, I was then taught about our Pre-Conception Existence and how it answers this blasphemy so we need not base our Church upon it anymore.

IF there is no merit to our election, then there must be no merit to the non-election of others.

False
Our sin merits God act justly toward that sin.

IF there is a reason for their not being elected that we don't know about, then there is merit for those elected for not being identified with the reason that caused the others to be not elected. Capish?

No, this statement is gibberish.

Unconditional election doesn't mean that we don't know the reason for our election ! it claims there is no condition for our election, no merit at at all!

Correct. We are at the mercy of God. We provide God nothing that merits our pardon.

Replay this doctrine about the non-elect and how they are treated without condition or merit to end in hell and it all goes to hell in a handbasket!

Not at all.
All humanity is justly condemned for their law breaking against God.

Unconditional election or election without merit means we have some going to hell for no reason and no dis-merit of their own.

False
It means that all merit condemnation by being born as sinners. All humans are justly condemned because of the curse of sin.

Do we really believe that God is this arbitrary?

There is nothing arbitrary about God. God, however, is under no obligation to reveal the reason for His choice. That humans are incapable of discerning why God makes choices, it does not follow that God is arbitrary. Just as infants cannot grasp the reason why a parent decided something, so it is with humans and God. Paul expresses this very thought in Romans 9.

Well, yes I did for a while because I could think of any other way to proceed but, as many of you know by now, I was then taught about our Pre-Conception Existence and how it answers this blasphemy so we need not base our Church upon it anymore.

Sounds like you have been taught a false doctrine.

 

[Clete]

This is my argument in full, written any number of times where I suspect someone might be interested. I sincerely don't think you could ever find it on google but go for it and if you do find it, it will be under my name. I copy myself as I don't always have time to rework the whole thing over and over and over, but I have never copied anything in this argument from anything I found on google.

If you don't like that, pass on by...and be well.

Ok fine. Whatever. But if you want to change the subject why not just start your own thread instead of plopping a bunch of stuff no one asked you about into my thread?

If you're interested in discussing the issue I present in the OP then I'd appreciate your participation.

 

[Clete]

We all have sin. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
We all have "dis-merit" so that God must judge justly against ALL humanity.
Do you imagine the elect are not judged justly?
All of God's wrath against sin fell upon Jesus on the cross...because of the elects sin. This is an incredible act of grace in ransoming the elect.
Is it unfair that God would choose to ransom some, but not all? Can you or I accuse God of being unfair when we did not deserve God's gracious action in ransoming us?

This argument assumes free will! IT FLAT OUT DOES ASSUME THAT MAN IS SOVERIEGN OVER HIS DEPRAVITY! Just as Spurgeon argued in the quotes I presented in the opening post. The only way that God's punishment of sin is if we could have done otherwise. That denies both exhaustive divine predestination and total depravity. Again, I give you the words of Calvin himself...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

”He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which He hath not done (Amos 3:6).* Let them tell me whether God exercises His judgments willingly or unwillingly.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3)

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

Clete


P.S. There's about a 95% chance that MennSota won't even respond to this post at all! And if he does, his response will likely be nothing at all but him simply telling me that I don't understand Calvinism and then repeating himself.

Why is it that Calvinist simply refuse to acknowledge their own plainly stated beliefs and to debate them?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus was made a human. Are humans perfect? Yes or no?

They are when they exit the womb.

Psalm 139 does not declare that humans are sinless.

I said that they enter the world sinless.

According to your ideas even though the Scriptures declare that the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things" you say that His brethren were made corrupt.

 

[MennoSota]

This argument assumes free will! IT FLAT OUT DOES ASSUME THAT MAN IS SOVERIEGN OVER HIS DEPRAVITY! Just as Spurgeon argued in the quotes I presented in the opening post. The only way that God's punishment of sin is if we could have done otherwise. That denies both exhaustive divine predestination and total depravity. Again, I give you the words of Calvin himself...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

”He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which He hath not done (Amos 3:6).* Let them tell me whether God exercises His judgments willingly or unwillingly.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3)

“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)​

Clete


P.S. There's about a 95% chance that MennSota won't even respond to this post at all! And if he does, his response will likely be nothing at all but him simply telling me that I don't understand Calvinism and then repeating himself.

Why is it that Calvinist simply refuse to acknowledge their own plainly stated beliefs and to debate them?

Your first statement is false. Thus your response is based on a false premise.

 

[MennoSota]

They are when they exit the womb.



I said that they enter the world sinless.

According to your ideas even though the Scriptures declare that the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren "in all things" you say that His brethren were made corrupt.

You have nothing upon which to base your statement. I have scripture on which to base my statement.

 

[Clete]

Your first statement is false. Thus your response is based on a false premise.

As predicted. Good greif this is boring!

Do you even acknowledge that John Calvin had his Calvinism right?

Or do you agree with Spurgeon and reject the unconditional reprobabtion that Calvin believed and taught and wrote about?

Do you know how to have a conversation with people?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have nothing upon which to base your statement.

Of course you continue to deny what the following says is true:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).​

Those who have been trained in the Reformed way of thinking have been taught that when the Scriptures refer to "all things" the words only means "some things." Just like they have been taught that that the words "every man" means only means "some men":

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

 

[MennoSota]

As predicted. Good greif this is boring!

Do you even acknowledge that John Calvin had his Calvinism right?

Or do you agree with Spurgeon and reject the unconditional reprobabtion that Calvin believed and taught and wrote about?

Do you know how to have a conversation with people?

As predicted. Good greif this is boring!

Do you even acknowledge that John Calvin had his Calvinism right?

Or do you agree with Spurgeon and reject the unconditional reprobabtion that Calvin believed and taught and wrote about?

Do you know how to have a conversation with people?

I don't even know what you mean by "John Calvin had his Calvinism right."
Do you mean that Calvin observed God's means of salvation, as described in scripture, correctly?
Do you wonder how Spurgeon could have a different observation?
Both Calvin and Spurgeon recognized that God chose to ransom reprobate humans, not because reprobate humans merited the random, but solely because God chose to be gracious. Neither is in disagreement with one another on this issue.
Your assertion is odd to me. It seems you are attempting to create a conflict where none exists.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course you continue to deny what the following says is true:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).​

Those who have been trained in the Reformed way of thinking have been taught that when the Scriptures refer to "all things" the words only means "some things." Just like they have been taught that that the words "every man" means only means "some men":

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

You refuse to answer.
Are all humans sinful, therefore Jesus was sinful, or are all humans perfect, therefore Jesus is perfect?
By your interpretation of Hebrews 2:7-9 you must choose one of the two options. Which option do you choose?

 

[ttruscott]

Originally Posted by ttruscott
IF there is no merit to our election, then there must be no merit to the non-election of others.

False
Our sin merits God act justly toward that sin.

No merit for the election of some and no dis-merit for being not elected for others has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD acting justly toward sin as both elect and non-elect are full of sin equally...especially since election and non-election supposedly happened before the sinfulness of anyone not yet created!

 

[MennoSota]

Originally Posted by ttruscott
IF there is no merit to our election, then there must be no merit to the non-election of others.





No merit for the election of some and no dis-merit for being not elected for others has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD acting justly toward sin as both elect and non-elect are full of sin equally...especially since election and non-election supposedly happened before the sinfulness of anyone not yet created!

Originally Posted by ttruscott
IF there is no merit to our election, then there must be no merit to the non-election of others.





No merit for the election of some and no dis-merit for being not elected for others has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD acting justly toward sin as both elect and non-elect are full of sin equally...especially since election and non-election supposedly happened before the sinfulness of anyone not yet created!

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Do you agree?
That is what we all merit. God justly condemns all to hell.
Do you agree?
God's atoning sacrifice on the cross ransomed whomever God elected to ransom.
Do you agree?
God's choice to ransom whomever He willed is not revealed to humans.
Do you agree?
Grace means "unmerited favor."
Do you agree?
Does God extend unmerited favor to all by saving all humanity?
Yes or no.
Does God extend unmerited favor to those whom He wills?
Yes or no.
THIS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

 

[ttruscott]

IF there is a reason for their not being elected that we don't know about, then there is merit for those elected for not being identified with the reason that caused the others to be not elected. Capish?

No, this statement is gibberish.

No, just confusing...

If there is an unknown reason for their being not elected, then that reason must not be applicable to the elect right ? or they would be non-elect also under, for, that reason. Therefore not being under that reason is their condition, merit, and their election is not unconditional.

Any better?

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION THEN MEANS ALSO UNCONDITIONAL NON-ELECTION AND IF UNCONDITIONAL MEANS NO REASON FOR ONE, THERE IS ALSO NO REASON FOR THE OTHER...SINCE AN UNKNOWN REASON IS STILL A CONDITION.

 

[MennoSota]

IF there is a reason for their not being elected that we don't know about, then there is merit for those elected for not being identified with the reason that caused the others to be not elected. Capish?




No, just confusing...

If there is an unknown reason for their being not elected, then that reason must not be applicable to the elect right ? or they would be non-elect also under, for, that reason. Therefore not being under that reason is their condition, merit, and their election is not unconditional.

Any better?

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION THEN MEANS ALSO UNCONDITIONAL NON-ELECTION AND IF UNCONDITIONAL MEANS NO REASON FOR ONE, THERE IS ALSO NO REASON FOR THE OTHER...SINCE AN UNKNOWN REASON IS STILL A CONDITION.

The reason God does not save everyone is because He is not obligated to do so.
What God is obligated to do, by His law and by His nature, is to act justly.
Is it just to punish lawbreakers?
Yes or no.
God had the punishment of some lawbreakers fall upon Jesus. Was God unfair to bring His wrath upon Jesus for the sins of some of humanity, but not all humanity?
Yes or no?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You refuse to answer.

I answered and my answer concerns the way all people enter the world. Not about what happens afterwards.

And since the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren in "all things" we can know that all people enter the world perfect.

 

[MennoSota]

I answered and my answer concerns the way all people enter the world. Not about what happens afterwards.

And since the Lord Jesus was made like His brethren in "all things" we can know that all people enter the world perfect.

Scripture says we enter as corrupted people. (Psalm 51 and Romans 5)
What happens in life, after the womb, is that we start acting out our sin nature.
You must accept one of the two choices I have pointed out. Which one is it?

 

[ttruscott]

Unconditional election or election without merit means we have some going to hell for no reason and no dis-merit of their own.

False.
It means that all merit condemnation by being born as sinners. All humans are justly condemned because of the curse of sin.

AGREED. All humans merit condemnation for their sins. Merit to condemnation is not in dispute but it is also NOT the point. Merit to be saved, ie not to be condemned, is the point.

Some are saved for no merit to be saved yet others who also have no merit to be saved are not saved! NO condition means no reason as a good reason produces a condition for applying or not applying the reason to people. An unknown reason is also a condition as it causes some to come under the condition and not others so there is a condition...it is just not known to us so unconditional cannot mean of an unknown condition. I know some people are content to worship a God who does things like condemn billions for no reason but I do not - rather I believe the theology is suspect and that a reasonable condition does in fact prevail to have HIM elect some for salvation from their sins and others to be passed over for election unto salvation.

 

[ttruscott]

Do we really believe that God is this arbitrary?

There is nothing arbitrary about God. God, however, is under no obligation to reveal the reason for His choice. That humans are incapable of discerning why God makes choices, it does not follow that God is arbitrary.

OF course our ignorance does not even hint that HE is arbitrary but the world 'unconditional' sure does even for an unknown condition. A condition is a reason. Unconditional means there is no reason for the choice.

Some are elected for no condition, ie, no reason is found or can be found in them to be elected. IF a reason is found in the others as to why they were NOT elected, then that reason must not be found in those elected and that is their merit, their condition, ie they do not have the reason to not to be elected found in them. In other words, the non-elect have no dis-merit, disqualifying condition nor disqualifying reason found in them. If such a disqualifying reason is found in them, then the lack of that reason is a merit or a condition for those elected to not be passed over for receiving election.

This is why the word "UNCONDITIONAL" forces the implication that GOD damns billions for no reason (ie arbitrarily) but maybe for the fact that HE arbitrarily just does not like them, for no reason. I cannot accept this theology any more...my GOD is not like this.

 

[ttruscott]

Ok fine. Whatever. But if you want to change the subject why not just start your own thread instead of plopping a bunch of stuff no one asked you about into my thread?
If you're interested in discussing the issue I present in the OP then I'd appreciate your participation.

I'm sorry, I took your words,

In a sentence, If God is just then the concepts of unconditional election and predestination cannot both be true, even by Calvinist's own understanding of these terms.

as an invitation to share my hermeneutic for the rejection of the doctrine of unconditionality for election.

 

[ttruscott]

The reason God does not save everyone is because He is not obligated to do so.
What God is obligated to do, by His law and by His nature, is to act justly.

GOD is also obligated to treat people lovingly righteous in accordance with HIS character.

Is it just to punish lawbreakers?
Yes or no.

Yes.

God had the punishment of some lawbreakers fall upon Jesus. Was God unfair to bring His wrath upon Jesus for the sins of some of humanity, but not all humanity?
Yes or no?

IF there was love or mercy or justice in bringing His wrath upon Jesus for the sins of some of humanity FOR NO REASON then to not treat all others FOR NO REASON with the same love or mercy and justice is unfair, unloving, non-merciful to them bringing EVEN this concept of justice into disrepute...not GOD's justice but Calvin's sense of HIS justice.