Rev, I believe that's hyper-Calvinism. A strong Calvinist would say that God predestined some to salvation, the others He passes by. A moderate Calvinist such as I would say that, in harmony with His foreknowledge, God has predestined that some will freely choose to be saved.

That God is Sovereign and that we humans have free will are both, I believe, substantiated in the Bible. The way I see it, there is no condition on God to give salvation. He gives the gift to whomever He chooses. However, there is one gift upon us to receive the gift, we must believe in Jesus Christ and the work He did for us on the cross.

Amen, agreed.

That is where we differ. My understanding of the Bible tells me that those who do not believe in Christ are most certainly not saved. That I believe stands as the call to evangelism.

You're correct, Jae. I haven't chosen to differentiate between the various shades of Calvinism. My point is still, though, that if God predestines some to salvation and passes by others (through no worthiness of our own but by God's own sovereign choice) then those who are passed by presumably don't have salvation, and the choice again is arbitrary - and arbitrariness doesn't equate with my understanding of God. God always acts purposefully, but never acts arbitrarily. That's the sticking point for me with Calvinism.

At one point I asked RevJohn on this forum if there was anything in Calvinist thought that denied the possibility that ALL could be among the elect.  That is, could all be chosen for salvation.  John said that technically there was not although the doctrine of election suggested a presupposition that some would not be found among the elect.

As I get older I find that I understand the doctrine of total depravity differently.  I still don't really hold to it, but I see where it can be a helpful partial lens to look at the nature of the human condition.

Rev Steven Davis,

just wanted to thank you for writing this.  This is a big reason why the WC is here :3

Like a scientist, you are exploring your scaffolding and, even though it is exposed and understood a bit more, it still works for you.  You are another good instance of how knowing and understanding doesn't destroy that which is under scrutiny.  Good show.

Personally I don't believe that God does predestine some to salvation. I believe He predestines some to the choice of accepting Christ. There is a difference. The gift of salvation is God's to give, and I believe He offers it to one and all. We each are responsible for the choice we make -- accepting Christ or not.

Extreme Calvinists would disagree with me on this. They believe that total depravity means that people are born without the ability to accept Christ, so God must force salvation into His elect against their will. Doesn't sound like a very loving parent to me.

Interesting - and exactly the sort of conversation I was hoping for. What, then, is the difference between accepting Christ and salvation in your view? Or, what is the relationship between accepting Christ and salvation? Are all those who accept Christ saved? Are only those who accept Christ saved? Are some who do not accept Christ saved? You see salvation as a gift of God which is offered - and which must therefore be accepted. Is accepting Christ the act of accepting the gift of salvation? And, if we must "accept" the gift, is the gift not conditional on our acceptance? Is it not then our choice rather than God's which is effective?

I raise these questions, because over the years I have found that many in the church struggle with the concept of "salvation." They either (a) take it lightly - "everybody's saved so it doesn't really matter what you believe"; (b) use it judgmentally - "you don't believe what I do so you can't be saved like I am; or (c) they fall into despair - "I don't think I believe hard enough so I can't be saved." In a way, I'm looking at this discussion as a sort of lab experiment - a way of understanding these different views and to sharpen my ability to respond when such issues come up.

Indeed, they would.

Nor does it sound so to me.

Although surely a human-constructed doctrine cannot supersede the sovereign choice of God, and if it is the sovereign choice of God to elect all - which I'm not sure of, by the way - then that is God's choice regardless of the presuppositions contained or implied within the doctrine of election. It would seem to me that to argue this point too strongly would be to question God's sovereignty and replace it with the sovereignty of doctrine.

Some of my ancestors were French Calvinists, Huguenots who had to flee France for England, Ireland and other countries, escaping the after-shocks and fallout of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, 1572.  Without elaborating or going into a major thesis on what I find wrong with Calvinism, I will only focus on one aspect; the violation of the law of non-contradition (i.e., a thing cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time).  Consider the following verse:

'Repent, and believe in the gospel' (Mark 1.15).

If sufficient grace is not given to all, then how can Jesus call you to do this? Calvinism violates the law of non-contradiction.  If you say this is God's permissive will and not His decretive will, how can a loving God say one thing but mean another? Calvinism violates the law of non-contradiction.

I watched in spurts a 4 hour documentary I had on the history of christianity, so now I'm well learned on it all! it went from crusades to Martin Luthor then to Calvin, This was European Christianity. Seemed like a swell guy from geneva europe who formed a dainty society of etiquette in the understanding I got, and stated this predestination/election thing which I don't agree with and sets up "Gods favorite little christians" in my view. It is not open to all and is exclusive in my outlook. So it is a definite contradiction of several verses that God wants all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

It really didn't emphasize much about him that intrigued me, I lean on Rev Davis's comment entirely.

All this comfortably abstract discussion about a God who creates an entire category of humanity destined not to be "saved" makes me angry.  What of all the unfortunate people born into abusive families or warzones, against whom the odds are stacked, who are  more likely than not to perpetuate the violence and destruction that destroyed them in the first place?  I guess God just "passed them" by, or even better, created them with the purpose of allowing the Elect to appreciate just how fortunate they were, much like he created poor people to enable rich people to contemplate and appreciate their good fortune. 

If this kind of doctrine doesn't spark any moral outrage in you, then you've subordinated your moral impulse and the independence of your ethical judgment to the slave-master of doctrinal purity - in which case you're truly to be pitied.  The worst excuse is, "Well, that's the way it is."  Then why bother guarding against slavery, genocide and war when those too are "just the way things are."  Everything, everything, can be rationalised, the abhorrence of what men do, and also the abhorrence of what men attribute to God. 

I don't accept such an arbitrary God.  An arbitrary God is one who is rationally inaccessible to humans, in which case all this doctrine talk is just a whole lot of vanity.  I guess that doesn't speak well to my chances of being part of the Elect.  Which I'm okay with, if I don't have to spend eternity with the kinds of people who believe in this sort of thing.  

Being part of the "elect," the "chosen nation," "the Club," it's all just a variation of one particular species of mammals' insatiable appetite for self-aggrandisement.  

Well maybe we all just need someone like Abraham who tried to negotiate with God on behalf of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah? Would that be Jesus?

As a raging, 5 Point Calvinist, this is a subject that is right up my alley. However, as it is late (12:30am where i am) and I have an early morning, I must get to bed. I will however post my thoughts later in the day.

Good night, all.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say, consumingfire. I was hoping some of the more rabid (and I say that not judgmentally) Calvinists would enter the discussion.

I preached on that Abrahamic negotiation with God this morning, linking it to a degree with the Lord's Prayer, my point being that the stories are about persevering in our relationships with God, even when we're not sure God is going to give us what we want. Thus, Abraham negotiates for both the wicked and the righteous of Sodom and Gomorrah and appeals for mercy; while Jesus teaches us to pray only for "daily bread" (or whatever our needs are on any given day) thus implying that we must persevere in prayer - returning to God each day (at least) to ask for that "daily bread."

I, of course, don't take the account of the Abraham-God negotiations literally. I believe there probably were two cities that were likely destroyed by some type of natural disaster (the description in Genesis might imply a huge volcanic eruption of some sort?) that was seen as an act of God and that later generations constructed this narrative around. The key figure in the story is not God (the author to me has a somewhat Calvinist worldview, it seems - Sodom and Gomorrah are done for no matter what Abraham does) but rather Abraham, who perseveres in pleading with God in what is a hopeless situation and also then perseveres in faith even when he doesn't in the end get the answer he wants.

I'd agree that there's some Abraham-Jesus parallels (the one who pleads with God on behalf of the wicked and the righteous) but the parallels aren't exact. Abraham represents a man struggling with God to save humanity; Jesus in traditional views represents God pleading with humanity to accept divine salvation.

I admire your honesty Rev Davis

Thank you, Witch!

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Fair enough.

Calvinists are not immune to error and it is quite possible they might get fixated on the messenger (Paul, Apollos or Calvin) to the impediment of the message (the gospel).

In an interfaith context I appeal to the label of Christian as a primary identifier.  If further discussion leads to the question, "what kind of Christian are you?"  then I reach for the secondary label of Calvinist.

When the discussion is, more or less, in house Calvinism becomes more of a primary label.

Again, from my perspective, Calvinism is the worldview/perspective that I operate out of.  Giving the definition in discussion is not my attempt to limit conversation so much as it is my attempt to indicate where I am coming from.

Agreed.  At what point does that belief become doctrine for you?  I am a fan of doctrine.  I am not a fan of doctrinairism.

Which is one way of interpreting the doctrine.

The doctrine of election does not occur within a theological vaccuum and, like most doctrine it is not immune to criticism.

Calvinism accepts that the Creation/Fall/Redemption paradigm is the most accurate paradigm in which to understand the history of revelation.

The element of Creation, if it includes the action of election opens itself up to the critique that election effectively separates the saved from the damned before any action of their own can make that distinction for them.

The element of the Fall, if it occurs prior to the action of election, condemns humanity as a whole.  This opens the doctrine to the critique that God is arbitrary in that God does not act to save all.

The element of Redemption, to which the action of election belongs regardless of when it functionally occurs, is God rescuing what God deems to rescue.  The question at this point is, does God need to save all in order to accomplish God's aim?

I believe that this is where remnant theology enters in and muddies the picture.  For clarification please note I use the term "remnant" and not "righteous remnant."  The difference between the two is pretty big, theologically.

Throughout the history of Redemption, God redeems not when the harvest is plenty but rather when it is on the verge of failing entirely.  All who leave Egypt do not enter into the promised land according to the narrative.  In fact, the narrative is quite clear in stating that of all who left Egypt only two, Joshua and Caleb entered into the promised land, and yet, they were not alone.  A nation still crossed the Jordan with them.

I believe that the proper application of remnant theology is not to identify who God intends to save so much as it predicts when God will act redemptively.

With that understanding in play election acts to ensure that all do not get to enjoy the wages of their sin which is death.

The next problem with the doctrine of election appears to be the all or nothing assessment scheme, "if it doesn't save all then it is worth nothing."  It is reasoned that if God is good and God is able and God is love then God must save all.  That line of reasoning, from my perspective, attempts to dictate terms to God instead of seeking to actually understand God.

What is God's aim with respect to humanity?  Is all of humanity required to achieve that aim?

God proclaims that by the grace of God one man's descendants can rival the stars in number or the grains of sand on the seashore.  Does God need all of those?

The book of Revelation proclaims that the multitude dressed in white is without number.  Is that everyone or is it only those elected?  Are they enough or does God need more?

I'm not certain of the answers to those questions.  I wonder how answers given would influence the doctrine of election and its understanding. 

Arbitrary may only be a matter of optics and not a matter of character.  I have heard that although an individual may learn CPR that it is only effective, even when done properly, only results in a positive outcome 8% of the time.

Why would we invest time in training the general public in a life-saving technique that has a 92% failure rate?

I lean towards grace as "given".  I believe that is the rationale of point 4, Irresistable Grace.

How that works out among humanity is beyond my ability to discern.  I can comment on appearances, beyond that I'm assuming.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Rev,

Sorry I haven't gotten around to your questions yet. I've had a long work week. Last week I worked 13.5 hours. Today 9. Tomorrow maybe 9.5 or 10. So the below are just some immediate thoughts. Perhaps following this week I'll be able to give your excellent questions some further thought.

The difference is that salvation is a gift which God gives while accepting Christ lays hold of that gift. It's somewhat akin to the difference between a sumptious banquet being presented and one accepting the invitation to attend such a feast.  

In my view there is no condition upon God to give the gift of salvation while there is a single condition on each of us to accept said gift, we must believe.

Yes, I believe so.

Yes, I believe so. In that I differ from an extreme Calvinist like revjohn who I believe would say that God first saves and then we are free to believe.

I do not believe so.

I see it also as a gift which God freely gives.

Basically yes.

No, because there is no condition on God to give the gift.

No, I don't believe so. It is God who is Sovereign. It is God who chooses to offer and give the gift.

I have the same problem with Bible centered churches, I believe we are called to be Christ centered.

However I have a problem with being a follower of Jesus Christ. It seems to me are called to answer, or respond to the resurrection of Christ. Which to me seems to indicate that we are not to follow Christ but to travel with him. 

The problem I have with the term follower is that many seem to follow a new law. Which leads people to ignore or reject change. Since it is often believed Jesus Christ has said everything already.   While Jesus did not come to make a new law but to be an agent of change. Each age and each person will have a different answer to the resurrection according to his or her circumstance, all of which are changing. Thus Christ never stops speaking or changing what he says.

Thus what Christ said to Calvin might have been right for him at the time, but many will receive a different  answer to how to react or interpret the resurrection. Calvinists seem to be still track in the idealism of Plato, with the understanding that there is only one perfect response. 

What do you think? 

That's a very interesting concept, Alex. I would point out, though, that while travelling with Christ does not necessarily mean following him, following him does of necessity mean travelling with him. I do, therefore, very much like the "travelling with Christ" concept, since it would seem to have the potential to bridge some of the divisions existing in the church. Perhaps we could all at least agree that we are travelling with Christ.

Having said that, the phrase raises some problems for me, as well. If we are merely travelling with Christ, how is the direction chosen? Either Christ chooses the direction and we follow, or we choose the direction and take Christ along. (I put this as an issue of faith. I believe two people following Jesus can go in different directions as long as they are convinced that Christ is leading them in the directions they've chosen. Some, however, choose their own direction and then simply graft Jesus into it.)

Interesting thoughts, Alex.

There is a third option, Steven:  Both yourselves and Jesus can be seen to follow a path already laid out (by Jesus or otherwise).  In that case, one could travel with Jesus without either leading him or following him, at least in the immediate sense.

I would say that like any trip, you first hold a conversation with whom you travel with. Then you decide which direction to take. Christ can only advise, and of course we are free to agree or disagree. Most of us  want to go in the right  or best direction. So after our conversation although we are free to choose, we would do what is best. 

Predestination rejects the possibility of change. I believe Christ will be with us regardless of the direction we take, if we continue to choose a dialogue and listen,  Christ will be offering the information,  for further directions or course corrections if necessary.

It is difficult for the Arminius on this board to have any followers because he doesn't have any doctrine to propagate.

I speculate that I may have been the recipient of what one might call the "Grace of God." I do, however, think and feel that this Grace is not dealt out at whim by a capricious God, but is THE innate state of being, a state of which most of us are not consciously aware. Becoming aware of who are what we ultimately are is experiencing Grace.

Experiencing Grace, to my mystical mind, is experiencing the innate unity that unites everyone with everyone and everything else, including the creative power of the cosmos, a.k.a. God. I think and feel that unity, nonduality, universal at-one-ment or synthesis is the ultimate state of being, and experiencing that state is experiencing Grace.

The consciousness of universal at-one-ment could also be termed "Christ Concsiousness," and the experience of at-one-ment as an experience of "Christ." 

I and the father are one.

-Jesus the Christ