Unconditional Election (calvinism)vs. Bible Truth: "God...desires ALL men to be saved" 1Ti2:3,4

http://home.kscable.com/winfieldcofc/newspaper/03election.htm ^ | Clint Brown

[xzins]

Unconditional Election vs. Bible Truth

"God, our Savior... desires all men to be saved." (I Tim. 2:3,4)

Clint Brown

Logic dictates that any doctrine which implies a false doctrine is itself, false. The Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Particular Election implies an egregiously false doctrine, and is therefore, false. This doctrine, often called Predestination, is explained by one of its defenders as "the eternal decree of God, by which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become of every individual... For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damn-ation for others" [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 342].

The chief implication of this doctrine is that God is responsible for souls that are lost in hell. To remedy this heretical notion, Calvinists assert that God's choice is "based solely on His own good pleasure and sovereign will" [Steele & Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.), p. 30].

Calvinistic predestination is actually a misapplication of the sovereignty of God. While God does have an immutable counsel (Heb. 6:17), He may not supercede the limitations set by His own moral nature (e.g., Heb. 6:18). The doctrine of Unconditional Election repudiates the single most profound act of the moral nature of God's will – the creation of mankind "in His image" (Gen. 1:26). Since man is "in His image," he possesses a real moral nature and is capable of making real moral choices that affect his real eternal destiny! But if God has arbitrarily predetermined every individual's ultimate destiny, we are essentially robots, incapable of affecting our eternal future.

God derives no pleasure from the service of automatons (cf. Amos 5:21-24). Rather, He desires a reciprocal love freely offered by His moral creatures. Of all physical creation, only mankind possesses the ability to respond to the loving grace of the Creator through the loving obedience of faith. Contrary to the indictment of God's justice provided by Calvinistic predestination, the Bible says that God desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). Contrary to the heretical implication of Unconditional Election, God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9).

Though not all will be saved, the choice is yours.

[xzins]

name all the alternative interpretations you can come up with for this passage.

[Hank Kerchief]

miller genuine draft

Do you like it better than beer?

Hank

[RnMomof7]

But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men to myself. John 12:32

So of course hell will have no men in it then only satan and his demons

[RnMomof7]

I don't understand what attracts people to believe in Calvinistic predestination.

Men will never like the biblical teaching of predestination and without Gods grace they will never be attracted to it ,because it means they can not be God.

God did not much care if YOU liked His plans or not. They are His plans and HE is God!

[RnMomof7]

Ping for Jude..Thanks Vmatt..you are my scripture friend

[RnMomof7]

Prophecy? Who writes that?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Let me give you an example. Dave Armstrong, the very capable Catholic apologist, spent many pages in such a debate.

You might notice: Dave botched his apologia from his very first paragraph... incorporating a fatal flaw in his Argument which his incompetent Anglican opponent failed to nail him on (attends to Foreknowledge of differing Free Actions in the context of differing Elective Creations, as I have mentioned before). An inexcusable failure on the part of the Anglican.

Now, I don't know (and don't care to cast aspersions upon) Mr. Dave Armstrong; I only know Forensic Debate.

And in collegiate Forensic Debate, Armstrong shoulda been put through the ringer and left to dry from his first paragraph on. The failure of his Anglican opponent to exploit this obvious and fatal vulnerability in Armstrong's very front-line of attack, only means that Armstrong's opponent was not a competently-trained debater.

Ergo, the rest of the debate is a non-event. Armstrong shoulda been, and easily could've been, crushed immediately after his First Constructive. Victory over Apologetic Incompetents garners him no particular merit.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I don't understand what attracts people to believe in Calvinistic predestination.

The Bible.

80% of FR Calvinists are converts from the Man's-Sovereignty world-view. And in every single one of our cases, I will warrant, we initially found the Doctrine of God's Absolute Predestination to be anything but "attractive".

Unfortunately, each of us had a prior and absolute commitment to Sola Scriptura... and, much to our dismay, Absolute Predestination turned out to be the express teaching of Scripture.

We were dragged to Calvinism kicking and screaming by our commitment to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. A very great many of us had never even read a single Calvinist Theologian until after the Holy Writ had already converted us.

"Attraction"? Au Contraire. We saw the Truth, we hated the Truth, and the Truth nevertheless ignored our rebellious and prideful objections...
...and set us theologically and intellectually Free.

[RnMomof7]

Kicking and screaming and on my knees.....so right OP...not as Shadow says

I believe that what attracts them is that they don't trust their own beliefs and decisions to be saved. Thus, if all the decisions have been made for them, then they don't have to worry about growing in their faith.

Rather I kicked and screamed that I was not in charge and feared what that meant...BTW may I say that I believe that our growth in faith is of God too? It is God's grace that gives understanding and illumination to scripture..

[rwfromkansas]

Makes one wonder why Calvinists have been one of the most Biblically and otherwise literate people in the world. It has been the Calvinists in New England that fought for colleges and mandated schools "the Old Deluder law." It was Calvinists that had schools over Europe. Calvin himself was a Calvinist and he certainly was not somebody who believed in not learning anymore since everything was "already taken care of." Indeed, Calvinists have some of the highest requirements of the Protestants when it comes to ministers often. You can't sit through a Presbytery exam and tell me that is "easy."

[rwfromkansas]

God's foreknowledge is undeniably entangled with his providence.

[rwfromkansas]

I understand the concept that some people reject God's grace in Arminian theology. My comment was that in the scheme of such a theology, its implication is that some "got it," and others who were told the Gospel were too blinded by their sins to "get it." In other words, some had to be a bit better to get past their sin and see grace, while the others were not quite good enough. Of course, the Arminian reply would be, "But they freely rejected God, while others freely accepted him." Another...yet accurate way of putting that statement is that some saw the value of grace, while others didn't. That is a damning implication that comes out of Arminian theology because it supports my contention that underlying Arminian theology is a group that "got it" and a group that didn't. It does not matter that they did it of their own free will because some were still BLINDED BY THEIR OWN SIN and others MANAGED TO FREE THEMSELVES, which sets them in a "better" class. It is such a horribly man-exalting, selfish, and exclusive theology I don't know why I ever believed it. It was just what I used to know I guess.

By the way, what is a strawman? I have graduated from HS, so I have not heard such terminology in my classes.

[rwfromkansas]

a Calvinist verse there sir...what are ya doing, trying to help us?

[rwfromkansas]

If there was anything I would have cursed when I first heard of it, it would have been predestination. I found it horrid when I first heard of it. But, after a course of study, I finally had to submit to it and all of the Five Points.

[rwfromkansas]

Talk to Rnmomof7. She used to hate Calvinism with a tremendous passion I seem to recall. I honestly do seem to recall her posting strong diatribes against it on FR....before she was converted to believing in God's sovereign grace. I just happened to come to FR one day and I read a post by her that was supporting Calvinism.....needless to say, I was shocked. But, she said she had come to believe it was the truth. And God is glorified in that.

[DittoJed2]

You are turning out to be a gross disappointment. Your little comment about the Calvinist trinity- not funny. Can you picture yourself telling the same to Jesus? After you have attacked people who are supposed to be your brothers and sisters in Christ with your cartoons, your accusations of blasphemy, and your snide comments, can you actually imagine him laughing with you at your little joke? Discourse and disagreement is fair game. This forum is supposed to have a high level of both. But your comments ARE personal attacks against every Calvinist on this forum. I don't give a rip about what any Calvinist ever did to you. That is in the past. This is a continuing effort on your part to malign those who take the Bible and doctrinal study very seriously. If they have offended, they will answer to the Lord for it if they haven't repented. And so will you. I'm talking about you, right here and right now. Knock it off!! If you have something concrete to say, say it but stop with the personal attacks regarding a doctrinal disagreement or do not expect for others to continue speaking to you at all. I tried to gently ask you before and you tried to justify it. I am not speaking so gently this time because there is no justification for what you have been doing. Stop the trash talk. It is inappropriate amongst Christians. They will know we are Christians by our love. Since that is a truth statement, what do the folks on Free Republic know us as but a bunch of bickering pious jerks that can't bother to say one kind word to one another. Some message, indeed.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

you are not going to entertain alternate interpretations

Funny thing is, most of us Calvinists have entertained plenty of "alternate interpretations."

Only a few of us were born Calvinists. Most grew in the faith after having been Catholics, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc.

Generally, we realized we must be Calvinists because its logic and comfort are over-whelmingly Biblical.

God is sovereign over everything, including all salvation. If God wanted all men to be saved, they would be. His will prevails. Or else He isn't God.

[RnMomof7]

I was going to comment ..but let it pass. Thanks...

[DittoJed2]

It gets very tiring to continually have to defend one's self against lies. I was not involved in these discussions at all for a long time, but I saw the Calvinist position being distorted so badly that I had to chime in and at least let the other side of it be heard from my own lips (or keyboard). In spite of continually explaining the truth of what we believe, we are still being misrepresented. It is like arguing with an obstinant madman who keeps saying the sky is yellow when it is blue. No matter how many times you correct him, he still chatters on with his little minions there to pat him on the back for insisting it is yellow. I'm tired of it, Mom! We have continued to correct the record on what we believe and yet our words are ignorred and the same Satanic trash about Calvinism is spewed forward night after night. They don't give a rip about the truth. They want to demagogue and demean. I am not even necessarily asking that they convert to Calvinist belief. What I would like is that they would just ONCE represent it correctly, unnuanced, undistorted and in a manner that includes no personal attacks. Is that too much to ask?