Btw, if you have the time someday, I have a paper on individual election in Romans posted in the Thinklings’ Writings section. You might find it interesting.

This seems to create a bridge that both the election and free-will crowd can accept

AFAIK, only hyper-Calvinists would even possibly have an objection to saying “man makes voluntary choices”. This is entirely different from libertarian free will; i.e., we freely make choices, but the choices we make are foreordained. We voluntarily make decisions that are in absolute accord with God’s eternal decrees.

While most Calvinists do not deny men make choices voluntarily, Arminians tend to absolutely deny that God has ANY real causal role in the choices we voluntarily make. They exchange “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” with “God allowed Pharaoh to harden his own heart” which is entirely unbiblical.

That’s why I introduced the idea of frames of reference. It’s meant to explain how God causes us to make decisions, but we freely make them.

Spurgeon wrote of walking between the mountains of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will; I do not believe there are two separate mountains, but one mountain which looks very different from two different vantage points. Of course, it’s just a metaphor, and from my (limited) readings of Spurgeon, I’ve yet to see any difference in what he believed and what I do.

I’m not sure I’d put it in an intro to theology class though… :-) Pretty deep stuff!

One thing I mentioned in the paper that I think bears repeating in election convos is the example of Paul’s conversion. Lots of people like to look at it from the angle of how it affected “his” view of election (as if his is any different than God’s). But I think it’s important to realize that Saul was most certainly not looking for the Son of God, He was not seeking Jesus, only to kill His followers.
And there was no invitation, no real choice of any kind evidenced. Jesus showed up, blinded him, named him Paul, and transformed him. All against Paul’s will, apparently.

I think we need only one example of God violating the free will of a person to demonstrate that free will is not the sacred thing Arminians tell us it is.

Again, thanks for the encouragement.

It is not a loving personal God who would consign many to hell without any desire to see them repent. (Nor is it Scriptural)

“salvation would be to some extent based on my merit, not God?s grace alone.”

This is fallacious though. If someone gives me a birthday gift and I accept it, are you telling me that the act of accepting it amounts to merit? It’s a distorted view of free will, but one that would be necessary to build the case for calvinism.

Christ also once said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me.” Clearly God draws all, and that such drawing is not compulsory as it is possible to “draw back” to perdition, an act made only possible because God has allowed man this capability in keeping with his desire to give in men the ability to choose whether to accept or reject him.

God hardening the hearts of unbelievers is also reactive, as it clearly shows in Scripture:

“…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved….for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”

I equate the strong delusion to the hardening of hearts. It’s clearly saying here that God’s action in hardening the hearts was in response to their rejection of the truth. These are the conditions in which God moves to “harden the hearts” of the wicked for his own purposes.

And with regards to predestination, have there not be quite a few in Scripture who God predestinated to do great things, and who failed him miserably? We know also that God is not a liar, so the promises unfulfilled by these men had to be their own doing, rather than God foreordaining (causing) it to happen.

Back to lurking…

Here it is.

Mac, I agree that it is not scriptural to say “God has no desire to see any given person repent.” God does indeed want all men to be saved, but we know that most men won’t be saved. I will address that in a future post. It’s not a unique problem to Calvinism.

are you telling me that the act of accepting it amounts to merit?

I’m only answering the argument here that predestination is based on foreknowledge about a person or their deeds. If you deny individual election entirely, then my point about this is irrelevant.

The willingness to repent and come to Christ, with a _Biblical_ view of all that entails, is certainly something praiseworthy. What does Scripture say about the Bereans’ hearts?

If God gave me grace because He saw something – anything – in me that made me different than someone who He did not elect, then whatever it was He saw, is my merit. I merited grace more than the next guy. The ultimate cause of my salvation is whatever quality that God saw in me.

This is contrary to Scripture. We cannot conclude that election is based on foreknowledge about a person.

God hardening the hearts of unbelievers

I’ll try to deal with that more fully in a future post on reprobation. It’s the topic of my class this Sunday, so I’ll post about it soon.

the promises unfulfilled by these men had to be their own doing, rather than God foreordaining (causing) it to happen.

It’s not an “either-or” choice. God caused it. Man caused it. Both true.

By definition, if you are predestined for something, or if it’s your destiny, you _can’t_ fail to fulfill it.

Did God lie when He didn’t destroy Nineveh?

This statement tells me that you are still viewing this from a Calvinist angle. God’s grace is ultimately realized by those who choose to respond to his calling in the affirmative. Even from a Calvinist perspective the issue of merit still exists. There’s obviously some reason why you would merit more grace than unsaved Larry. Calvinism simply doesn’t do away with that as much as you would claim that we are all equally depraved, yet obviously we are not all equal in God’s eyes, since he favours some over others. There’s obviously SOME endearing THING about the elect that God would choose them while consigning everyone else to hell.

Given that I freely label myself a Calvinist, this should not be too surprising! :-D

There?s obviously some reason why you would merit more grace than unsaved Larry… obviously we are not all equal in God?s eyes, since he favours some over others. There?s obviously SOME endearing THING about the elect that God would choose them while consigning everyone else to hell.

No. Absolutely not.

We are made from the same lump of clay, some for honor, some for destruction (Rom 9:21). There is no difference.

“[i]t does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16)

Why did God choose Jacob over Esau? Scripture says that God made His proclamation “The older will serve the younger” _before_ the boys were born, precisely so that it would be clear that the decision was based on God’s purposes, and _nothing_ in the boys.

Edom and Israel were descended from the same stock. Both sons of one man. But God hated Esau, and “made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inhertiance for the jackals of the wilderness” (Malachi 1:3). Edom “may build, but [God] will tear down”.

Was there any difference between the brothers? In the early part of their lives, there’s much more to respect about Esau than about Jacob. Esau was a manly man. Jacob was a “mama’s boy” so to speak. Esau was favored by his father. Jacob schemed with his mother to deceive his own father. Jacob extorted Esau’s birthright from him. Two men of the same father. God chose one, and blessed his descendants, and cursed the other and his descendants.

I am of the same lump as any reprobate sinner. The only difference is that God chose me.

Paul is quite clear – there is nothing good in an unregenerate man. He’s spiritually at absolute zero. No one is “deader” than another. Nothing good at all. How could God compare us? There’s nothing positive in me or Lost Larry either one.