Jump to content
midniterider

Calvinism, Predestination, The Elect

Recommended Posts

Is Calvinism Biblical? Does the concept of the 'elect' square with John 3:16 and the Great Commission?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, have a video:

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many gods have to vote "Yea" in order to elect a person?  Will a simple majority suffice?  A 2/3 majority?  Or does it need to be unanimous?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How many gods have to vote "Yea" in order to elect a person?  Will a simple majority suffice?  A 2/3 majority?  Or does it need to be unanimous?

 

Christianity does not recognize democracy.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How many gods have to vote "Yea" in order to elect a person?  Will a simple majority suffice?  A 2/3 majority?  Or does it need to be unanimous?

 

Maybe God has an electoral college. It's probably not accredited, though.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 12:37 PM, midniterider said:

Is Calvinism Biblical? Does the concept of the 'elect' square with John 3:16 and the Great Commission?

 

 

Interesting video. The pastor didn't really like being put on the spot like that. His excuse, or apology if you will, seems to be to shift the attention and claim that everyone in hell will be deserving. Likewise, the elect will be deserving as well and no one will question god's judgment. But that excuse fails to acknowledge many things. 

 

The people who are so deserving of hell, were predestined to be so deserving of hell. The question isn't whether according to biblical standard they deserve to burn for rejecting god, the question is how does it glorify god to predestine people to be deserving of hell in the first place, knowing full well the outcome in advance of any of it happening and doing it anyways. He completely side stepped the issue, surprise everyone! 

 

As to John 3:16 and similar verses in the NT that suggest that "belief" in god, through Jesus and his resurrection is what equals salvation, the idea is that people can make choices in the matter and that people can change. From pagan to christian, for instance. That people can hear the gospel and change their ways. That they have some free will in the matter and are personally responsible for their own outcome. So that the dammed and unelect, are dammed or unelect by their own choices and not predestination. And not to the blame of god for shafting or exalting them in advance against their own choices. 

 

But this predestination thing gives a scenario where god has already predetermined who will be the elect and saved and who will not be elect and dammed. The idea being that the elect can't make it otherwise, nor can the dammed as far as that goes if we stick to what it means. It seems to suggest go ahead and spread the gospel, but in doing so it's just going the through the motions and allowing this predestination to play itself out through time accordingly. And those who will be saved will be saved, and those who will be lost will be lost. The pastors excuses about "grace" fly in the face of the above. What grace? The grace in predetermining an elect number of people and then following through bringing them all into existence along with the dammed and then saying, 'look at me and my grace, I am very just! Look at what I've done for a portion of my own creation!' The bible seems to suggest that grace is there for the taking for those who CHOOSE to accept it. 

 

At face value, it seems easily dismissed as non-biblical and unsound doctrine for a christian to take up as far as being internally consistent with the bible. Not that anyone else aside from the Calvinist's do a better job of being internally consistent. That just is what it is. One more internally inconsistent belief to add to the pile. The problem is when these Calvinist's claim to be doctrinally sound above and beyond their christian peers, which, looks like a spurious claim. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No one will be in hell who's not in a state of rebellion against God."

 

Cool. I've got nothing to worry about. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Citsonga said:

"No one will be in hell who's not in a state of rebellion against God."

 

Cool. I've got nothing to worry about. ;)

 

 

Me neither. Pretty hard to rebel against something you don't think exists. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Interesting video. The pastor didn't really like being put on the spot like that. His excuse, or apology if you will, seems to be to shift the attention and claim that everyone in hell will be deserving. Likewise, the elect will be deserving as well and no one will question god's judgment. But that excuse fails to acknowledge many things. 

 

The people who are so deserving of hell, were predestined to be so deserving of hell. The question isn't whether according to biblical standard they deserve to burn for rejecting god, the question is how does it glorify god to predestine people to be deserving of hell in the first place, knowing full well the outcome in advance of any of it happening and doing it anyways. He completely side stepped the issue, surprise everyone! 

 

As to John 3:16 and similar verses in the NT that suggest that "belief" in god, through Jesus and his resurrection is what equals salvation, the idea is that people can make choices in the matter and that people can change. From pagan to christian, for instance. That people can hear the gospel and change their ways. That they have some free will in the matter and are personally responsible for their own outcome. So that the dammed and unelect, are dammed or unelect by their own choices and not predestination. And not to the blame of god for shafting or exalting them in advance against their own choices. 

 

But this predestination thing gives a scenario where god has already predetermined who will be the elect and saved and who will not be elect and dammed. The idea being that the elect can't make it otherwise, nor can the dammed as far as that goes if we stick to what it means. It seems to suggest go ahead and spread the gospel, but in doing so it's just going the through the motions and allowing this predestination to play itself out through time accordingly. And those who will be saved will be saved, and those who will be lost will be lost. The pastors excuses about "grace" fly in the face of the above. What grace? The grace in predetermining an elect number of people and then following through bringing them all into existence along with the dammed and then saying, 'look at me and my grace, I am very just! Look at what I've done for a portion of my own creation!' The bible seems to suggest that grace is there for the taking for those who CHOOSE to accept it. 

 

At face value, it seems easily dismissed as non-biblical and unsound doctrine for a christian to take up as far as being internally consistent with the bible. Not that anyone else aside from the Calvinist's do a better job of being internally consistent. That just is what it is. One more internally inconsistent belief to add to the pile. The problem is when these Calvinist's claim to be doctrinally sound above and beyond their christian peers, which, looks like a spurious claim. 

 

^^ Some great points to ponder there, Sir. 

 

I wonder why a loving, intelligent God would bring people into the world as pre-condemned? 

 

In any case (elect or precondemned), you could certainly behave any way you like and get into heaven...though, I'm not sure I'd wanna go there with this wacky God in charge of the place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     The word is used in a number of places.  It seems pretty straight-forward too.  It's essentially about choosing the best from the lot.  Like an election (is ideally supposed to work) but not so specific (as an election).

 

     But it works a little more strangely in this situation.  Jesus talks about choosing the disciples (or apostles as the case may be).  He could have chosen anyone but he chose them.  And they certainly wouldn't have become the apostles unless they were presented with that opportunity.  The two events had to occur together.  Jesus had to choose them and they had to have the opportunity from jesus.  No jesus no apostles.  Other people must have been around jesus prior to them but they weren't chosen to be the apostles so, as such, they heard or saw jesus and did not become apostles.  They were not elected to the position.

 

     Seems simple but no one really cares that there wasn't a string of apostles a mile long behind jesus.  That everyone whoever met the guy wasn't an apostle.  So why only 12?  Same thing.  They were the chosen.  Did jesus make them believe?  DId jesus make the others not believe?  Or did jesus just skip everyone he knew wasn't going to go along with he scheme and head straight for the ones he knew would?  

 

     Jesus comments later that he had chosen his group but had one that would betray him.  It was his doing to have this setup.  To have it all rigged this way.

 

     So xians are the ones that are chosen.  They need to have the gospel told to them in the same way that the apostles needed to have jesus come by the lake (or other places).  They made be chosen but they need to have the event happen so they can simply accept the position just like the apostles did.  And like the apostles there's plenty of "Judas'" in the bunch.  Duds that are just there to fail.  They're elected too but not really to get the glory but to serve the shit jobs.  The means to the ends.  

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that all Bible believers can agree on at least one thing, that God is omniscient. It plainly says so in the book.

 

He knows everything. He would know which babies are born as elect and he allows the others to be born anyway as their first step on their journey to Hell. Free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive. While claiming that God/Jesus wants everyone to be saved and that none should perish, it's already a done deal. What would be the point of preaching the "good news" to those already destined for eternal punishment before their birth?

 

I'm beginning to think this whole thing might not make any sense. :shrug:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     That's why I've seen the terms "foreknowledge" and "predestination."  Foreknowledge means that god knows what's going to happen but that he didn't actually make it happen like predestination would indicate.

 

     This sort of works but it has problems almost like time travel loops do.  What I mean is that it would seem to me that god wouldn't actually be able to know anything at all, just like we do, until that thing were to happen.  So we actually need to live all things so that god can "know" it.  This is what happens in some time travel scenarios.  So we would actually have one loop where god is not omniscient.  God would have known nothing at all.  We went through it and god learned what was what.  Then we looped.  This time god knew everything and this time around god was omniscient but only if everything went the same.  The problem is it doesn't have to go exactly the same.  So god is mostly omniscient.  Probably close enough when it comes to who will believe what but not so much as to know the position of atoms.  Maybe run the loop a few times and he'd be pretty spot on in the former but still not so much the latter.

 

     If god is some sort of higher dimensional being then time could work differently but it would still amount to the same thing.  God couldn't just know.  Even if all of our time were to play out at the same time to him we'd still have to do a thing.  And the problem is we'd likely do that thing in a probabilistic fashion meaning we wouldn't just believe or not but we'd believe or not in some statistical fashion which is just weird.

 

     So moving from making us do something from the very start to waiting for us to do it but then also knowing from the start changes things in strange ways.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.