"Irresistible grace"

Maybe sometime later then...

 

In my understanding, Calvinism does not attempt to define the mechanism for "election."

So no one can answer your question.

 

It's honest of them, as it's something we can't know unless God told us.

 

RK and 6 are both correct. It's not "convenient". We must be silent where God is silent. He has mercy on whom he desires. He hardens whom he desires (Romans 9:18). That's all Paul says. I know of no passage that gives further insight into his process. I'm pretty sure "random" isn't the correct word for His ways.

 

Aaron, one doesn't have to be Reformed to be part of the elect. Those who are part of the elect were such before the fondation of the world. Obviously, no one can believe Reformed Theology before they exist. No one believes Reformed Theology when they place their trust in the completed work of Jesus on the cross. At that point, many don't even have more foundational truths down such as the Trinity. I didn't come to the conclusion that Reformed Theology was correct until 28 years after my justification. I was justified all that time. I was part of the elect before my parents conceived me. For many years up to the time I became Reformed I hated Reformed Theolgy. When I became Reformed, I still hated Reformed Theology. Yet I was justified.

Now back to the first comments in your post. Simply because there is nothing in us that merits God electing one person over another doesn't automatically mean it's completely random. The assumes too much. God's wisdom is so far off the chart that yours and mine doesn't even register on the chart. Your conclusion that it is random isnt demanded by reason and also highly unlikely with an infinite being like God. Where he is silent, I'd encourage any mere human to be silent.

Aaron, if you have to understand the mechanism by which God does everything he does to be a Christian, then you couldn't be one. Obviously, God's knowledge and wisdom is much more vast than the 1,189 chapters he gave us. That far from exhausts the mind of God.

You can't explain the mechanism of Genesis 1:1. How did God create the heavens and the earth? It doesn't even say that he spoke in that verse. And if he did, how did words create the heavens and the earth?

Well, since you don't understand that mechanism, maybe to follow your line of reason you shouldn't be not only a Christian but perhaps you don't qualify now to even be a theist! Or perhaps since Aaron365 can't understand how God created the universe and why he did it, well, if Aaron365 can't get his mind around that it must have been random that God chose to create.

We can believe God created without knowing the ins-and-outs. We can believe God chose an elect the same way.

 

You could take that the other way:

- According to Reformed doctrine, God doesn't save a person based on 'anything related to them' (is this even true?)
- Meaning that one can't earn one's salvation

Or perhaps either: (1) God saves people at random, or (2) God saves people according to 'X' that we don't know / have access to, or (3) the above statements relate primarily to the question, 'can I earn / convince God to save me', and not to the question, 'by what means are the elect elected'.

It seems to me that the claim 'God doesn't save a person based on anything related [to that person]' is too strong. We know that God is not a respector of persons (Acts 10); we know that salvation is not a result of our works or earning it (Ephesians 2), but this is not the same as saying that God doesn't have His reasons for electing a particular individual, some of which may pertain to the person himself.

 

The entire concept has always bothered me the same as it did many of the brethren when this doctrine started showing up in Baptist pulpits in the late 1700's. The question then, as it is now, Is God a respecter or persons preferring one over another?

 

Let's break your OP into smaller chunks to address it and hopefully not miss anything. Back to our conversations many months ago, maybe even over a year ago, about depravity. In total depravity, Scripture states no one does good, not even one, no one seeks God.

So Aaron, if no one seeks God, who will choose God on their own? The obvious answer is no one. If you don't like those ideas, you have to take it up not with me, or Sproul or MacArthur or Calvin or Augustine, but with Paul the apostle and David in the Psalms.

I agree but Reformed Theology doesn't say we are made to believe. Don't know where you are getting your definition from. I'm assuming a non-Calvinist on the internet. This is a straw man presentation.

Well, more accurately, according to Paul in Romans 3 and David in the Psalms. Calvinists happen to agree with Paul and David.

The Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. I don't see where you've demonstrated Reformed Theology doing this.

Humans are sinners. None of them do good, no not one. No one seeks God. If left to their own devices, none would ever willingly seek God.

Irresistible grace, or some call it the effectual calling of God, changes the disposition of an individual so they are willing to come to God.

I see no violation of the LNC. Also, in none of these states is a person made or forced to do anything. Before you were saved, we're all your sins committed with a gun to your head or did you do those of your own volition?

When you came to Christ, did you feel forced to do it? Did you not want to place your trust in the completed work of Jesus but you were made to do it or did you do that of your own volition?

The Reformed thought is never that anyone is forced to sin nor forced to choose Jesus. The Reformed position is in our depraved state, based on Scriptures given, no one will ever choose Jesus. So God causes a change that now makes a person with no inclination towards God to have a disposition bent towards God.

In my mind, I have no response but to be thankful for God doing that in me. He didn't have to. I didn't deserve it. I deserved Hell. God had mercy on me. I would hope you would understand how bad off you were, not have the faulty idea that if God left you to your own devices that you would have come around and chose him all on your own, and thank him for changing your disposition from one who didn't seek God to one that did.

 

Tim, I think the best approach would be to share a passage that bothers you and we can bounce it around.

 

Well, Okey Dokey:

Acts 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

We could start here I reckon...

 

For the record, even those that hold to a theological framework of classical Arminianism believe in total depravity and that made initiates grace. No Arminian would believe that man has anything to do with salvation, other than respond to the grace offered, which is exactly the same position taken by Calvinism.

As to the Act 10 passage, the qualifier is on "he that feareth him." This is stated to defeat the argument of ethnic or national morality or salvation, not to say that God doesn't elect.

James 2 has nothing to do with election, but only with the way in which people treat others in the fellowship.


There are certainly other passages that deal with the issue of the universality or limit of the atonement and its efficacy, but these two passages are not among them.


Unless, of course, we are saying that when God gives gifts to believers (1 Cor 12), he is not picking and choosing as He desires.

So clearly, God picks and chooses on any number of issues. Neither of the referenced passages deal with election or the nature of grace.

 

I beg to differ with you RK, Acts 10 has everything to do with it. In context and in spirit. Give me time and I'll get into it. On my way to lead a funeral. When I get back I'll dig deeper.

 

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Plainly put, being impartial, God won't chose any single person over another. Ain't happening. James 2 shows us how God wants us to deal with others. Isn't that being Christian or if you will, Christ Like? And if Christ like, meaning Christ certainly doesn't choose or is a respector of persons, and Christ being One with God (John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.) And if they are one, then does the Savior do anything contrary to the will of the Father or do anything He wouldn't do?

We even see in the Old Testament that God saves by the intention of the heart and not by predestination. Psalms 7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. 10 My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.

 

Plainly put, 1 Corinthians 12:11 clearly shows that God IS partial; that He picks and chooses the particular gift for the particular believer. "11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills."

So, then, the Bible says that the Holy Spirit picks and chooses as to the gifts. So a generic understanding of "no respecter of persons" is too broad. There are certainly things in which God is partial, the spiritual gifts being but one example.

So we have to look at the context of the Cornelius story and its place in the book of Acts.

In the context of the Cornelius story, God is clearly trying to demonstrate a miraculous truth that the Jews -- and in particular, Peter -- did not understand; namely, that being Jewish didn't mean squat to God when it came to the issue of salvation. The issue of salvation was not one of NATIONAL and ETHNIC identity, but of PERSONAL belief.

In his speech/sermon, Peter goes to great length to describe his epiphany: Namely, what Peter had previously called unclean (Gentiles), God had declared to be clear. (v 28) Cornelius explains that he has had a vision and has been instructed to come hear what God has told Peter to say.

So, Peter says "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality." He then explains exactly what that means in vs. 35. "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."

He then goes on to specifically track Jesus through the Jews, ending up with "43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

This was a radical departure for Peter, because remember, in Acts 2, his address is to "devout men" and "Jews" and "proselytes"... all people who were considered Jewish.


While I personally agree with unlimited atonement, use of these passages in support of that position is prooftexting... the context of both Acts and the James passage have nothing to do with unlimited atonement or prevenient grace.

Further, these passages are absolutely silent as to the mechanism or process of election, and it isn't fair of us to impose our sense of fairness into these particular passages. There are plenty enough of "whosever" passages to lead us down the rabbit hole of election, predestination, etc...