Kamerad Ash wrote:

How can a person or entity use his free will to choose something except by what he Knows and Understands?

Understanding this, I would say that man has a less free will than an angel.. and angels have less than God. God would have to be the ONLY ONE has a completely free will. Why? Because he knows and understand all things. and from Him all knowing and understanding comes.

So, if God is the only one with a completely free will, he is also therefore the only one who is completely Free. The Angels would not be Completely Free.. and even less so.. Man.

I don't wanna sound non-heterosexual, but I wanna hug you, man. Really

Very well put, and it's something that also gets brought up often in these kinds of discussions (though maybe not the exact way you've intended). It's not uncommon for someone to say much like Paul's imagined questioner "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" It's considered to be "unfair" or "unloving" if, as the Calvinist understands, God is the one who ultimately chooses. If God is the only one who is truly free though, why would that be unfair since we are naturally predisposed to choose only according to our sin-loving natures as children of Adam.

I technically have the "freedom" to eat oysters. But I'm unable to and never will, because I hate and despise them with every fiber of my being, and the only way you'll make me eat one is either through trickery or force

I said you were being naive about one thing...that somehow not using a label means fewer divisions...


for example...you say:

Quote :

but one has to have a look around many denominations and see the " us vs them" mentality,.... the cliques formed... the concentration on themselves and looking good... etc etc

But these things are present in non-denominational churches as well...and to the same degree. No one is immune to these things, and denominations are not worse just because they are denominations.

That is my point.

Quote :

Would a naive person as I be a leader and in charge of a cell group?

sure...why not. Leaders aren't immune from being naive.

But remember...I said a BIT naive...and only about one thing...not naive in general.

No church is free from problems.. yes, uh that would be obvious.

also said that too.

..and this'll be the last post for me for the evening, and hopefully the whole weekend. Domestic duties call, and I've got a butt-load of Greek homework to do. If the thread hasn't been locked or derailed into a discussion of Early-90's WWF wrestlers, I'll try to pick back up and chime in where I can.

...actually, if we had a thread on early-90's pro wrestling, that might be pretty cool! BrrrrrrUTHER!!! *Hulk pose*

G'night!

lord voldemort wrote:

I am hard on both sides, so do not take it personal.

The way I see it is this:

Paul was the only person to create a theology that was not based on his personal opinion of how something should be. He managed to keep his gospel Christ centered.

No matter how you looked at Paul's position they came out to be Christ centered.

When I start to look at the other ism's including Calvinism, it is: Abraham to Moses/Law to Christ to Calvin (I am picking on him for this instance, but Calvin can be replaced by any ism), thus it is Calvin: Abraham to Moses/Law to Christ to Calvin. The ism surrounds the gospel message. So whatever the ism is, is the gospel.

Thus, both can be wrong, and they are wrong on that level. When you read the bible and all you see is "Traditional understanding" instead of biblical meaning, that is idolatry.

When you read the bible through the eyes of Dispensationalism, you are reading it through idol eyes.

The same is true for all things, because you are viewing the bible from that lens instead of the lens of Christ Alone. Christ Alone becomes with Calvin or Luther, or Arminius etc.

If Calvinism was a house and I tore through the house, would I find only the Living Christ in the house or will I find John Calvin's corpse buried in the basement? And this can be replaced by whatever ism you believe.

My last post to Shamax before it got derailed.

Kamerad Ash wrote:

Quote :

Calvinists believe that God pre-damned half or more of his creations using some election process that is beyond human scrutiny and only gave Christ to atone those whom he liked enough not to fry in Satan's weenie roast for eternity.

Or....

God already knew what we would choose.. since we have limited free will.

There is a concept to think about. Limited free will.

But this would not be Calvin's position--in the Institutes, he explicitly says that while God is prescient, predestination is not caused by prescience, but the other way around. That is, God knows what we will choose because He predestines it. What you say comes close to the Arminian view--God wills that allwho freely choose, with the aid of grace, will be predestined for Heaven, wiothout predestinging particular individuals for or against this choice. Though, God knows who will freely accept the grace to make this choice--so, particular predestination for Arminius is based on God's prescience of what an individual will freely do (I'm not sure if he would use the term "free," but that's the idea). But Calvin's view explicitly reverses this--all predestination is particular, and therefore, God knows who He predestines, and thus has prescience of it.

Quote :

Can a man have a completely free will, Last First Born, what do you think?

Because in my reasoning I always run across a logical problem with that. Man does not know enough to have a Completely free will. We are very lowly beings.. in comparison to Angels .. and of course God.

In the hierarchy of greatest Knowing to least...

First there is God.
Then are the Angels.
Then Men.
Then Animals.

How can a person or entity use his free will to choose something except by what he Knows and Understands?

Understanding this, I would say that man has a less free will than an angel.. and angels have less than God. God would have to be the ONLY ONE has a completely free will. Why? Because he knows and understand all things. and from Him all knowing and understanding comes.

So, if God is the only one with a completely free will, he is also therefore the only one who is completely Free. The Angels would not be Completely Free.. and even less so.. Man.

I more or less agree. "Completely free" might be a little tricky, but God surely has a freedom which excels all else in its capacity. For example, God alone can create ex nihilo. God sets the rules of creation, etc.

As I have said before, my problem with Calvinism is that it actually limits God's freedom, for all of its interest in defending absolute sovereignty. I believe God is so powerful and free that He really can make creatures who are in His image. For me, this means they have a genuine freedom to love, because we know that the essence of God is love. Now, I would agree that Adam and Eve harmed this freedom, by introducing into our nature impediments to this freedom. I would even go as far as Arminius perhaps to say that this freedom, and hence the image of God, would be totally destroyed if God had not provided prevenient grace of some sort to allow us to retain this freedom. Nonetheless, Adam and Eve were truly free to love (or reject) God. HOWEVER, even here I'd agree their freedom differs from God in that
God cannot choose to reject love.

This is probably the greatest mystery of all--for God, freedom makes not loving impossible, not because it is determined, but precisely because the highest freedom is loved.
We might even say something like because God loves Himself perfectly (or, the Persons of the Trinity love one another perfectly), whatever they make in their image they will also love perfectly. They cannot help but love it, because it is in their image, and they love one another. However, though humans are in God's image and thus designed to love, it is possible for them not to love, or love as they are designed to.
Since love cannot be determined by another (God'slove is necessary, but not determined, as it is merely a reflection of His own Triune being), then humans logically cannot be determined by God to love--this would be a contradiction. They CAN be created by God so that this best fulfills their nature, and in fact they MUST be so created insofar as they are in God's image. But, because it is not determined, this allows for the possibility that they will choose against it. How this is possible, or why they would do so, is something I've never been able to answer as well as I would like--and my answer would only be speculation (though interesting). And, ironically, in choosing not to love, there is also a sense in which they freely chose to lessen (or maybe even abandon) their freedom--also something quite odd. My best speculation is something like this: as being in God's image, it is possible for them to wish that they were God ("you can be as gods" said the serpent). But, they cannot be God--even God cannot make something that is His equal, because it would be created and He is uncreated. So, there is a sense in which their ability to know God can become perverted into a desire to be God. Ofr coruse they cannot make themselves uncreated, but they can approximate this by desiring to take what was created and misuse it, to introduce "privation" (evil as a privation view) into creation. In acting privatively, their is a sense in which they "create" NOTHING--instead of creating something from nothing, they create nothing from something. However, this amounts to a desire to destroy being, and thus love. What they have "created" then is not God, but more akin to anti-God. In this way, they estalbish (or actually, Satan established) an anti-God. However, this was inferior, because it could only occur in reaction to what already was created by God.

I could tidy things up a bit, but that's the general direction of my thoughts at this time. In any case, as orginally created in God's iamge, we must be undetermined (free) to love. For Calvin, even Adam and Eve were predestined. This to me suggests that God could not truly create something in His image. The Calvinist likely could alter what is meant by "in His image," but this would entail making free love "not in His image," which seems like a big problem to me, since God is love (and therefore free).

graybeardheadbanger

The idea of God being the only person who is completely free also makes perfect sense with the idea that in God alone is Life.

One of the reasons He is perfectly free.. is because He.. unlike all created beings.. is self perpetuating.. self sustaining.

To where as.. even the greatest of angels requires being in God to be "in Life". As such all Created being are by their very nature.. Only Free if they are in God.. in other words.. Only Free through God's freedom.

Apart from God.. we know is death.. death spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically. Also, apart form God.. dwells Unreality.

This isn't because God chooses that we should die apart form Him.. it is simply reality.. that apart from Him.. is death.. because He is the source of all that Is and of all Being. In the same way that if you remove yourself from a jet at 20,000 feet without a parachute.. you will fall to the earth and die. The gravity doesn't want you to die.. it is just what happens when you remove yourself from a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute.

We see his in scripture..

When Christ Judges man in the great judgement.. he does not say " be yee therefore in torment forever". No.. he says "depart from me , I never knew you".

This teaches us ALOT. Christ does not cast people into suffering and torment.. he allows them to be free of Him.. as they had always been free of Him in their mortal lives.

The problem is, of course.. that by nature.. being apart from God.. is to be apart from Life. In this sense it is torment and suffering and death.

Quote :

For Calvin, even Adam and Eve were predestined.

The history of the humanity is the history of the Uncreated Man. Christ.

All things revolve around Him.. we know that in Eternity He always was the Lamb. As such.. Adam and Eve were not predestined to fall. So much as they already had fallen.. just as Christ already had died and resurrected.. before they ever existed within Time as a fallen man knows it.

As Scripture teaches " the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world"- paraphrasing.

The only reason we deem this fact to be strange is because we think apart form Christ and because we caught up as fallen men within this dimension of time. When we think within Christ.. and therefore within God.. all is made clear.. that all of humanity and history and "destiny of men" revolves around the God Man... the Man who is God, Jesus. That is why He is Lord and to Him is Given all dominion over Mankind.

Things do not revolve around Us. They revolve around Christ. THe angels know this well. That is why before the Flood they did their best to destroy the blood line of Man.. by taking on physical forms and interbreeding with women.. created abominations to God ( the nephilim).. with whom there could be no salvation. In so doing they were trying to destroy the the possibility of the coming of Christ. The fallen angels have always been in the business of trying to avert what they know " has already happened".. from the vantage point of God.

.. In the same way.. we fallen men are always in the business of trying to avert and or to be upset about what " has already happened" from the vantage point of God.

I don't view this as predestination, so much as "afterdestination".. we are simply experiencing the past .. and will eventually catch up to what we actually are.. beyond the bounds of mortal Time.

Those who end up in Heaven.. will know that they had always been in heaven.

Those who end up in damnation.. which is destruction.. will know that they had always been in destruction. OR will they know anything? For in destruction is the end of knowing.. is it not?

Shamax wrote:

Kamerad Ash wrote:

How can a person or entity use his free will to choose something except by what he Knows and Understands?

Understanding this, I would say that man has a less free will than an angel.. and angels have less than God. God would have to be the ONLY ONE has a completely free will. Why? Because he knows and understand all things. and from Him all knowing and understanding comes.

So, if God is the only one with a completely free will, he is also therefore the only one who is completely Free. The Angels would not be Completely Free.. and even less so.. Man.

I don't wanna sound non-heterosexual, but I wanna hug you, man. Really

Very well put, and it's something that also gets brought up often in these kinds of discussions (though maybe not the exact way you've intended). It's not uncommon for someone to say much like Paul's imagined questioner "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" It's considered to be "unfair" or "unloving" if, as the Calvinist understands, God is the one who ultimately chooses. If God is the only one who is truly free though, why would that be unfair since we are naturally predisposed to choose only according to our sin-loving natures as children of Adam.

I technically have the "freedom" to eat oysters. But I'm unable to and never will, because I hate and despise them with every fiber of my being, and the only way you'll make me eat one is either through trickery or force

also it needs to be noted God's will isnt totally free either, total free will simply doesn't exhist,...God CANNOT sin. so therefore his will is limited to holiness and perfection...

actually his will is limited in the exact way as ours just opposite on what we can do,..what i mean is
he can do nothing but holy things (though he can CAUSE calamity on earth)

we can do nothing but Sin, (apart from christ)

Quote :

also it needs to be noted God's will isnt totally free either, total free will simply doesn't exhist,...God CANNOT sin. so therefore his will is limited to holiness and perfection.

..

I disagree.

God's will is totally free. Sin is just a choose that is actually less than a choice for God. A sinful choice is simply not equal to a free choice for Him. All sinful choices are less free than what I will refer to a s" Real " choices.

By it's very nature, sin is the product of Less than Wholeness or Entirety.

It is because God's Free Will is so perfectly free that a Sinful Choice would not only make no sense.. but be rather pointless, as well. This is because God is too Big for sin.

Whenever something sins.. it is devouring itself, through self godhood..In so doing it is turning inward.. and becomes Smaller. Because it is devouring itself, which is ot infinite, but actually finite instead.

God, on the other hand can "devour" Himself without becoming Less or Smaller.. because He is infinite.

In this sense, God is actually too Big for Sin.. and conversely Sin is too small for God.

Sin is only relevant to Finite beings. Beings that are not forever overflowing.. as God is.

When a man glorifies Himself.. he sins.. because heis glorifying the Finite.

When God glorifies Himself.. there is no sin.. for he is infinite and thus worthy to be glorified.

All Sin is basically that. Glorifying oneself... andin so doing, trying to take on godhood.. as a finite Being. When Godhood only of course is possikble for an infinite Being.. whom is God Himself.

This is why all Sin came from Pride. The first Sin of Satan being just that. He turned inward.. and decided to glorify his finite self over the infinite.. over God.

Sin is quite perfectly illustrated by the ancient symbol of the Ouroborus, a finite being that forever is devouring itself-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8otwxHBu_4U

this is an interesting video to add to this discussion

edit: oops double post...tried to edit it hit wrong button

Quote :

How can a person or entity use his free will to choose something except by what he Knows and Understands?

Understanding this, I would say that man has a less free will than an angel.. and angels have less than God. God would have to be the ONLY ONE has a completely free will. Why? Because he knows and understand all things. and from Him all knowing and understanding comes.

So, if God is the only one with a completely free will, he is also therefore the only one who is completely Free. The Angels would not be Completely Free.. and even less so.. Man.

I would disagree with this.

Angels have on choice, to stay with God or not. If they choose not, then they have no more choice, all they can do is go further down their choice. They have no freedom to return. There is no redemption for them. So Angels have the least amount of free will.

Man has the most, of the created realm. They can chose God, reject God, sin, not to sin. Be forgiven, forgive. Walk down a path and walk back. They can be restored or they can be ruined.

That is freedom, angels can not do that.

Angels were created immortal and with the knowledge of Good and Evil. Man was created immortal and lost it, and took on the knowledge of Good and Evil. God is both immortal (Eternal) and knows the knowledge of Good and Evil.

Man is the only being that does not have the two combination. That means, death for us, that means we can be redeemed. Angels can not. Redemption requires death. That means, a man walking down a path of sin, can be saved and revert back. An Angel can not.

When Christ fulfills everything, man (those who believe in Christ and saved by God) will be immortal and have the knowledge of Good and Evil. But we will be different from the Angels, they were created in that sense and must live out Good or Evil. Man experienced both sides of the coin and has redemption from it.

Those who reject God will enter into the second death. They will cease to be, they will enter into final judgment. While those in Christ will live in the "second life". Angels who have fallen, will enter into a everlasting judgment, they can not die. Their choice is forever.

Man has more free will than the Angels.

Quote :

I could tidy things up a bit, but that's the general direction of my thoughts at this time. In any case, as originally created in God's image, we must be undetermined (free) to love. For Calvin, even Adam and Eve were predestined. This to me suggests that God could not truly create something in His image. The Calvinist likely could alter what is meant by "in His image," but this would entail making free love "not in His image," which seems like a big problem to me, since God is love (and therefore free).

I would agree. If God predestined Man and Women to fall, then he predestined the fall and wanted man to ultimately reject him.

What I think happened is that God had two paths and two possibilities, maybe three.

1. Man and Woman were to live in the garden, populate the earth in their immortal state, eating the tree of life. Reigning over the earth. No one eats of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Man is thus only immortal. We live in a state of innocence, knowing not what is good nor evil, the Image of God is not complete.

2. Man and Woman eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (we lose the immortality), what we are living out now. God will redeem man, so that man can complete the image of God: Immortality and Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Image of God is complete through Christ, at the resurrection.

3. That man and Woman do not eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but some from the descendants will. Some may lose their immortality and gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. They will live under that curse. While others live under the original blessing. The problem is, some may reproduce under both. An Immortal man has sex with a "Knowledge" woman and their child is both tainted by the curse and potentially immortal. Thus, a demigod is born. Which can not be redeemed.

The only way for the proper image of God to be completed with man, option two had to be done. Where man gains the knowledge of Good and Evil works out his salvation through Christ, and is resurrected to eternal life at the last day. Thus it is all complete.

Angels were created having both, with only two choices, live or die.

God did not want to create angels all over again, so he limited what we got from the image of God. So we can grow into the image of God, which is the image of Christ.

Quote :

Angels have on choice, to stay with God or not. If they choose not, then they have no more choice, all they can do is go further down their choice. They have no freedom to return. There is no redemption for them. So Angels have the least amount of free will.

They have no chance of redemption not becaue they have a lesser free will.. but because they have a greater knowledge than men.. and with that, a higher will.

We have a chance at redemption because ... as Christ put it " we do not know what we do".

Angels on the other hand, know hat they do on a level far above man. Their Knowing is greater.. so that when they chose to Rebel.. they chose it with a level of free will that was Final and complete.. there was no going back.

The less free will you have.. the less you are responsible for your actions.

The more free will you have.. the mkore you are responsible for your actions.

For axample..

Animals ar enot in danger of judgement.. even thoughthey have souls.. becaue their freewill is so limited.

Human, while being in danger of judgment.. are able to escape it through a simple believe in Christ.. due tothe fact that their Free will is also limited and their knowledge of what they do is practically nil.

Angels.. ont eh other hand.. do knwo what they do.. their knowledge is greater.. they have sttod before God Himself... and therefore when they make a choice.. it is a knwoing choice.. an educated choice.. that is why they can not be redeemed.

CorpulentCripple wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8otwxHBu_4U

this is an interesting video to add to this discussion

edit: oops double post...tried to edit it hit wrong button

He does give a good logic for his support. But one problem is, he narrows it to fit his conclusion.

He worded the entire argument to fit the conclusion he wanted.

I am not saying what he said is false, but I am saying he worded it, the way he wanted it to be concluded.

He did bring out some good points, but can his points stack up to what the context states, or is he doing what he is accusing the Arminians of doing?

Quote :

They have no chance of redemption not becaue they have a lesser free will.. but because they have a greater knowledge than men.. and with that, a higher will.

Can you support that? If you can, than you made an interesting claim worth looking into.

Quote :

The less free will you have.. the less you are responsible for your actions.

The more free will you have.. the mkore you are responsible for your actions.

I am not sure if this is true.

We are all held equally to Adam's fall, no matter the knowledge or will we have. We are all sinners, not more sinners or less sinners, but ALL have fallen short of God.

Angels can not be redeemed because they have no life to be redeemed, like man. We have blood, which is our life source, thus we can be redeemed by the shedding of blood.

Man is held responsible for their sins, because we are man and we are sinners.

Shamax, what is the process by which God chooses whom to elect? If his election selection is beyond human scrutiny, something we cannot understand, then we should not waste our time trying to figure it out, because we can only jump to preconceived conclusions about what we cannot comprehend; we can never fully understand what is beyond human scrutiny, or understand it at all. Then if God simply chooses whom he likes enough to elect, then he is selfish, cruel and sadistic, and fits my "demonized" assertions to a T. Or, does God's election system work the way that Ash described it: he is omnipotent and already knows the outcome of our choices, so he elects those who will choose him and allows those will not to do as they please? (Letting the ignorant follow a path straight to eternal suffering is still unfathomably cruel, but at least the Protestant/Catholic "let the unsaved do as they will" God isn't cruel and sadistic without some shreds of reason, however eschewed that reason may be.)

Quote :

Can you support that? If you can, than you made an interesting claim worth looking into.

So what notion are you challenging?

That angels have a higher intelligence level and knowledge than men?

OR that they have a higher level of free will due to this higher knowledge?

Or both?

Quote :

Man is held responsible for their sins, because we are man and we are sinners.

There is only one mortal sin for mankind. Disbelief in the Son of God.

Remember the love of God on the Cross?

" forgive them Father, for they know not what they do".

See, Christ can say that for us humans. But He can not say that for the Agnels afer they rebelled. WHy? Because they absolutely do know what they do.. having dwelt in heaven, with God and for endless ages..

LastFirstborn wrote:

Shamax, what is the process by which God chooses whom to elect? If his election selection is beyond human scrutiny, something we cannot understand, then we should not waste our time trying to figure it out, because we can only jump to preconceived conclusions about what we cannot comprehend; we can never fully understand what is beyond human scrutiny, or understand it at all. Then if God simply chooses whom he likes enough to elect, then he is selfish, cruel and sadistic, and fits my "demonized" assertions to a T. Or, does God's election system work the way that Ash described it: he is omnipotent and already knows the outcome of our choices, so he elects those who will choose him and allows those will not to do as they please? (Letting the ignorant follow a path straight to eternal suffering is still unfathomably cruel, but at least the Protestant/Catholic "let the unsaved do as they will" God isn't cruel and sadistic without some shreds of reason, however eschewed that reason may be.)

For the record, I'm agnostic. I'm interested in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, LaVeyan Satanism and Buddhism, but at this point I am not religious or spiritual at all, just a rational thinker.

The notion of God being cruel is the perspective of the individual, not God. God can be right and still viewed as cruel through the eyes of a person who does not like what he had to say.

For example: George Bush invaded Iraq. Anti-war people hated him for doing so. For the sake of argument lets say Bush was right in invading Iraq. Even though he did the right thing, people hated him nonetheless. So the concept of God being cruel is your perspective, not what God really is.

One more example: Lets say your dad on your 18th birthday was going to give you the share of the family wealth. Lets say that you are not deserving of it, you are selfish and will be prone to blowing the money before you realize you could live off of it and invest it and turn that money into more wealth for yourself. Your dad says "Son, it is your 18th birthday and it is our custom to give the child his part of the family wealth on this day. Your mother and i have decided not to give it to you, we view you has too self centered, you are irresponsible with money and we believe the money will be more of a burden than a blessing to you. We wish not to give you that burden, until you can turn it into a blessing for yourself (I.E. Grow the wealth, etc.). You hate your parents for it, you view them as cruel and mean because they did not give you what you are entitled to.

From these two examples, who is right and who is wrong, as in viewing someones action as "cruel"?

What can be seen as cruel is due to the selfishness of the person believing they are entilted to their perspective over everyone else's. The Anti-War people hated Bush because he went to war, they viewed their view the best and since Bush acted against their interest they hated him for it, they wanted everyone else to hate them.

The Parents wanted what was best for their child, yet their actions toward their child, went against his "entitlement" and he hated them for it.

Is your view of God based on "What you want" is countered to "What God is"?

Note to Calvinist: Even though I am hard on Calvinism as well as Arminist, I consider myself neither of the two persuasions.

But what I do appreciate of Calvinist, is when they focus on the centrality of God, which I do not hear much from the other side as much. Like Paul Walsher, though I disagree with some of what he says, I find his message God centered very good.

To quote myself-

"God is not nice, He is Good".

LastFirstborn wrote:

Shamax, what is the process by which God chooses whom to elect? If his election selection is beyond human scrutiny, something we cannot understand, then we should not waste our time trying to figure it out, because we can only jump to preconceived conclusions about what we cannot comprehend; we can never fully understand what is beyond human scrutiny, or understand it at all. Then if God simply chooses whom he likes enough to elect, then he is selfish, cruel and sadistic, and fits my "demonized" assertions to a T. Or, does God's election system work the way that Ash described it: he is omnipotent and already knows the outcome of our choices, so he elects those who will choose him and allows those will not to do as they please? (Letting the ignorant follow a path straight to eternal suffering is still unfathomably cruel, but at least the Protestant/Catholic "let the unsaved do as they will" God isn't cruel and sadistic without some shreds of reason, however eschewed that reason may be.)

It's been a few days, and I've still got some catching-up to do (work's ben extremely busy). But I wanted to respond to this one directly.

I'm assuming you're wanting my understanding of it as a Calvinist. In that regard, God chooses whom he wants to His own glory alone. Outside of God intervening and ransoming some, all would walk wide-eyed, gladly, and brazenly into eternal damnation, spitting curses at God all the while because our hearts are set against Him. He chooses those he does not because of any merit or likability on their part, but because those are the ones on whom He will show His mercy (Rom. 9:15). The thing is, we don't know who those people are by looking at them, so God has ordained the means by which he will make His elect manifest: by preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. As a Calvinist, I don't try to figure out "who" is among the elect, I seek to speak His word and live accordingly, and I rejoice when someone embraces Christ on account of the Gospel.

That's where a lot of people have it wrong about Calvinists. Some think "Oh, those Calvinists just believe in preaching to the elect." But as I may have said before (can't remember.. long thread) the "elect" aren't born with a special birthmark and they don't wear green hats and blue suspenders on Tuesdays. We'll only truly know who "the elect" are in eternity. Therefore, it's our duty now to proclaim the Gospel, to love our neighbors, to bear each others infirmities, and to live in such a way as brings glory to God and does not bring reproach upon His word.

Alright. Thanks for the insight. One last thing: would it be one question too many to ask why God only chooses to show his mercy to some, and how he chooses them?

LastFirstborn wrote:

Alright. Thanks for the insight. One last thing: would it be one question too many to ask why God only chooses to show his mercy to some, and how he chooses them?

Short version of the answer (I could probably go in-depth a bit later if needed) is that God has many attributes (he's not *only* loving, he's not *only* just, etc) and there's basically three possibilities:

1) God saves no one, and shows-forth his justice against sin, rebellion, and unrighteousness; but not his mercy.

2) God saves everyone, and shows his love and mercy, but his holiness as displayed through his just anger against sin is unseen.

3) God saves some and displays all of his attributes.

Sooo, God must display both his love and ability to destroy those whom piss him off; therefore, he randomly elects some, and the rest are leftovers in the fridge for Satan to munch on? Why is it a necessity for God to display both his characteristics of love and ability to avenge himself? Couldn't an all-powerful being come up with a way to reveal both traits without having to demonstrate both? Hell, even I can do that. I could knock my younger brother's teeth out if he wronged me, or just pissed me off. My brother knows this, not because I've demonstrated my ability to do so, but simply because I'm bigger and stronger than him. He pisses me off all the time, yet I always forgive him and never lay a finger on him; not because I can't, but because I love him. With that analogy in mind, a God who randomly alternates between acting out of "love" and acting out of brutal wrath just to show that he can is not a merciful God, but rather a selectively merciless God. That, or there is an unspoken necessity at play that dictates God, and God is not all powerful because he is obligated to satisfy necessity. Sooo... what's the deal?