Re: WBC
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:54 pm
Ok...RickD wrote:This is what I have found, to understand what Bart was saying. This is my opinion only, and I'm not sure if it is any way, related to Bart's view.
For my response to August, I'll refer to the Calvinist website, that he showed me. So there won't be any disagreements with that end of my ideas.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
Ok, so let's deal with this:Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Since I see we are accused of this being out of context, let's refresh our memories. There is no doubt that in Romans 9 Paul is speaking about why gentiles are saved , and why Israel seems to be so stubborn. This leads some to conclude that the whole context of Romans 9-11 is about corporate Israel as opposed to individual election. If that is the case, then are those who propose corporate election here saying that:
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated All Edomites are doomed, as God corporately hates Esau and all of his offspring? How does that work? Are Edomites not made up of individuals? This just kicks the can down the road to get away from the plain meaning of both 9:15 and 9:19.
Regardless, in Rom 9, earlier, Paul makes it clear that this is not about corporate election specifically, but about why some (the majority) of Israel rejects Christ. (9:6 and 9:7). He goes on to say that some people of Israel, even though not born yet, had mercy, and others not, clearly a case of individuals being selected by God, since they have not been born yet. This is followed by two examples, Jacob and Esau (v13) and Pharaoh (v17).
In addition, both in 9:15 and 9:18, "whomever" is singular, or refers to individual in the Greek. In fact, Romans 9 contains 25 references to the singular. In addition to Romans 9 then talking about nations, it also talks about individuals. Naming the fathers of those nations should be proof enough, but as I have shown above, there is more.
Moving on then, saying that this is not about God's sovereign election falls flat, because Rom 8-11 is chock-full of references to exactly that, unless one wishes to introduce a strained logic to say that what applies to nations does not apply to the individuals in those nations, which leaves the objector on the horns of a trilemma:
1. God elects whole nations to be doomed, which is contrary to Rev 7:9
2. God hated the children of Esau, but not Esau himself, which is contrary to 9:13, but also Mal 1:3, and Gen 25:23.
3. God elects based on our genetic heritage, which again, is contrary to Rev 7:9
The context and grammar of Romans 9 points to the two topics, the corporate stubbornness of Israel, and how God deals with it...through His sovereign election (9:11), and according to His will (9:15, 9:16, 9:18), some of fallen mankind unto salvation and glory, and others left to destruction (9:22 and for Israel, 9:27).
Interesting how one old hymn from the Particular Baptists are always dug up as the authority to prove this point. Is it your contention that this hymn is the sum of Calvinist writings and analysis on this topic? This is just poisoning the well, to be honest.This Calvinist belief, especially the part I put in blue, is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with. This Calvinist idea that God only loves the elect, and not all people is summed up perfectly in this old Calvinist hymn:We are the Lord's elected few, let all the rest be damned; there's room enough in hell for you, we won't have heaven crammed!"
So let's look at this in more detail then...the counterpoint is then obviously that God loves all people. Is that why He condemns the majority of people to eternal damnation? Or He is simply unable to save all the people that He loves? Didn't we just read that God hated Esau, and the Edomites? Or does hate not mean hate here? How does that comport with the judgment against the Edomites that is referred to here, from:
Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'"
Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.
Regardless of that, your argument
is a non-sequitor. You have not shown how this is true of Calvinists. The simple truth is that no Calvinist will pretend to know who is elect and who is not, and therefore cannot not show love to all people they come in contact with. Freakshows like the WBC mutilate Calvinism in two ways...one by doing what I just described...pretending to know who is elect and who is not, and two, by adding to the gospel a requirement that the correct theology and body of works need to be followed to be saved. You will find no Calvinist affirming those two things, and I can point to the writings from Calvin himself all the way to contemporary reformed scholars in support.is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with
The doctrine of election is also not under dispute from any Biblical scholars, except open theists and some schools of molinism. The mechanism of election may well be disputed in some ways. But to accuse Calvinism of leading to a lack of love because of their doctrine of election is untrue and unproven. All sides of the theological spectrum have their freaks.
Do you dispute that God hates some? The Greek word "miseo" from Rom 9 cannot be interpreted any other way. And the Hebrew root from Mal 1 also cannot, is speaks to personal and utter hatred.Now, if God doesn't love everyone, and that means God must hate the ones He doesn't love, then why should Calvinists not hate those that they believe God hates. They are just emulating their god.
At least WBC, is being consistent with the way their god acts.
I already answered above, no Calvinist pretends to know who is elect and who is not. The WBC pretends to know who among certain groups are elect and whom are hated.. They don't, simply because God elects according to His own will and volition. In fact, they are closer to the Arminian side since there man has the choice to make from his preregenerate state, and those who choose against God can be said to be in rebellion against Him, having heard the gospel and rejected it...are those not the ones that God sends to eternal damnation under those conditions?
I don't speak for Danny, and I'm sure he won't pretend to speak for all of us. But your conclusion is strained and uninformed as far as mainstream Calvinism is concerned, and certainly not supported by any of the notes from Wesley that you posted. I would prefer to see your own exegesis anyway, or we end up playing scholar chess.This is why I think Calvinism, taken to its logical end, leads to a lack of love, as shown by the lives lived by the members of WBC, and by the statement of Danny, above.