Why does it seem the Calvinist teachers are always proud?

[FSSL]

selection is the random picking out of something or someone where the subject being picked has no choice in the matter..... election is a process where one makes themselves available for the picking.......

...i have no problem believing that some people might be selected and predestined to great things in the sense that calvinists want to insist all people are predestined to all things...

Your definition "election" is a curious one. The word "election" does not demand "one making themselves available for the picking."

Nevertheless... here is how Scripture uses the term "elect."

Mark 13:20 says "...but for the elect's sake, whom He hath chosen."
1 Peter 1:2 says "...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..."

God is the One actively choosing/electing/selecting.

You have some very great questions. We won't be able to unpack everything on the forum. I take comfort, and am truly humbled that, our God is not capricious. As much as He is ALL SOVEREIGN, He is ALL MERCIFUL and loving.

The combination of God's GREAT and GOOD attributes gives us all HOPE in a world decimated by sin.

 

[FSSL]

exactly... ........ God knows beforehand what each and every individual will do with the freewill given to them..... whether or not they will be receptive to the Holy Spirit or reject Him....... the elect are called and sent to Christ accordingly.... that is how i see it.... and i don;t see anything in the other scriptures you listed that contradicts it.

How does this verse fit your definition of "foreknowledge?"

Romans 11:2: God did not reject his people (Israelites), whom He foreknew.

The Israelites are God's chosen people. If "foreknow" was simply God choosing them on the basis of knowing what they would do, then how does this passage make sense? The Israelites REJECTED Him.

 

[FSSL]

...how does it not make sense?......... God;s relationship and covenant with the children of israel was very unique.... and the reasons He chose them are explained in scripture.... history of the 2 brothers showed what kind of man each one was......... and the reasons that later descendants of israel rejected God are also explained...  ...but did God preordain and decree that the descendants of the very people He called His own and delivered from bondage would later deny Him?..... if He did then why?...... . there is no doubt that He knew they would do that.... and He used that to His glory..... but where does that leave the current descendants of israel now?...........are they still the Gods chosen people or has someone else taken their place?

Since you bring up the two brothers... here is what it says in Romans 9:

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So, if "foreknowledge" was ultimately based on man's actions, verse 16 makes no sense. God's election is never based on man's will. God's election is based on His merciful actions to save some that were already destined to hell.

God's election is positive.

 

[FSSL]

...and that... which i underlined .... is the very definition of selection.... .... the word some indicates there is a negative side to it in that not all were saved or given a chance to be.......

Because ALL of us are destined to hell, God's saving some is a GRAND exhibition of His grace. He would have been JUST and RIGHTEOUS to not save ANY... which leads to my next passage....

....that is the key to the whole thing .... faith..... is faith something God preordains some people to have or others to not have?..... i don;t think scripture proves He does that....

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Faith is a gift that comes from God. Verse 10 says that we got this gift of faith through His ordaining purposes.

if romans 9 is all about salvation being a thing predestined to people and they have not a chance in the least of exercising faith to believe and accept it through freewill..... then what was the purpose of paul even writing all that in the first place?.......

Because it is a difficult truth. Paul anticipated that we, as man-centered, creatures would want to have a part in our own salvation. It seems to us that those who are not elect means that God is unfair: "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

This shows that if God even saved only one of us, it is still an evidence of His great mercy.

[btw: for sake of time and boring each other ... I am not replying to every tid bit above. If you think I am skirting or missing an important point, please do not hesitate to bring it up]

 

[FSSL]

...i don;t read it the way you do at all...... verse 10 says nothing of the sort.. it is not talking about faith at all... you have to read between lines and twist it around to make it do that.... and then it;s not even close..... .....  verse 10 speaks of the work that was to be done in us after we become saved by grace through faith.... yes that work was preordained by God who had foreknowledge of everything we would even think, imagine, or do......  but to say mankind is not capable of exercising simple faith or reason without first being ordained by God to do so is to say that all of mankind was not made in His image.....  the ability to exercise faith....or to refuse.... and also the ability to reason...  is all part of the image of God which mankind was made in.......

The entire passage is speaking of salvation and its benefits.
Verse 9 demonstrates that faith is a gift.

Question: How do you skip over saving faith in verse 10 and only view us being ordained to good works? Don't the phrases "God's handiwork" "Created in Christ Jesus" speak of our salvation?

why go to the trouble of writing difficult truths to people for which it doesn;t matter anyway?

Peter even commented on Paul's difficult truths: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

... it;s like the bulk of calvinist belief is that all this is just one big stage play or puppet show.....  even the writings in scripture are reduced to just going through the motions in order to amuse God and bore people with details that aren;t going to matter anyway because everything that is going to happen will happen whether they do anything about or it or not...or whether they even believe anything about it or not......it;s a very depressing belief system..... and one that was not there... not anywhere close by ..... when i was saved.... they only came around years later to try and tell me i really wasn;t.....  and never could be...... i;m not buying it....

I will never say a person has to be a Calvinist to be a believer. I have a brother-in-law who is a believer who denies all aspects of the TULIP construct except for eternal security. Like him, as I read your posts, I am convinced that your kvetch is not against Calvinism as much as it is a skewed view of what Calvinism is. It is unfortunate that you have met arrogant Calvinists. All I can do, and will do, is keep bringing the issue back to Scripture.

Salvation involves repenting of our sin trusting in Christ. I did not believe in these things until my senior year of college. However, I was a believer since the age of 11 (?). I remember repenting, but do not remember the year.

About the puppet show... yes. I even know of a Calvinist who has no problem speaking of puppetry. My answer to that is, like Paul said, "One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

Salvation requires a response on our part to repent and exercise faith. I was not kicked and dragged into repenting. I repented because God removed my hostility.

 

[Holy Mole]

exactly... ........ God knows beforehand what each and every individual will do with the freewill given to them..... whether or not they will be receptive to the Holy Spirit or reject Him....... the elect are called and sent to Christ accordingly.... that is how i see it.... and i don;t see anything in the other scriptures you listed that contradicts it.

How does this verse fit your definition of "foreknowledge?"

Romans 11:2: God did not reject his people (Israelites), whom He foreknew.

The Israelites are God's chosen people. If "foreknow" was simply God choosing them on the basis of knowing what they would do, then how does this passage make sense? The Israelites REJECTED Him.

Rejecting Him is only part of the story as reading the rest of Roman's 11 tells the full of it:

Romans 11:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

He did FORE know that they would reject, allow Him to offer the gospel to the Gentiles as the grafted in olive branch and He foreknew that they will receive him.

 

[Izdaari]

did you ever see on the old forum how many times calvinism was described...(by calvinists).. as the "thinking mans" christianity?... or the christianity for those with higher intelligence?..... i saw it many times .. and inevitably every time i got into a discussion with one of them and disagreed with them they always tried to play the "higher level of intelligence and understanding" card on me.... and would walk away from the debate writing me off as too stupid to understand....(and possibly non elect)......  i haven;t seen that happen on this forum and i;m very happy for it..... but i think that might be what timothy is referring to.....

Absoloutely. I know Calvinists, personally, who are arrogant. It is part of the human condition and not the exclusive realm of Calvinists.

With some who claim the concept of Calvinism, their attitudes demonstrate that their belief in a merciful, sovereign God is just academic with them. When, in fact, the idea of being chosen, in spite of our hostility to God, would lead to humility.

We had a strong Calvinistic family visit our church for a month. They left because some in our church were not quite comfortable with limited atonement. That family believed that a person could not be a believer if they did not subscribe to all 5 "tulip" statements. I STRONGLY opposed the father on this. I am a FULL 5 pointer, but when a person says that a person who does not accept limited atonement, cannot be a believer, that is ADDING to the gospel.

With that said, I have only met two people, in our churches, in the past 20 years who are like this.

I can at most be a 4pt Calvinist aka Amyraldian aka "Christmas Calvinist" (no L, no L).
I can be that when I'm in the mood at least. But I just can't buy that L.

 

[Timothy]

what... you insist on having the last word?..... we can;t just agree to disagree?...... ok.... whatever .....it;s your forum......  yes.. we see it totally different.

Not at all. Like I said, I just don't want to push the issue too much with you. I like our discussion. I leave it in your hands if you want to continue it.

to what end?....we have reached an impasse with regards to how we believe those scriptures should be interpreted... ...i can;t see either one of us changing the others mind.......

Makes me wonder .... does anyone ever change their mind with all this back and forth on the forum in general ...

 

[Holy Mole]

He did FORE know that they would reject, allow Him to offer the gospel to the Gentiles as the grafted in olive branch and He foreknew that they will receive him.

But you still have God choosing Israel, bssed on foreknowledge, who rejected Him.

If God's choosing was based on the foreknowledge of a good choice on our part, Israel certainly makes that idea absurd.

You did exactly what I foreknew you would, (as a calvi) and even foretold in this very same thread: you ignored my total point and the scriptures that followed the one you used to make your point then restated your position with more certainty than before.

Again, Israel's rejection of Him is NOT final as history is not finished..They WILL receive him:

Romans 11:24-27  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Zechariah 12:9-11  And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

 

[FSSL]

You did exactly what I foreknew you would and even foretold in this very same thread. You ignored my total point, and the scriptures that followed the one you used to make your point then restated your position with more certainty than before... Again, Israel's rejection of Him is NOT final as history is not finished..They WILL receive him:

Your passages fail to prove what "good" God foresaw in the people of Israel to decide that He would choose them.

These passage just prove the point that God actively choosing them... Not because of their inherent goodness, but because of HIS mercy.

Romans 11:24-27  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Zechariah 12:9-11  And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

Another thing to keep in mind... When God chose Israel, He chose them to be his special people (including those who perished as unbelieving).

 

[FSSL]

Makes me wonder .... does anyone ever change their mind with all this back and forth on the forum in general ...

I have on certain occasions. I am refining how I communicate because of the discussions.

The question, since you titled this thread "calvinists are always proud," have you?

 

[Holy Mole]

You did exactly what I foreknew you would and even foretold in this very same thread. You ignored my total point, and the scriptures that followed the one you used to make your point then restated your position with more certainty than before... Again, Israel's rejection of Him is NOT final as history is not finished..They WILL receive him:

Your passages fail to prove what "good" God foresaw in the people of Israel to decide that He would choose them.

These passage just prove the point that God actively choosing them... Not because of their inherent goodness, but because of HIS mercy.

Are you being intentionally deceptive twisting my argument into one that I never made, to destroy it?

Where did I say that God chose them based on their goodness?

The argument was simply that God's foreknowledge allowed Him to know who would choose to receive Him making those the elect. You objected on the basis that was not "foreknowledge" and couldn't be, because God foreknew Israel and they rejected him...and I proved from scripture that someday they will receive Him, collectively as a nation.

Let me guess your answer....That is not foreknowledge because God foreknew Israel and they rejected Him, right? 

 

[Bob H]

Makes me wonder .... does anyone ever change their mind with all this back and forth on the forum in general ...

Usually not but that's why it's called the fighting forum. If ya don't like the fightin'............I wish Buffa was here. There's always the fellowship forum pal.

 

[Bob H]

The argument was simply that God's foreknowledge allowed Him to know who would choose to receive Him making those the elect.

You do lean to one side

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I haven't noticed that one side or the other is more proud.  But I can say that believers in salvation by free-will have a reason to boast whereas Calvinists have none. 

Calvinism:  The Bible says nothing about why God chose the elect other than that they were foreknown.  It doesn't say they were foreknown to make the right choice, or foreknown to be better, or fill-in-the-blank.  Therefore, Calvinists have nothing to boast about.  Calvinists are 100% blind to God motives for choosing one over another. 

Free-will:  Stand next to someone who is reprobate.  What made the difference between the two of you?  What is it about you that led to your choice, vs. his choice?  No matter how you slice it, it must come down to a description of something in you:  I made the right choice because I was __________  (smarter, wiser, humbler, more receptive, less hostile, whatever).  Thus the free-will person has a reason to boast.  I am NOT saying the free-will person DOES boast, but that free-will soteriology provides the person with a reason to boast.  And yet the Bible says boasting is excluded, because there's nothing in you that you did not receive from God. 

That's why it's no good saying you made the decision of your own free-will, but God, and only God made the difference between the two of you.  That makes you a Calvinist. 

Additional thoughts:

The word translated "foreknown" indicates intimate knowledge, not knowledge of a fact (such as what decision you'll make).  The word is as opposed to "depart from me, I never knew you".  The latter illustrates that "foreknown" doesn't have anything to do with foreknowing our choices.  Surely Jesus foreknew the choices of those he told to depart.  Yet he says "I never knew you" in opposition to "I foreknew you".  Both are the same word in the Greek, except one is preceded by "fore". 

Finally about the sparrow (and this may be from another thread, I forget):  God does not simply know about the fall of a sparrow. 

Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

It doesn't say "apart from your Father's knowledge or noticing".  It says "apart from your Father's will". 

 

[Bob H]

I haven't noticed that one side or the other is more proud.   

Then you haven't paid much attention. A few yrs back even Calvinist Mc Phil wrote about the arrogance of the internet cals

  But I can say that believers in salvation by free-will have a reason to boast whereas Calvinists have none. 

No, not really. That's a fig-newton of your imagination

 

[christundivided]

I haven't noticed that one side or the other is more proud.  But I can say that believers in salvation by free-will have a reason to boast whereas Calvinists have none. 

Calvinism:  The Bible says nothing about why God chose the elect other than that they were foreknown.  It doesn't say they were foreknown to make the right choice, or foreknown to be better, or fill-in-the-blank.  Therefore, Calvinists have nothing to boast about.  Calvinists are 100% blind to God motives for choosing one over another. 

Free-will:  Stand next to someone who is reprobate.  What made the difference between the two of you?  What is it about you that led to your choice, vs. his choice?  No matter how you slice it, it must come down to a description of something in you:  I made the right choice because I was __________  (smarter, wiser, humbler, more receptive, less hostile, whatever).  Thus the free-will person has a reason to boast.  I am NOT saying the free-will person DOES boast, but that free-will soteriology provides the person with a reason to boast.  And yet the Bible says boasting is excluded, because there's nothing in you that you did not receive from God. 

That's why it's no good saying you made the decision of your own free-will, but God, and only God made the difference between the two of you.  That makes you a Calvinist. 

Additional thoughts:

The word translated "foreknown" indicates intimate knowledge, not knowledge of a fact (such as what decision you'll make).  The word is as opposed to "depart from me, I never knew you".  The latter illustrates that "foreknown" doesn't have anything to do with foreknowing our choices.  Surely Jesus foreknew the choices of those he told to depart.  Yet he says "I never knew you" in opposition to "I foreknew you".  Both are the same word in the Greek, except one is preceded by "fore". 

Finally about the sparrow (and this may be from another thread, I forget):  God does not simply know about the fall of a sparrow. 

Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.

It doesn't say "apart from your Father's knowledge or noticing".  It says "apart from your Father's will".

This can't be th CM I've interacted with for some time now....

Either way, foreknowledge involves God's power to bring about His own divine will. It is not simply an action of His divine intellect to know something before it happens. It Involves His divine power to bring about His choice/will.

It can be truthfully said that God knows the future in that He has the power to bring about that future.

By the way, I think Calvinism is one of the most childish doctrine to ever find its way into humanity. Calvin was far too young and inexperienced to even weigh in on the matter of God's Sovergn action.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Then you haven't paid much attention. A few yrs back even Calvinist Mc Phil wrote about the arrogance of the internet cals

I don't pay attention to that sort of thing, meaning if I see someone acting prideful, I don't connect it with their soteriology.  And maybe I just didn't notice.  I would not make a very good detective. 

We all have a pride problem, though.  It's our nature. 

 

[christundivided]

I haven't noticed that one side or the other is more proud.   

Then you haven't paid much attention. A few yrs back even Calvinist Mc Phil wrote about the arrogance of the internet cals

  But I can say that believers in salvation by free-will have a reason to boast whereas Calvinists have none. 

No, not really. That's a fig-newton of your imagination

They can boast in the fact that God's choice involved them. Their system doesn't remove boasting.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

By the way, I think Calvinism is one of the most childish doctrine to ever find its way into humanity. Calvin was far too young and inexperienced to even weigh in on the matter of God's Sovergn action.

I've never read Calvin, so I wouldn't know.  I simply refer to it as "Calvinism" because it's easier than saying "doctrines of grace" or "predestination" or such. 

EDIT: I have read Martin Luther (Bondage of the Will is a good book), and he precedes Calvin.  I've heard it said that Calvin was little more than a footnote to Martin Luther's writings on free will and predestination.