The phony evangelism of Calvinism
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Calvinists believe exactly the same thing, except for the last sentence. If you make yourself part of the elect, then you are not elect by definition, because God has not 'elected' you.
In any case, the whole discussion is a furphy. Calvinists believe God's election and advance work in the hearts of people is essential to people hearing the gospel message. However, Calvinists are not God. Calvinists do not know who God will elect, and so they evangelise everyone. God's word goes out and will accomplish its purpose, not returning empty. Obviously, some will hear and respond, others will hear and fall under judgement. It is not up to the Calvinist to guess who is elect or not, it is simply their job to preach the word with grace and truth.
It's actually not that different a position to Arminian evangelism, if you think about it. Arminians also believe that they will preach to people who will not be saved. There will be people that Arminians will plead with, who they will pray for, that will NEVER respond to the gospel message. So in both positions, God decides not to save people that Christians might earnestly pray for.
"And not only that, but also Rebekah received a promise when she became pregnant by one man, our ancestor Isaac. For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand— not from works but from the One who calls—she was told: The older will serve the younger. As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau."
Calvinists believe God elects certain individuals and people like Joel Osteen believe getting things are what brings you to God. I juat didn't know if they were related. Had a professor who was Calvinist and we got into debates during class so I just wanted to ask. I don't know much about Calvinism.
The irony is how Calvinists claim Rom 9 is their "proof" text when in reality Rom 9 refutes Calvinism.
Calvinism claims God preordained certain individuals to be elect and the rest are to be lost and nothing can change what God has preordained. Yet in Rom 9 Paul knows that God has cast off His elect Israel and grafted in and made the once non-elect Gentiles now part of His elect. In Rom 9 Paul answers objections he knew the Jews would have to this.
In the section of Rom 9 you quote above, Paul knew the first objection the Jews would have is they are the descendants of Abraham and that physical descendancy meant automatic salvation for them. Paul uses Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau and demonstrates how Edom was just as much a true descendant of Abraham as Israel but Edom was not chosen. So Paul shows God does not solely base His choices/promises on physical descendancy thereby refuting the Jews argument that they must be God's elect based on their physical desendancy.
Calvinism is still left with a gaping hole as to the basis to wy God supposedly elected one individual over another.
Calvinism claims God preordained certain individuals to be elect and the rest are to be lost and nothing can change what God has preordained. Yet in Rom 9 Paul knows that God has cast off His elect Israel and grafted in and made the once non-elect Gentiles now part of His elect. In Rom 9 Paul answers objections he knew the Jews would have to this.
In the section of Rom 9 you quote above, Paul knew the first objection the Jews would have is they are the descendants of Abraham and that physical descendancy meant automatic salvation for them. Paul uses Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau and demonstrates how Edom was just as much a true descendant of Abraham as Israel but Edom was not chosen. So Paul shows God does not solely base His choices/promises on physical descendancy thereby refuting the Jews argument that they must be God's elect based on their physical desendancy.
Calvinism is still left with a gaping hole as to the basis to wy God supposedly elected one individual over another.
No, I don't know if that's entirely true. Yes, God in his mercy continued to deal with national Israel, and as Paul points out, there is plenty of value in being ethnically Jewish. But it is not true that all of Israel are elect/granted eternal life in the prescence of God by virtue of their descent, and that has NEVER been true. What does Paul say? "Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." He places his argument not in some new doctrine, or even from Pentecost or the incarnation. He traces it all the way back to Isaac. Isaac was the first of those descended of Abraham chosen by God, in advance of his birth, to inherit the promise as God's child. "And not only that", but this pattern is then repeated with Jacob being favoured over Esau. In other words, it is simply not true that God cast of his elect Israel (by which I assume you mean national/ethnic Israel). Israel has an always has been those who are children of the promise, whom God chose.
How do you read Romans 9 in order to arrive at the idea that Edom was a true descendant of Abraham? The whole point of Paul's argument turns on the fact that Esau was not and never was a 'true' descendant in that while he was a physical descendant, he was not a child of the promise, by the simple testimony of the OT.
Let me ask you this question then, seeing as you appear to accept that Jacob was chosen while Esau wasn't. Why did God choose one and not the other?
How do you read Romans 9 in order to arrive at the idea that Edom was a true descendant of Abraham? The whole point of Paul's argument turns on the fact that Esau was not and never was a 'true' descendant in that while he was a physical descendant, he was not a child of the promise, by the simple testimony of the OT.
Let me ask you this question then, seeing as you appear to accept that Jacob was chosen while Esau wasn't. Why did God choose one and not the other?
Rom 11 Paul makes it very clear Israel was cut-off while the Gentiles were grafted in.
When Paul was proving to the Jews that God does not solely base His choices on physical descent, Paul skipped a generation not using Isaac and Ishmael. Had Paul used Isaac and Ishmael then the Jews would respond that God chose Isaac over Ismael based upon physical descent for Isaac was the true son of Abraham and his true wife Sarah while Ismael was the son of a handmaid. By skipping a generation and using Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau where both were the descendants of Isaac whom the Jews considered the true son of Abraham. So the Jews could not make the same argument between Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau as they could between Isaac and Ismael. So Edom/Esau were as much descendants of Isaac and Abraham as Israel/Jacob yet Edom was not chosen.
In Rom 9, God is not choosing individuals to salvation but God chose a nation, Israel. God chose the individuals Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to bring about that nation. God foreknew Israel would be a better choice over Edom to use to bring the Messiah into the world.
Why did God choose Abraham? "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him" Gen 18:19. God foreknew Abraham would be obedient enough that God could accomplish His will using Abraham.
Gen 25:23 "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."
God foreknew there were two manner of people, two different nations within Rebekah > Israel and Edom and God foreknew that Israel would be the better choice. Both nations would be disobedient to God and deserve punishment but God foreknew He would be able to use Jacob/Israel to accomplish His purpose in bringing the Messiah into the world through them and would not be able use Esau/Edom.
God chose Jacob over Esau for God foreknew Esau would be profane. As Paul said in Rom 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..." God made His choice before either Jacob or Esau was born, so the Jews could not argue that God chose them based upon anything either Jacob/Israel or Esau/Edom had done, it was God's own choice.
The thing God fore-saw in Abraham in Gen 18:19, He also fore-saw in Isaac, Jacob and Israel but did not fore-see it in Esau and Edom. Yet God having chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, none were perfectly obedient to God but God foreknew they would all obey Him enough that He could accomplish HIs purpose through them in bring Israel, and eventually the Messiah, into the world.
When Paul was proving to the Jews that God does not solely base His choices on physical descent, Paul skipped a generation not using Isaac and Ishmael. Had Paul used Isaac and Ishmael then the Jews would respond that God chose Isaac over Ismael based upon physical descent for Isaac was the true son of Abraham and his true wife Sarah while Ismael was the son of a handmaid. By skipping a generation and using Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau where both were the descendants of Isaac whom the Jews considered the true son of Abraham. So the Jews could not make the same argument between Israel/Jacob and Edom/Esau as they could between Isaac and Ismael. So Edom/Esau were as much descendants of Isaac and Abraham as Israel/Jacob yet Edom was not chosen.
In Rom 9, God is not choosing individuals to salvation but God chose a nation, Israel. God chose the individuals Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to bring about that nation. God foreknew Israel would be a better choice over Edom to use to bring the Messiah into the world.
Why did God choose Abraham? "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him" Gen 18:19. God foreknew Abraham would be obedient enough that God could accomplish His will using Abraham.
Gen 25:23 "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."
God foreknew there were two manner of people, two different nations within Rebekah > Israel and Edom and God foreknew that Israel would be the better choice. Both nations would be disobedient to God and deserve punishment but God foreknew He would be able to use Jacob/Israel to accomplish His purpose in bringing the Messiah into the world through them and would not be able use Esau/Edom.
God chose Jacob over Esau for God foreknew Esau would be profane. As Paul said in Rom 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil..." God made His choice before either Jacob or Esau was born, so the Jews could not argue that God chose them based upon anything either Jacob/Israel or Esau/Edom had done, it was God's own choice.
The thing God fore-saw in Abraham in Gen 18:19, He also fore-saw in Isaac, Jacob and Israel but did not fore-see it in Esau and Edom. Yet God having chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, none were perfectly obedient to God but God foreknew they would all obey Him enough that He could accomplish HIs purpose through them in bring Israel, and eventually the Messiah, into the world.
Simply not true. He reiterates again and again the remnant language of the OT, and explicitly says "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. "
Clearly, not all the branches have been cut off, and some will be reattached. He is not making any sweeping statement about a switch in election between ethnic groups - quite the opposite, salvation is by faith alone, to both Jew and Gentile, and always has been.
"6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children,but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”"
And from Galatians: "22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and the other by a free woman. 23 But the one by the slave was born according to the impulse of the flesh, while the one by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24 These things are illustrations, for the women represent the two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery—this is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.27 For it is written:Rejoice, childless woman,
who does not give birth.
Burst into song and shout,
you who are not in labor,
for the children of the desolate are many,
more numerous than those
of the woman who has a husband.
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Paul doesn't enter into discussions of legitimacy - in any case, I'm not even sure that in that time period and culture there would be seen to be a difference in legitimacy between the a son born of someone not your wife. What would matter is the eldest. In any case, Paul's argument turns not on legitimacy, but who was the child of the promise? Clearly, that is Isaac, who is the result of the promise that Sarah would be with child.
As above.
Paul's point is that it is children of the promise that inherit, not the children of physical descent, even the children of physical descent of Isaac.
"6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, 7 then understand that those who have faith are Abraham’s sons. 8 Now the Scripture saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and told the good news ahead of time to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed through you.9 So those who have faith are blessed with Abraham, who had faith."
And I'm happy to accept in this case God choosing Israel over Edom as a better choice for his purposes - the point is that God actively intervened in order to bring that about. If God had not intervened, that would not have happened
Actually, it's not at all clear that what this passage is saying is that God knew (i.e. knew in advance) that Abraham would be a good guy, and that is the basis of the election. The meaning of 'know' here does not necessarily mean passive foreknowledge, and indeed even the language of the KJV allows for the meaning that God's knowing of Abraham (or his entering into covenant), is what allows him to do these things : I know him [in order] that he will command his children.
In any case, even if I accept your reading at face value, the problem still remains - none of what God says about Abraham in this verse would come true if it were not for God's interventionism. If God had left Abraham in Ur, nothing would have happened. Instead, he was called.
As above. None of what God says about Jacob and Isaac, before they are even born, would be true if God had not said anything, or intervened in order to make Jacob the inheriter of the promise.
As above. They had done nothing, and so God intervenes to choose Jacob before anything is done by them. It is not about passive foreknowledge, because everything that comes after is a direct result of God's promise. If God had not promised and chosen Jacob, the end of Genesis would in all likelihood read very differently.
Again, as above.
Clearly, not all the branches have been cut off, and some will be reattached. He is not making any sweeping statement about a switch in election between ethnic groups - quite the opposite, salvation is by faith alone, to both Jew and Gentile, and always has been.
"6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children,but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”"
And from Galatians: "22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and the other by a free woman. 23 But the one by the slave was born according to the impulse of the flesh, while the one by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24 These things are illustrations, for the women represent the two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery—this is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.27 For it is written:Rejoice, childless woman,
who does not give birth.
Burst into song and shout,
you who are not in labor,
for the children of the desolate are many,
more numerous than those
of the woman who has a husband.
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Paul doesn't enter into discussions of legitimacy - in any case, I'm not even sure that in that time period and culture there would be seen to be a difference in legitimacy between the a son born of someone not your wife. What would matter is the eldest. In any case, Paul's argument turns not on legitimacy, but who was the child of the promise? Clearly, that is Isaac, who is the result of the promise that Sarah would be with child.
As above.
Paul's point is that it is children of the promise that inherit, not the children of physical descent, even the children of physical descent of Isaac.
"6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, 7 then understand that those who have faith are Abraham’s sons. 8 Now the Scripture saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and told the good news ahead of time to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed through you.9 So those who have faith are blessed with Abraham, who had faith."
And I'm happy to accept in this case God choosing Israel over Edom as a better choice for his purposes - the point is that God actively intervened in order to bring that about. If God had not intervened, that would not have happened
Actually, it's not at all clear that what this passage is saying is that God knew (i.e. knew in advance) that Abraham would be a good guy, and that is the basis of the election. The meaning of 'know' here does not necessarily mean passive foreknowledge, and indeed even the language of the KJV allows for the meaning that God's knowing of Abraham (or his entering into covenant), is what allows him to do these things : I know him [in order] that he will command his children.
In any case, even if I accept your reading at face value, the problem still remains - none of what God says about Abraham in this verse would come true if it were not for God's interventionism. If God had left Abraham in Ur, nothing would have happened. Instead, he was called.
As above. None of what God says about Jacob and Isaac, before they are even born, would be true if God had not said anything, or intervened in order to make Jacob the inheriter of the promise.
As above. They had done nothing, and so God intervenes to choose Jacob before anything is done by them. It is not about passive foreknowledge, because everything that comes after is a direct result of God's promise. If God had not promised and chosen Jacob, the end of Genesis would in all likelihood read very differently.
Again, as above.
In Rom 10:1-3 Paul clearly points out Israel as a nation, his brethren in the fleah are lost and in v3 he explains they are lost for they have not submitted/obeyed the righteousness/commands of God but went about doing their own righteousness/works of merit.
Then in Rom 11 Paul talks abut the casting away of Israel Verse 11 "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy" By the casting away of fleshly Israel salvation came to the Gentiles, yet fleshly Israel had not stumbled to the point where they could not be saved, for they could be saved if they would just submit to the righteousness of God, Rom 10:3, if they would quit rejecting Christ and obey the gospel of Christ.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them.... The fall of fleshly Israel for rejection Christ and His gospel, they woul not obey the gospel, Rom 10:16.
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them.... casting away of fleshly Israel.
In v14 Paul says "some" of Israel would be saved. In Acts 2 those fleshly Jews that obeyed the gospel were added to the church and were saved.
Rom 11:16 Paul is saying to the Gentiles God will still accept Jews to salvation. Yet that salvation must come thru Christ so they must first quit rejecting Christ.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
"some of the branches broken off" refer to those fleshly Jews that rejected Christ. Those Jews that accepted Christ (Acts 2) became part of the church (Acts 2:47) and it was these Christian Jews in the church to whom believing Gentiles would be grafted in (coverts to Christianity). Then these Jews and Gentiles as one - Christians - are partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
Rom 11:18 Paul warns the Gentiles not to boast against those fleshly Jews that were broken off due to their unbelief in Christ
Rom 11:19 Paul says to the Gentile don't think God broke them off because God prefers you over the Jews. Again, the fleshly Jews were broken off due to unbelief in Christ not because of God preferring Gentiles over Jews as verse 20 points out.
Rom 11:21,22 Paul warns the Gentiles if they fall into unbelief they too can be broken off as those unbelieving Jews.
Rom 11:23 Paul states there is still the possibility fleshly Israel can be saved if they would not continue in their unbelief in Christ. If they would just believe/submit to God's righteousness God can still graft them into the church.
ROm 11:24 the Gentiles were not God's chosen people, a wild olive tree where the Jews were Gods chosen and had advantages over the Gentiles. So if these idol worshipping, sinful Gentiles can be grafted in, then it should be easy for the Jews who had advantages and had been given God's word to also believe in Christ and be grafted in.
Paul is showing physical decent does not automatically make one a child of God, the Jews thought their physical descent from Abraham automatically made them children of God. Paul refutes this idea of the Jews:
Rom 9:7 Abraham had many, many children so just being a child of Abraham did not automatically make one apart of the chosen (Israelites) but one had to be of a particular seed of Abraham (Isaac) to be of the chosen. SO physical birth of Abraham did not automatically make one part of the chosen.
Rom 9:8 "children of flesh are NOT children of God", again, simple physical descent does not automatically make one a child of God. Lk 16, that rich man was a physical descendant of Abraham but he was lost.
To be a child of God requires one to be of a particular seed..." the children of the promise are counted for the seed"
These children of promise are Christians, Gal 3:29, the spiritual seed of Abraham, the spiritual Jews, Rom 2:28,29.
So just being a physical descendant of Abraham did not automatically make one part of the chosen, for he had to be of a particular seed (Isaac) likewise physical descendant does not automatically make one a child of God for one must be of a particular seed, a Christian.."Now we, brethren, (Christians) as Isaac was, are the children of promise.....And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"
Then in Rom 11 Paul talks abut the casting away of Israel Verse 11 "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy" By the casting away of fleshly Israel salvation came to the Gentiles, yet fleshly Israel had not stumbled to the point where they could not be saved, for they could be saved if they would just submit to the righteousness of God, Rom 10:3, if they would quit rejecting Christ and obey the gospel of Christ.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them.... The fall of fleshly Israel for rejection Christ and His gospel, they woul not obey the gospel, Rom 10:16.
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them.... casting away of fleshly Israel.
In v14 Paul says "some" of Israel would be saved. In Acts 2 those fleshly Jews that obeyed the gospel were added to the church and were saved.
Rom 11:16 Paul is saying to the Gentiles God will still accept Jews to salvation. Yet that salvation must come thru Christ so they must first quit rejecting Christ.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
"some of the branches broken off" refer to those fleshly Jews that rejected Christ. Those Jews that accepted Christ (Acts 2) became part of the church (Acts 2:47) and it was these Christian Jews in the church to whom believing Gentiles would be grafted in (coverts to Christianity). Then these Jews and Gentiles as one - Christians - are partakers of the root and fatness of the olive tree.
Rom 11:18 Paul warns the Gentiles not to boast against those fleshly Jews that were broken off due to their unbelief in Christ
Rom 11:19 Paul says to the Gentile don't think God broke them off because God prefers you over the Jews. Again, the fleshly Jews were broken off due to unbelief in Christ not because of God preferring Gentiles over Jews as verse 20 points out.
Rom 11:21,22 Paul warns the Gentiles if they fall into unbelief they too can be broken off as those unbelieving Jews.
Rom 11:23 Paul states there is still the possibility fleshly Israel can be saved if they would not continue in their unbelief in Christ. If they would just believe/submit to God's righteousness God can still graft them into the church.
ROm 11:24 the Gentiles were not God's chosen people, a wild olive tree where the Jews were Gods chosen and had advantages over the Gentiles. So if these idol worshipping, sinful Gentiles can be grafted in, then it should be easy for the Jews who had advantages and had been given God's word to also believe in Christ and be grafted in.
Paul is showing physical decent does not automatically make one a child of God, the Jews thought their physical descent from Abraham automatically made them children of God. Paul refutes this idea of the Jews:
Rom 9:7 Abraham had many, many children so just being a child of Abraham did not automatically make one apart of the chosen (Israelites) but one had to be of a particular seed of Abraham (Isaac) to be of the chosen. SO physical birth of Abraham did not automatically make one part of the chosen.
Rom 9:8 "children of flesh are NOT children of God", again, simple physical descent does not automatically make one a child of God. Lk 16, that rich man was a physical descendant of Abraham but he was lost.
To be a child of God requires one to be of a particular seed..." the children of the promise are counted for the seed"
These children of promise are Christians, Gal 3:29, the spiritual seed of Abraham, the spiritual Jews, Rom 2:28,29.
So just being a physical descendant of Abraham did not automatically make one part of the chosen, for he had to be of a particular seed (Isaac) likewise physical descendant does not automatically make one a child of God for one must be of a particular seed, a Christian.."Now we, brethren, (Christians) as Isaac was, are the children of promise.....And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"
Last edited:
God had and used His foreknowledge in knowing who would be the better choices, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Israel. Tha foreknowledge is seen in what is said to Rebekah, God foreknew the differences between the two nations and would obviously pick the better of the two. God would not set aside His foreknowledge and randomly pick. Heb 11:20 Isaac had concern "for things to come" certainly God would also and therefore use His foreknowledge in making His choices and not leave it all up to blind chance.
I feel like you missed the point of my post. I'm not arguing God isn't picking according to foreknowledge. My argument is quite a bit more nuanced than that.
My argument is that God's foreknowledge is based primarily on his purposes, and cannot be primarily be attributed to who is 'better'.
Secondarily, God's foreknowledge is predicated on his election - the fact that Abraham would have made a 'good' father of nations is based on God first calling Abraham, otherwise that would never have happened. Issac being the child of promise is predicated first of all on God promising Sarah a child, otherwise Ishmael would have been the 'true' son. Jacob would not have been the child of promise if God had not first, in advance of their birth, made a promise to Rebekah.
You cannot say that God has foreknowledge apart from his sovereignty, because everything about which God has foreknowledge is fundamentally a result of his choice.
The Calvinist does not say God randomly picks. God does not leave things to chance - indeed, if God is God, there is no such thing as chance in his mind. The Calvinist says that God picks according to his own purposes.
My argument is that God's foreknowledge is based primarily on his purposes, and cannot be primarily be attributed to who is 'better'.
Secondarily, God's foreknowledge is predicated on his election - the fact that Abraham would have made a 'good' father of nations is based on God first calling Abraham, otherwise that would never have happened. Issac being the child of promise is predicated first of all on God promising Sarah a child, otherwise Ishmael would have been the 'true' son. Jacob would not have been the child of promise if God had not first, in advance of their birth, made a promise to Rebekah.
You cannot say that God has foreknowledge apart from his sovereignty, because everything about which God has foreknowledge is fundamentally a result of his choice.
The Calvinist does not say God randomly picks. God does not leave things to chance - indeed, if God is God, there is no such thing as chance in his mind. The Calvinist says that God picks according to his own purposes.
Why would God not choose the better of two different choices? God foreknew how various men would behave in certain situations, therefore God foreknew Abraham, Isaac, Jacob would be the better choices in accomplishing His will.
God's foreknowledge and sovereignty work together to accomplish His will. So again, God would choose men He foreknew He could use to accomplish His will. God's foreknowledge does not necessitate determination, so God foreknew Abraham would choose to obey but God never determined for Abraham against his will that Abraham would obey. Abraham of his own will chose to be an obedient person and God, foreknowing that about Abraham, choose Abraham based on that reason, Gen 18:19. Therefore Abraham's obedience would be the basis God used to choose Him, therefore not a random choice or a choice made for some unknown reason.
God's foreknowledge and sovereignty work together to accomplish His will. So again, God would choose men He foreknew He could use to accomplish His will. God's foreknowledge does not necessitate determination, so God foreknew Abraham would choose to obey but God never determined for Abraham against his will that Abraham would obey. Abraham of his own will chose to be an obedient person and God, foreknowing that about Abraham, choose Abraham based on that reason, Gen 18:19. Therefore Abraham's obedience would be the basis God used to choose Him, therefore not a random choice or a choice made for some unknown reason.
Again, you're missing my point. The only reason they are better choices because GOD PICKED THEM. If God had not chosen Abraham and called him out, he would never have been the better choice for anything. If God hadn't chosen Isaac, Ishmael would have been the inheritor of Abrahams estate. If God hadn't picked Jacob, Esau would have been the inheritor, and Jacob would have had nothing.
You cannot separate God's foreknowledge from his sovereign choice. The only reason we can say that one of Abe, Isaac or Jacob were 'better' choices was because God chose them first. Even then, it's risky to say that they were each 'better' in any way comprehensible by human reckoning, because we don't know what Ishmael or Esau would have been like had they been chosen instead. I prefer to speak as far as Scripture speaks (that is, they were chosen as children of the promise by God, in advance of doing anything good or bad), and speak no further.
I think the Calvinist argument is quite a bit more nuanced than you're trying to make it, but again, I will ask the question - if God hadn't chosen Abraham, would it have been Abraham's will to obey God anyway? Could Abraham even have known God anyway before he is called out it in Genesis 12?
My point is, its hopelessly reductionist to say that God picks people who choose to obey him, when their obedience is utterly dependant on God calling them. Abraham did not choose of his own will to obey God - God called him, and he obeyed. If God had not called him, he would likely not even have known God, much less obeyed him. Thus, the agent of obedience is not at bottom a person's obedience, but God's calling.
Please refer to my discussion of Genesis 18:19 above.
You cannot separate God's foreknowledge from his sovereign choice. The only reason we can say that one of Abe, Isaac or Jacob were 'better' choices was because God chose them first. Even then, it's risky to say that they were each 'better' in any way comprehensible by human reckoning, because we don't know what Ishmael or Esau would have been like had they been chosen instead. I prefer to speak as far as Scripture speaks (that is, they were chosen as children of the promise by God, in advance of doing anything good or bad), and speak no further.
I think the Calvinist argument is quite a bit more nuanced than you're trying to make it, but again, I will ask the question - if God hadn't chosen Abraham, would it have been Abraham's will to obey God anyway? Could Abraham even have known God anyway before he is called out it in Genesis 12?
My point is, its hopelessly reductionist to say that God picks people who choose to obey him, when their obedience is utterly dependant on God calling them. Abraham did not choose of his own will to obey God - God called him, and he obeyed. If God had not called him, he would likely not even have known God, much less obeyed him. Thus, the agent of obedience is not at bottom a person's obedience, but God's calling.
Please refer to my discussion of Genesis 18:19 above.
God did not create better choices, but used the decisions God foreknew men would make and used those choices men would make to make the better choice. God did not make Abraham obey Him but God foreknew Abraham would choose to be obedient enough that God could use Abraham to bring about God's own will.
You ask " if God hadn't chosen Abraham, would it have been Abraham's will to obey God anyway? Could Abraham even have known God anyway before he is called out it in Genesis 12?"
If God had chosen someone other than Abraham then it would have been someone else God gave commands to and not Abraham so Abraham would not have been given those commands to obey.
But God foreknew that Abraham of his own free will would choose to obey. God foreknows how men will freely chose when those men are placed in certain circumstances.
You ask " if God hadn't chosen Abraham, would it have been Abraham's will to obey God anyway? Could Abraham even have known God anyway before he is called out it in Genesis 12?"
If God had chosen someone other than Abraham then it would have been someone else God gave commands to and not Abraham so Abraham would not have been given those commands to obey.
But God foreknew that Abraham of his own free will would choose to obey. God foreknows how men will freely chose when those men are placed in certain circumstances.
You're still making assertions without evidence while ignoring the counterargument. I've already addressed what Scriptural support you provided - do with that what you will.
Precisely.
Again, assertion without evidence. You've already admitted that Abraham (and by extension, Isaac and Jacob) could not have been obedient without God's intervention into their lives. Thus, it makes no sense to talk about God foreknowing how people would react, as if that in itself somehow is an argument against what most Calvinists understand by election, precisely because God's direct intervention and election is expressly the first cause, not people's obedience. Their obedience is contingent on their election, not the reverse, as you have already conceded.
Abraham was chosen, and so he obeyed (apart from that thing with the Hagar, of course
) - not that he obeyed (or would obey), and thus was chosen. The only circumstances we can definitively say that Abraham would be obedient are only in circumstances where God had already chosen him and called him out (i.e what actually happened, not some hypothetical). God's foreknowledge is predicated on his sovereign will, not the other way around.
Precisely.
Again, assertion without evidence. You've already admitted that Abraham (and by extension, Isaac and Jacob) could not have been obedient without God's intervention into their lives. Thus, it makes no sense to talk about God foreknowing how people would react, as if that in itself somehow is an argument against what most Calvinists understand by election, precisely because God's direct intervention and election is expressly the first cause, not people's obedience. Their obedience is contingent on their election, not the reverse, as you have already conceded.
Abraham was chosen, and so he obeyed (apart from that thing with the Hagar, of course
) - not that he obeyed (or would obey), and thus was chosen. The only circumstances we can definitively say that Abraham would be obedient are only in circumstances where God had already chosen him and called him out (i.e what actually happened, not some hypothetical). God's foreknowledge is predicated on his sovereign will, not the other way around.