Why is the Doctrine of Election so hard to believe?

[Zork]

Why are people having a Hard time believing in predestination when there's a lot of Scripture to back it up?
Even with all the Scriptural proof they still struggle with it.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Don't we fear God anymore?
Are we that arrogant?

Please give me your view of this.

Thanx.

 

[jwright82]

It infringes on our suppossed absolute freedom. It makes God the only God and regects us as being God.

 

[BobVigneault]

Many believe that God's ultimate attribute is love and all other attributes must fall in line or be qualified by his love. The arminian believes that God's love defines all of His purposes and actions. After all, the Bible does say that God is love. The reformed and Reformed communities believe that God's ultimate attribute is his sovereignty and all other attributes must fall in live or be qualified by his sovereignty.

God's ultimate attribute is his holiness and his holiness must define all other attributes. The reformed people have no problem with that.

Those who emphasize God's love, unfortunately add their own sentimentalism to what they expect from God. God loves and is not bound by cold, dead theological equations. Grace has replaced the law, God would never show favoritism to his children... after all, God loves everyone. God gives everyone enough common grace to bridge the chasm if they choose. They believe Christ died to make it possible to be saved.

They also misinterpret election to mean that God won't save my little boy or girl even if she prays and wants to be saved. The fix is in. They no that man is a choosing agent, by God's design and God made us choosing agents that we may choose him.

These folks have no desire to dishonor God or fail to give him glory, in fact they believe they are bringing him glory by showing disdain for Calvin's 'heresy' of predestination.

We must be firm with the teachers who teach such sentimentality (arguing, but not argumentative) and very gentle with the sheep who have learned error from such men and women.

I have actually heard pastors say, "I've read Romans 9 but there is NO WAY it can mean what it seems to be clearly saying and therefore we must find a better explanation."

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I assume by "predestination" you are talking about "election."

I have never met any Christian who does not believe in "election." Seriously. Sproul calls it "The doctrine everyone believes."

The rub comes in the fundamental disagreement as to "how" or "why" are we elected.

The Reformed/Calvinist rightly gets that that the scripture teaches we are "elected" by God's soverign choice, period. We are not elected by any action, or merit of our own. The Arminian, with his ego driven need to be the co-star of the show, would state they are elected because "God looked down the corridor of time and SAW that they would make the CHOICE to believe, and are "elected" based on God's "foreknowledge of individual choice." In other words, they were "elected because they selected." This, of course, is not taught anywere in the Scriptures, and is contradicted by the Scriptures.

Its a doctrine everyone believes, but most do not get right. This is because, at the core, they do not believe "God Saves Sinners." Rather, they believe "God helps sinners save themselves."

 

[Scott1]

Why are people having a Hard time believing in predestination when there's a lot of Scripture to back it up?
Human beings since the Fall have been self-seeking and self-destructing in their blindness toward that end.

Even with all the Scriptural proof they still struggle with it.
It's fair to say there are some Scriptures that seem, in isolation to support man choosing his own salvation by man's own decision. Most, but not all, are resolved by their surrounding context (other Scripture). A very few still remain unclear even in their immediate context.

But the case is beyond reasonable doubt that God is 100% responsible for initiating, sustaining and completing salvation, biblically, even logically.

But remember, man in his pride is blind. That extends to following biblical precepts, even logic.

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Don't we fear God anymore?
Are we that arrogant?
Mankind never has generally feared and obeyed God. Always been that arrogant. And you are right to say it is arrogant.
Please give me your view of this.
The amazing, inexplicable news is that in spite of that, God for reasons known only unto Himself, chose to save a sinner, like me. To the end of His Honor and His Glory.
Thanx.

Soli deo gloria.

 

[rookie]

To add to what has been said, I have had discussions with some people that say "It's not fair that God would elect my son, but not my daughter". Emotionalism is the big proponent in the controversy of election.

And the way out of Romans 9, is for dispensationalists, that chapter 9 and 10 are for Israel.

There are 2 different elections that I am aware of, that are constantly being debated.

1. Individual election (the one that reformers hold to), meaning that God has elected us before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4) and in His time, He draws you to His Son on the cross for salvation. Keyword, He draws you and He saves you.

2. Corporate election, says that you are part of the elect after you have chosen to follow Christ. But you were not elected before the foundation, you were foreknown (they have the meanings twisted to fit, and I have no scripture for it from the top of my head). But they believe the only time you become the elect is when you are saved. Which gives some credit to the individual for choosing Christ (even though they don't claim credit).

 

[MW]

Please give me your view of this.

Many reasons could be given which highlight human responsibility but seeing as we believe in election we should begin with divine sovereignty. "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight," Matthew 11:26. We must begin here in order that God might have the glory. This alone accounts for the fact that we have been brought to the knowledge of this precious truth. Since it is of God's sovereignty that we believe in His sovereignty it should lead us to hold this truth with all praise, reverence, admiration, humility, diligence, and consolation; and also to desire that others might come to the belief of this truth for the same reasons.

 

[Jake]

And the way out of Romans 9, is for dispensationalists, that chapter 9 and 10 are for Israel.

I know this is not your position, but surely that can't be what they say; in Romans 9, right in the midst of the passage, Paul says "even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" I think they would usually use the corporate interpretation.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Being that I wasn't introduced to reformed theology until a few years ago I could relate. My first impressions of Calvinists included characteristics of arrogance, and seemed to me like they wanted to win arguments opposed to showing love to others. For non-reformed Christians, I think the focus isn't on Theology as much as it is on Love. For those who are not Christians, it would be hard to convince them that they have no choice to do Good and will only be evil in God's sight.

So ultimately it comes down to sin and God revealing the truth to them in the time he see's fit.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

And the way out of Romans 9, is for dispensationalists, that chapter 9 and 10 are for Israel.

I know this is not your position, but surely that can't be what they say; in Romans 9, right in the midst of the passage, Paul says "even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" I think they would usually use the corporate interpretation.

Logic has never been an obstacle for the dispensationally inclined. These are the same people that believe the Sermon on the Mount only applies in a "future dispensation"

 

[Mushroom]

Man's lust for autonomy.

 

[Andres]

Why are people having a Hard time believing in predestination when there's a lot of Scripture to back it up?
Even with all the Scriptural proof they still struggle with it.

Bad exegesis, or none at all. They read scripture and miss the forest for the trees. I'm borrowing that from Dr. Michael Horton. You might find this article he wrote helpful. Here is an excerpt:

Arminians think that the clear and important passages teach the primacy of God's love (over other attributes), the universality of grace, and the libertarian free will of human beings. While Reformed theology never teaches God's sovereignty (predestination) as a central dogma from which every other doctrine is deduced, the love of God and a libertarian view of free will do function that way in standard Arminian systems. Arminians often acknowledge a stand-off: Calvinists enshrine God's sovereignty and predestination, while they make God's universal love and human freedom normative. "You have your verses and we have ours," is the oft-heard shrug that can only weaken the believer's confidence in the unity, consistency, and reliability of Scripture.

Truth be told, we don't have "our verses" and they don't have "their verses." God has "his verses," and therefore all of them belong to "us." If we have "our verses," then not even these teach what we think they do. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, and if we feel compelled to embrace some passages over others in order to maintain consistency, we haven't really understood "our verses."

Arminian theologians Clark Pinnock and John Sanders share the presupposition that all of God's attributes are subservient to his love and that his purpose is to save every person. In fact, he recognizes that these theses function as presuppositions or "axioms" by which exegesis must be tested. For example, from Arminian premises Pinnock defends "inclusivism": the view that even apart from explicit faith in Christ, people are saved if they respond to the light they have been given. He adds, "I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and that the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God's love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me." Here Pinnock seems to admit that a general principle trumps the weak exegetical support of his position. The box-top is more important than the pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Zork]

they do not believe "God Saves Sinners." Rather, they believe "God helps sinners save themselves."

True, Well said.
We are dead without GOD, Not just sick(Can't save yourself). We don't need healing we need a total resurrection(True saving Faith) right?
You can't believe anyways if GOD doesn't do that miracles within you. Why are there so many people deceived and think they are saved when they're not?
Why is it so easy for someone like J.Osteen to deceive all those people? Isn't it our responsibility to publicly expose him?(His teachings).
Please correct me if im wrong.

Thank you, blessings

 

[rookie]

Election is one of the reasons I lost my preaching/sunday school teaching privileges in my previous church. When they found out I didn't believe in corporate election, but in individual election....and that I brought the verse in Eph 2 - We were dead in our trespasses.....they stopped me from preaching the gospel...which I had a style much like Paul Washer's 2002 conference. Very passionate....

And they replaced the gospel I preached (as well as 2 other brothers that also got the boot) with this kind "Romans tells us all we have to do to be saved is confess our sins...and for you young ones, it won't take that long, you're not that bad"

Once I heard that, I almost stood up to correct him, but I thought, nope, just God calling my wife and I to move on from this church.....

"they do not believe "God Saves Sinners." Rather, they believe "God helps sinners save themselves."

Could not have been said better.....