Justified in Not Believing?

Is anyone ever justified in not believing in God under some circumstances?

Comments

[Frank]

Isn't it true that without God's mercy we would ALL be trying to rationalize our disbelief....if we bothered to entertain the question in our minds at all?

Romans 1 is pretty clear. There is no "lack" of information. There are only people who lie about how clear it really is.

Atheists will object that infants and others who are less able to contemplate the existence of God are examples of those with a "lack" of information. I simply ask them if this is their argument.

[Jim T.]

Frank >> Romans 1 is pretty clear.

It is clear. Perhaps Paul was just wrong.

Greg >> At the heart of everything is a moral problem, not a rational problem.

And unmentioned here by Greg is his view that the solution is totally outside of the unbeliever. Their situation is hopeless. Why not just say to the unbeliever "You are irrational, and you can't even help it. Sorry, but that is your lot in life."

[brgulker]

I find the old saying, "We are judged according to the light we have" to be a trustworthy one.

When I couple the former statement with my belief that only God is capable of knowing the heart of a human being, soteriology starts to look different.

In other words, isn't it possible that someone who espouses Christianity with one's words and one's actions could actually be consumed with doubt internally and we not know it? And couldn't the converse also be true -- that the most outspoken atheists might harbor faith yet is unwilling to own and vocalize it?

If the answer to those is, "Yes," then I think it means we ought to approach such questions very, very cautiously and humbly and explicitly recognize the epistemological limits that go along with being a finite human being.

[Johnnie]

I have a query into your analogy of the Big Bang and the Big Banger and something out of nothing. Did time exist before the Big Bang?

I thought of another argument that seems to run along the same lines: Suppose we are seeking the source of northness. So we head north. Likewise is everyone who is seeking the source of northness. In time we all end up at the North Pole. There is no more northness that we can have. This northness had to come from somewhere. Therefore there is a Santa Claus.

(But I like George McDonald's idea of North Wind better).

[brgulker]

Romans 1 is pretty clear. There is no "lack" of information. There are only people who lie about how clear it really is.

Well, I'm not sure it's as clear as you think it is. In Rom. 1, Paul appeals to (what we now call) general revelation, and even in Rom. 1 the only thing that general revelation reveals is the problem, not the solution.

The solution is special revelation, i.e., Jesus.

The soteriological question is whether those who have only been exposed to the former can be held accountable even when not being exposed to the latter.

I realize that soteriology isn't the explicit point of the video, but it's certainly an implied point -- and the point we seem to be beating around the bush over. In other words, "Could someone who rejects belief in God in this life (because s/he is not convinced of the evidence for God) still be justified in the end?"

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Did time exist before the Big Bang? "

This question answers itself. Has anyone else noticed that?

[Frank]

Then i wouldn't even bother with the book. Go fishing instead. Actually, what Paul says is obviously true if we are completely honest about what we observe of the reality we inhabit
.....but...then...seems like honesty was as much a casualty of the fall as anything else human.

[David Blain]

Jim,

A person with medicine that heals an illness should not tell all the sick people just to deal with their situation when he holds the cure in his hand.

The same is true, but to a greater degree, with Christianity. It is the claim that all humanity is spiritually dead and Christ can bring spiritual life. Now, the reason believers do not just tell unbelievers to continue in their irrationality is because Jesus commands his followers to share the medicine that brings eternal life to all people in the world. Believers are under Divine Command to do the exact opposite that you propose.

[Frank]

The solution is totally outside of us>

Good observation.

(Their situation is hopeless>

Without the Gospel, you would be right. Thats the whole point of Christianity

[CT]

Not much rides on this issue if we accept, as many Christians do, that people deserve eternal suffering in hell even prior to developing the mental capacity to form a belief in God.

It would be no less fair or unfair for God to have chosen to save people on the basis of eye color, rather than upon the basis of faith.

[Frank]

What "rides" is not "our repsonse" but rather what God has decreed to come to pass.

The reason that ALL deserve hell has nothing to do with any particular ability to comprehend ot not comprehend.

All this really brings out is how serious the fall of mankind was and is. It is clear from the book that if the unborn aborted are in heaven...it will NOT be because they were innocent...but rather because of God's mercy....and thats as far as any of us take it.

Since God gives no indication that He will take our own opinions of who should and should not be saved into consideration (Salvation is of the Lord).....we likewise should walk in fear and trembling for our own loved ones who reject Him. Our thinking "highly" or "lowly" of one another doesn't appear influence Him one bit.

"It is NOT of him who runs, nor him who wills...but of God who has mercy" Romans 9

[Jim T.]

David Blain >> Now, the reason believers do not just tell unbelievers to continue in their irrationality is because Jesus commands his followers to share the medicine that brings eternal life to all people in the world.

I would agree that *offering* the medicine is definitely under Divine Command as presented in the Christian scripture. However, the scripture is clear that only a select few are going to be able to trust both the diagnosis and the cure. Quite frankly, the medicine is not usuable by everyone. I don't know much about medicine, but maybe a good way to put it is "this medicine cannot be metabolized or digested by the non-elect, so it is useless to them". You know, like a warning label that is honest about the effectiveness rates of the medicine.

For those that cannot trust in it, there is nothing that they can do about it. They are stuck. Under the Reformed Christian view, they don't even know that they are sick, and even if they have a hint about it, they don't believe in the power of the proposed cure. And apart from God acting first and irresistably drawing them to Him, they are powerles to do otherwise. They indeed have a rather poor lot in life. (BTW, I suspect that I am in this group, much to my dismay.)

What I don't understand is why isn't this view divulged more. I hardly ever see everything tied together, and Greg's video here is a good example of that. He makes some very bold statements, but does not tie it together with the rest of his views. I am always perplexed by this.

His emphasis is on a problem, and it is clearly presented that it's a human problem. Why not also say "The solution is in God's hands, and he shall give the solution to those that He chooses. If He has not activited in you this solution yet and it all stills sounds like foolishness, perhaps He still will before you perish. If not, I'm sorry and you truly have my pity. I don't deserve my salvation, but you do deserve your damnation. All for the glory of God!"

There's certainly nothing to be embarrassed about there, right? Why not be more public about this? I know that a response will be that Christians are never commanded to say these things, but come on, Christians say a LOT of things while presenting the gospel message that they are never commanded to. Why not full disclosure about what's really going on?

I know that people here can't answer for Greg, but any ideas?

[Mike Westfall]

> In time we all end up at the
> North Pole. There is no more
> northness that we can have. This
> northness had to come from
> somewhere. Therefore there is a
> Santa Claus.

Yep. Sounds like the argumentation style of the "new" atheists. A non-sequiter that makes no sense whatsoever.

"Northness," indeed. Sheesh.

[David Blain]

Jim,

I am actually in agreement with most of what you have stated. I would make the statement that the medicine is sufficient to cure everyone yet it only cures those who accept it. The unbeliever rejects the medicine outright according to his own desire; it's not that the unbeliever accepts the medicine and it fails to metabolize and cure him. The unbeliever is not stuck, he is choosing exactly what it is he desires.

Another point I would make is that the believer has the blessing of being part of God's redemptive plan. God not only ordains the ends of salvation but also the means by which it is effected. As such, the believer is to use wisdom and tact when presenting the medicine to the those in need; after all no one will accept a cure for anything if they do not believe they are sick.

The solution is outside of us all and in the hands of God but I have no idea who it is that is going to believe. As such, I would share w/ someone the illness, the medicine, and encourage them to ask God to reveal Himself to them in the cure that is Christ. One thing I cannot tell them is that they are "stuck" in their unbeleif because I do not know that.

As to tying all things together, I am not certain what you mean by that. Obviously I cannot speak for Greg, but I think he does a great job of covering most issues.

BTW, I don't really consider myself "reformed," although after reading my post it sure looks that way!!

[Prince]

I agree Mike... "Northness"??? I don't get it...

[Jim T.]

David, thanks for the discussion.

David >> The unbeliever rejects the medicine outright according to his own desire; it's not that the unbeliever accepts the medicine and it fails to metabolize and cure him.

Yes, you are quite right! I should have seen that; I took the analogy in the wrong direction. The unbeliever doesn't believe in either the diagnosis or the suggested cure. To him, it's all quackery and pretend, full of placebos and self-delusion.

David >> The unbeliever is not stuck, he is choosing exactly what it is he desires.

He's stuck in the sense that he can't believe in the diagnosis, apart from God's grace.

Do not most people desire to know of illnesses and cures? Apart from a few that might prefer blissfull ignorance, it seems quite irrational to avoid correct diagnosises and 100% effective cures.

Is the non-elect unbeliever not unlike an ignorant savage, who is being told by a Western doctor that he has cancer and needs to take pills and shots to perhaps be cured? The savage cannot understand, and is not trusting of the doctor. Apart from the use of force, the savage is stuck in his circumstances and cannot accept the diagnosis or the cure.

But the skeptic sees it the other way around. The believers are the ignorant savages and the preachers are the witch doctors, spreading superstition and ignorance, and entrapping the gullible into their system, and generating new generations who think it's all so normal and sensible.

So we end up with groups of people just calling each other ignorant and deluded and irrational. Ugh...

David >> Obviously I cannot speak for Greg, but I think he does a great job of covering most issues.

Yes he does, but never all at the same time. And the same for many Christian teachers. That's what always perplexes me. It's like an insider secret.

[Neon Genesis Evangelion]

David Blain, that was a spectacular word.

"The unbeliever is not stuck, he is choosing exactly what it is he desires. "

Im very glad you pointed that out.
And if you dont believe that (not you, david), the bare fact that were having this conversation is a testament to it. The deception of the heart is so deep, and so real. This applies to myself, as well, so please dont take that as me sitting atop a mighty horse.

[Kevin Winters]

David Blain,

"The unbeliever rejects the medicine outright according to his own desire; it's not that the unbeliever accepts the medicine and it fails to metabolize and cure him. The unbeliever is not stuck, he is choosing exactly what it is he desires."

But the "unbeliever" cannot "accept" the medicine at all as such is God's gift, God's will and his alone. According to this approach, the unbeliever's lack of desire and not choosing Christ is *completely*, *entirely*, and *in ALL ways* in God's hands. This, I believe, is Jim's point: your language is hedging around the issue that even one's desire and ability to accept salvation is solely God's doing, God's choice, even God's whim, if you want to use the most trivial term available.

[Deathscythe Hell]

Q: "Did time exist before the big bang?"

Did anything in our natural universe exist before the big bang?

[Deathscythe Hell]

"The savage cannot understand, and is not trusting of the doctor."

Not only does the savage not understand, hes constantly drinking uranium and smoking cigarettes, complaining that his body aches, and sharing these toxic chemicals with others.

I get what you are suggesting. I think it would have a little more force if people werent so awful. But let me be clear, I certainly understand what you are saying.

[Deathscythe Hell]

I think the statement "You dont need God to be good", is a bit incriminating. I absolutely agree with it. And because of that, all God would really need to do on the day of judgement is playback your own life to you. We recognize that good exists, and still our moral corruption prevails. We are condemned by our own actions. We know better and still act up, and develop strange arguments and 'lines of reasoning' to excuse our bad behavior in light of preachers shouting at us. And somehow, we've tricked ourselves into thinking we have paved an escape route, and can claim ignorance. Thats just my observation. sorry for ranting.

[Deathscythe Hell]

"your language is hedging around the issue that even one's desire and ability to accept salvation is solely God's doing, God's choice, even God's whim, if you want to use the most trivial term available."

The question in regards to jims point I would ask is assuming this is true in light of "knowing" this, what should you do about it? Continue in evil?
Would it be too much to try and cry out to God? Is that just, out of the question?

[steve dodd]

Why would anyone be so preposterously foolish as to grumble against God that he has given to some people what you do not desire for yourself? If you desire holiness, if you desire righteousness God is ready to give it to you in abundance, but if you hold those things as having no value then why cry out when God gives it to those who do desire them?

[RonH]

Which God?
RonH

[Kevin Winters]

Deathscythe Hell,

Well, given the theological view that we are discussing, my crying out would do absolutely nothing, unless God has willed that I cry out and he regenerates my evil nature. Absolutely nothing soteriological can be gained by my crying out since my salvation is *wholly* in God's hands even to the point where my desire to give my life to God is a gift from God, not something I can in any way, shape, or form generate for myself.

One common definition of neurosis/addiction is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If it is indeed true that my salvation is *wholly* the work of God, then any attempt by me to "cry out to God" in the hopes of gaining salvation is neurotic: it can't by its very nature change the fact that God has chosen to save me or not.

steve dodd,

Perhaps they cry out because it shows God to be rather petty. I am by nature evil, wicked, and spiritually destitute. The only way to overcome this is for God to unilaterally save my soul. But since there is no external criterion by which God can choose to save X over saving Y, since both are *equally* and *fully* worthy of eternal damnation (because God created them fully knowing that he would damn them for eternity, like a father bringing a child into the world knowing that he would cause them immense pain and suffering, except for God this suffering is eternal), then God's choice is in all cases capricious and groundless.

We could add the extra insult that the "desire" to be righteousness is also given us by God and then the all-loving being becomes more like a sadistic monster. I believe it was Charles Hartshorne who said that one mistake traditional Christians make is condemning one man for doing evil but praising God for doing the exact same thing, except on a much bigger scale. He kills his children, causes plagues, starvation, and famine, and brings beings into existence knowing that they will suffer immense pain in hell forever, and even getting people to praise him for doing so. And in the end we cannot blame it on man because only God and God alone can bring people into salvation, can deliver them from pain.

[Johnnie]

Mike Westfall:

If the argument from northness is the argumentation style of the new atheist, is "Sheesh!" the argumentation style of the new Christian?

Isaiah:

"12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

[steve dodd]

" I am by nature evil, wicked, and spiritually destitute..."

Do you believe this to be true about yourself? Jesus said he came to save sinners, and calls all who thirst to come to Him and he will guide them springs of the everlasting waters of life. Are you burdened by your sins, then cast your burden on him and he will give you rest.

Jesus on the cross said "I thirst..." He thirst for you, so you don't have to.

If you really believe of yourself as you said you do, then you know that hope is only found in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

[Deathscythe Hell]

Kevin,

My question then is, given that line of reasoning, how is it possible that anyone should cry out for God? Does God have to literally, open your mouth, connect the circuits in your brain and force air out of your vocal chords?
By that same reasoning I could sit back in my room, not saying a word to anyone about Jesus (or bothering to live a Chistlike life) because God is going -- all the way down to the perhaps physiological level -- bring you to salvation. I understand what your saying in one sense, but the explanation given by the theological assumption in question doesnt neccessairily account for the method in which God brings about salvation..... and let me word this as best I can.. If one should cry out to God, confess him as Lord, the rest of your life should be a testament to the fact that God has truly saved you. Evidences of God's grace in your life will be made more clear to you, and so fourth. Right now "your" standing at the gate hypothesizing, in some sense, a sort of 'I dont have a fuzzy sensation of need for Jesus, so ill just wait on it until it comes. If not, ill just Go to hell'. I mean.. At what point does speculation & dialogue cease and something actually happen? If anything that just furthers the point that men really dont want to have anything to do with God, if for the bare fact that this conversation is even happening, and yet in an attempt to be 'logically consistant' we would sit in our disobediance and do nothing. Please, please, dont take this the wrong way, im not pronouncing anything over you.

What I am saying, and if I may use this dialogue as an example, is that despite the conversation at hand and many conversations like this, people dont want to have anything to do with God. People just kinda talk about stuff, dont really beleive the stuff theyre talking about, and go back to thier lives and do thier thing. If we are being consistant, could you sincerely stand before God on the last day -- especially in light of one or more conversations like this -- and say to him, "well, sorry, you didnt elect me." and be let off the hook? Is it possible that God could replay a conversation like this as evidence that you werent interested in the first place? Could he not reveal the utter decption of mans heart?

[Deathscythe Hell]

Let me make a disclaimer too, I am, obviously, not the judge of the universe, and towards the latter end of my post I was being somewhat speculative to make a point, or atleast try to. Just to be clear.

[David Blain]

Hey Kevin,

My apologies if you think my language is hedging the issue. I am not trying to use a slight of hand or avoid any issue.

Maybe this statement will make things more clear: God is not the cause or reason for a person's unbelief; however, He is the reason or cause for a person's belief.

I disagree with you when you make the statement that the unbelievers lack of desire is completely, solely and all in the hand of God. This is not true, the lack of desire is completely and wholly in the hand of the unbeliever.

I am sympathetic to the argument that although the unbelief is the result of the desire of the man, how can God still require belief, and punish man for the lack of it, if man lacks the ability to believe?

To this I will have to get back to you. I want to assure you that I am not committed to a certain ideology because the only casualty would be the truth.

[Deathscythe Hell]

Kevin, there are people here that are better at articulating some of my thoughts, lol, I should tell you that I am on the same page as David when he says he is sympathetic to the said argument & the latter half of his post. As am I.

[Kevin Winters]

steve dodd,

No, I actually don't believe that about myself, but it is inherent in the view that is being expressed.

Deathscythe Hell,

If grace is "irresistable", as spoken of in Calvinist thought, then, yes, God does bring about our good actions, our desire, and our proclaiming that desire through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Salvation--i.e. escape from our evil and fallen nature--is purely a gift of God. I do not earn it and nothing that I do brings it about. Even proclaiming God's glory is empty without God's unilaterally (and, again, capriciously) choosing to include me among the elect.

You say,

"If one should cry out to God, confess him as Lord, the rest of your life should be a testament to the fact that God has truly saved you. Evidences of God's grace in your life will be made more clear to you, and so fourth."

But there is no causal relation between my "cry[ing] out to God" and his saving me such that by doing the former the latter comes about. If the crying out is to have any efficacy and potency it must be because of God's irresistable gift of grace that absolutely *nothing* in my life merits. And if I'm not saved, if I'm a 'false Christian' or whatever, I can cry out to God all day and all night long and it will have absolutely no effect on God's (apparently arbitrary per the lack of any kind of objective criteria) choice to damn me to hell for eternity.

"If we are being consistant, could you sincerely stand before God on the last day -- especially in light of one or more conversations like this -- and say to him, "well, sorry, you didnt elect me." and be let off the hook? Is it possible that God could replay a conversation like this as evidence that you werent interested in the first place?"

No, if we accept the doctrine of original sin and total depravity (both notions that I personally reject, in case you were wondering), then I wouldn't be "off the hook", though I would continue to question the fact that God did not choose to place me among the elect because his choice is obviously and necessarily arbitrary.

Though I didn't think that you were damning me to hellfire and eternal pain in your comments, I certainly appreciate the extra comment to make sure I wasn't understanding you in that way. If only others were so kind in speaking with someone with whom they disagree theologically.

David,

"I disagree with you when you make the statement that the unbelievers lack of desire is completely, solely and all in the hand of God. This is not true, the lack of desire is completely and wholly in the hand of the unbeliever."

Yes, I would agree, but I don't think you can actually say this and still accept either (1) a Calvinistic understanding of salvation or (2) that salvation is solely the work of God, that nothing that we do can influence it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming a 'works righteousness' view (though no doubt many who read this will think that is the only other available option to the above), but there are some things that are seriously wrong with the above two views, probably the worst of which is that God's decision of who to save is purely, totally, and essentially capricious.

[Brad]

Hi Kevin, Calvinists dont believe that God's eternal decrees are capricious, and earlier you used the word "whim". I know you are much more intelligent than to understand the Reformed doctrines this poorly unless you just are not familiar with the real McCoy.

Jim T, you said: "And unmentioned here by Greg is his view that the solution is totally outside of the unbeliever. Their situation is hopeless. Why not just say to the unbeliever "You are irrational, and you can't even help it. Sorry, but that is your lot in life.""

in the second post. I want to answer you. You dont know [being just a man], what will be this persons lot. You must not deny second causes, your preaching the gospel to everyone has it's intended effect, some will be saved sooner or later, and some will be condemned by the faithful preaching of the Word. It's not your job to wonder who is elect or not.

[Mike Westfall]

> ... is "Sheesh!" the
> argumentation style of the new
> Christian?

It wasn't an argument. Just some mild derision in response to an obvious non-sequiter.

Yeah, I know: a sneer is not an argument. But your non-sequiter comparing the "source of northness" and Santa Claus with the Big Bang and what might have caused it wasn't much of an argument, either.

So... now I'm guilty of tu quoque.

[David Blain]

Kevin,

It is precisely the classical reformed position that mans unbelief is the result of his own volition. I am confused why you argue I cannot make this claim and hold to a "Calvinistic" understanding of salvation; can you please fill me in?

As to the objection that God's choice is arbitrary and capricious, who says it is arbitrary? The main tenet of Reformed theology is that by God's grace man is saved. There is nothing, not 1% of anything, in man that causes God to choose him. That means the choice resides in the eternal wisdom and counsel of the LORD. The apostle Paul tells us that it is according to God's LOVE we taste salvation. If God chooses to display his mercy, grace, and love it is audacious to claim capriciousness on God's part.

[Kevin Winters]

David,

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to state the objective criteria that God uses to chooses to save one man and deny the other. I was simply following the argument to its logical conclusion: given the fact (if we accept a Calvinistic view) that all men are evil and fallen and that all men equally and fully deserve damnation, then there is no distinguishing feature whereby God can decide to save X and eternally damn Y. As such, God's choice must be capricious, given the absolute lack of any determining factors. In fact, you have aptly reiterated this in your second post: God has no reason to save X and eternally damn Y, so we are told to just be thankful that he saves some (an incredibly small and perhaps even insulting comfort, in my mind).

Let's use an example: I am at the market and am trying to find a good pair of shoes. I find a pair that is to my liking but then I have the conundrum of having to choose the exact same pair of shoes that are in my size and the exact same color in box A or in box B. by all objective criteria they are exactly the same. In fact, let's just assume (for the sake of argument) that they are exactly the same, with every stitch, imperfection, and blot of color in exactly the same location on both shoes. Must not my choice be capricious? Is the mere fact that I chose one and rejected the other a nullification of the capricious nature of my choice? Just because it is a willful choice does not make it any less capricious.

If there is a hole in this line of thinking please point it out to me.

[David Blain]

Hey Kevin, (Sorry for the long post)

I appreciate your point and duly note it. I think you and I are approaching this from different angles and I will do my best to clearly state my understanding of it.

You are right when you say that there is nothing in man that causes God to choose him. I truly believe this is what the Bible teaches. The point in saying that is to say the choice resides in God Himself and, although we don't have the "objective criteria" by which God makes such decisions, we can say that God has a reason for His decision. If God has a reason for His decision then His decision cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

I think you make a error in your reasoning when you conclude that since the reason for God's choice does not reside in man then God's choice MUST BE arbitrary or capricious. I think this is too strong of a statement. Since God's choice of sinners resides in Himself and we are not told of the reason for His choice, we must conclude that we do not know the exact reason. But it does not follow that God NECESSARILY is capricious. I grant that capriciousness MAY BE a conclusion, but I think it would be the wrong conclusion.

I do not accept the conclusion you offer because Paul tells us in Ephesians 1 that people are saved according to the good pleasure of the will of God. He also tells us in Romans (I think its Romans) that God's will is complete and perfect. If people are saved by the good pleasure of God's complete and perfect will I cannot conclude that God is capricious. At the same time I cannot give you a response to the objective criteria you are looking for but I can say that if God makes a choice according to His own perfect and good will then there is nothing in man that could challenge God's decision. It's like the clay demanding the potter for a reason for everything the potter is to do with the clay, as if the clay may then give permission for the potter to go ahead and do it. This places sovereignty on the wrong side of the equation.

If I may ask you a question or two I would appreciate the response.

How do you understand salvation? You previously had stated that you do not believe in a "works righteousness" view of salvation, but do you believe there is something in man that either causes God to choose him or man to choose God? Why are some saved and not all if all have the same ability? (I know it is difficult to discern intent over the internet, but these are sincere questions)

[Kevin W]

Makes me think about children brought up in households where the parents have tremendous hostility towards the belief in God. Of course, the child grows up wanting parental approval.

[David]

Kevin,

You lost me. I have no idea what your last post was supposed to communicate to me.

[Kevin W]

Kevin W and Kevin Winters are two different people. Sorry.

[Chris]

is this really consistent with calvinism?

[David]

Hahaha, my bad.

[Brad]

Hi Kevin W, your question is great in that it points out that no one is as free as some people will want to assert that men are. The bible says we are slaves to sin, telling lies from the womb, hating God to the core. We all came from parents that pitched in DNA, that *determined* many things right from the start, and then you add the first years of life, to that and you'll not have to imagine too much to see that this foundation sets a path. I think life is about discovery, not choosing as it regards to who we are[meant to be]. As far as the implications of your direct question, I cant help think of how flippantly we who are bathed in a culture where the Bible is abundant, take this fact for granted-even more so in a household of believers. Some do not have this.

1Cr 15:31 I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 1Cr 15:32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE. 1Cr 15:33 Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." 1Cr 15:34 Become sober-minded as you ought, AND STOP SINNING; FOR SOME HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. I SPEAK THIS TO YOUR SHAME."

[Brad]

Hi Kevin Winters, your scenario is invalid since your premise that all sinners are equal is not biblical. Here's the NASB version of Eph 1 regarding this:
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and {who are} faithful in Christ Jesus: Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Eph 1:3 Blessed {be} the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly {places} in Christ, Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Couple that with this:
Rom 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" Rom 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Rom 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Rom 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? Rom 9:23 And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, Rom 9:24 {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

This is a picture of a plan being carried out, not out of random, unreliable, chance, whimsical, or even capriciousness. The Reformed doctrines are in no way leaving God's eternal decrees open to anything less than a perfect expression of God's good nature. He has demonstrated Himself to be nothing close to capricious although we do not see the depth of His council and often times miss His wisdom and rebel against it.

[Kevin Winters]

Brad,

Sorry for the delay in responding and I think this discussion is ended, so I'll make this really short.

While you read these scriptures and think that they demonstrate that God's choice is not arbitrary, I believe that if you look at the assumption of irresistable and sole divinely imposed grace then 'arbitrary' is the only term that can be used. I just don't see how the scriptures you give demonstrate anything other than the fact that the Calvinistic assumption of how salvation works is just plain wrong. The two assumptions of complete depravity and irresistable grace can't point to any other view.

You probably still disagree and will continue to put your trust in the historical Christian tradition that you have inherited, but I still doubt the coherence of the view itself.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. :o)