This is a very long thread and I have only read as far as page three, but I wanted to respond to Pastor Smarowsky's post, which excellently argues the Calvinistic position. I think he is no longer with the C&MA (nothing bad happened), so if he doesn't answer it isn't because he doesn't have an answer, he may simply no longer monitor this thread. I am not attempting to respond to all of his post, but wanted to point out two things to readers, so I have excerpted.
First:
Those who argue against unconditional election often use verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16. How can we reconcile election with a verse like I Timothy 2:4 that says that God “desires all me to be saved” or John 3:16 that says God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”? The answer lies in correctly understanding the will of God and the love of God. God’s passive will needs to be understood in contrast to His decreed will (those things He foreordains to happen). The passive will of God includes the things He might desire in a sense but does not foreordain or bring to pass. Certainly if God is sovereign and all powerful, as the Bible declares Him to be, then He could bring about the salvation of all men if that was His decreed or pre-determined will. Reconciling this verse and others with the many that teach election is an unconditional choice of God is no more difficult that recognizing that there are things God might desire but does not decree to happen. It could be said that God does not desire men to sin but as part of his predetermined plan He allows them to sin. So while there is a real sense in which God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and desires that all be saved, His pre-determined plan allows for the fact that some will go to hell.
I think I understand the difference between God's decreed will and God's passive will as it is being presented. However, I think that when one takes this view of God's sovereignty with specific application to salvation, without the consideration of free will and indeed to the exclusion of free will, it is logically inconsistent to conclude with a distinction between His decreed will and His passive will as an answer to verses that say God is not willing for any to perish, but that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4).
In logic, it's a simple syllogism. If, apart from God's decreed will, one
cannot come to Christ, and if God has not decreed that certain ones
do come to Christ, then God has effectively decided that those particular ones
shall not come to Christ. So the passive will of God not being fulfilled becomes the direct result of only the decreed will of God being fulfilled. What I am saying is that God
not willing by decree to save them, is the same thing as God
willing by lack of decree not to save them. So, either He doesn't really desire them to be saved (which cannot be true because the scripture doesn't lie about God), or that desire is in conflict with some other desires of His and doesn't fit with His purposes, or it is really not a very important or intense desire on His part, or the Calvinistic explanation is inadequate. I think there is an answer to this conundrum, but I don't think that it lies within the Calvinistic view of unconditional election. Maybe I will find time to explain it later. (I do believe that God is absolutely sovereign, but the issue here is how He chooses to exercise that sovereignty.)
Now, Pastor S actually makes my point in a way when he says that "it could be said that God does not desire men to sin, but as part of His predetermined plan He allows them to sin." God's predetermined plan is His decreed will. So, by His decree, even that which is against His will is decreed to be permitted. The problem here is that if God is decreeing to permit sin, then either He is decreeing that sin will happen, or He is decreeing that free will can be exercised, and sin is the result. (I endorse the latter view.) Enter depravity, being expressed through free will. Otherwise God is actually decreeing the sin to happen, (but I am not sure if I should have a problem with that: Clay, meet Potter!)
Second:
In a similar way, concerning John 3:16 and God’s love, the difference lies in God’s general love for all creation and all humanity versus His specific love for His children, the elect. The difference is that God’s love for His elect is an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him, a picture so often conjured up by those who believe themselves to be in control of their own eternal destiny. In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation.
I would like to make a simple observation here. Again the logic is flawed. This is not an indictment of Pastor S, who by all accounts is an excellent preacher of the Word. It is instead an indictment of systematic theology, which I deeply appreciate. But when arguing systematic theology we tend to get trapped within our systems and end up interpretting scripture or making arguments to fit the system, rather than questioning the complete accuracy of our particular system.
Pastor S's argument is not his alone. It is the argument of a system in its own defense. A distinction is being made between God's love for His elect and His love for humanity in general. I don't doubt that such a distinction exists, although the exact nature of that distinction may not be what the Calvinist thinks it is (or what I think it is for that matter). God's love for His elect is described as "
an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him". Furthermore, the Calvinist says that "In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation."
The problem is, if you want to apply this logic to John 3:16 you cannot logically make the distinction they are making. "For God so loved the world
(presumably the general creation and/or all mankind), that He gave His only begotten Son,
(in context the gift appears to be given because of His love for the world, not just for the elect. What part of this is not 'love that has Him actually doing something about their {the world's} lost condition'?), that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life".
It appears to me, to use the Calvinists' own words, that God's generic love for all humanity was what motivated Him to send His only begotten Son, which we all know is part and parcel of His desire and provision for salvation (in context being provided for the world God loved). The issue isn't that God's love for the elect motivated Him more than His love for the world to provide salvation. In fact, it was love for the world that motivated the sending of Jesus. The distinction is that those who believe are elected unto salvation.
Let's not so complicate simple truth to support our system that we derail the gospel.
There is a quote on my desk: "Preach as unsure you'll ever preach again, and as a dying man to dying men."
I might add, "Preach to everyone hoping they are elected, and pray as if their response is dependent on freewill being influenced by the convicting Holy Spirit."
Grace and Peace to you in Christ Jesus.