1. that's just not so...concepts surrounding some levels of predestination are attributes of Presbyterian and Lutheran churches all across the world. not just in the american south. and i don't know where the Methodist church is on this, but I believe Wesley wrote extensively on the topic as well. 2. reasonable minds disagree on whether or not it "stands up." certainly i don't agree entirely with everything John Calvin ever taught. but i'm not about to say the man was crazy and didn't have an amazing relationship with Christ. seriously...before you say a ton more, you may want to consider reading Calvin on this subject. there are tons of other writers on it too. but this is a concept that has been around in the church for centuries, now. it is adopted and disinherited among certain denominations. the ones that are least likely to adopt it, or entertain it even, in the south are the more conservative churches...John Calvin would not play well in a Southern Baptist church, for example. before we throw out all of our church fathers and their work on theology...which includes concepts like the Trinity...let's examine them first.
Grizzled, I appreciate the portrait of the denominational landscape, but it is a bit wasted on me. I'm quite familiar with it. I also think it isn't correct to say predestination is a fringe view that no main-line Christian church teaches. As Max pointed out for me, there are several that hold to it, as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith or some permutation to it. (Max, a Methodist explained to me that their doctrine falls somewhere between the Reformed and Baptist positions -- that God must first choose you, but then you must also choose God. At least that was how it was explained to me by a Methodist lay-person.) I also wouldn't say the survival of the concept is based on the word of experts. In my own reading of the Bible, predestination (in that god chooses Christians at the beginning of time) seems like the obvious interpretation. Paul says it enough times that I have to think he means it. But, I do attend a PCA church. It's possible that even though they haven't managed to convince me that God exists, they have convinced me of predestination. Just as your position may well be unduly influenced by the denominational environment you find yourself in. It isn't of much real importance in one's salvation -- I'll be going to hell for not believing in God, not for espousing predestination. But, I wasn't asking about predestination anyway. I was asking about free will which you treat as if it were the same as -- or perhaps reverse-coin of -- predestination. I'm not sure I understand your explanation. Your description of free will sounds to me like sin, which doesn't sit well. What I was really getting at is I'm looking for specific Biblical support for the idea that mankind is actually a free agent able to choose the right or wrong thing. The passages discussed so far have more to do with whether God chooses Christians versus men choosing God. Is free will a concept dictated by the Bible or a lens through which you read the Bible? (By the way, I don't know why I thought I saw basso here -- maybe it was someone else I thought was basso or maybe basso mentioned free will in another thread.)
The Myth of Free Will by Walter Chantry Most people say that they believe in "free will." Do you have any idea what that means? I believe that you will find a great deal of superstition on this subject. The will is saluted as the grand power of the human soul which is completely free to direct our lives. But from what is it free? And what is its power? THE MYTH OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM No one denies that man has a will — that is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention. Joseph’s brothers hated him. They sold him to be a slave. But God used their actions to make him a ruler over themselves. They chose their course of action to harm Joseph. But God in His power directed events for Joseph’s good. He said, "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good" (Gen 50:20). And how many of your decisions are miserably thwarted? You may choose to be a millionaire, but God’s providence is likely to prevent it. You may decide to be a scholar, but bad health, an unstable home, or lack of finances may frustrate your will. You choose to go on a vacation, but an automobile accident may send you to the hospital instead. By saying that your will is free, we certainly do not mean that it determines the course of your life. You did not choose the sickness, sorrow, war, and poverty that have spoiled your happiness. You did not choose to have enemies. If man’s will is so potent, why not choose to live on and on? But you must die. The major factors which shape your life cannot thank your will. You did not select your social status, color, intelligence, etc. Any sober reflection on your experience will produce the conclusion, "A man’s heart deviseth his way: but THE LORD DIRECTETH his steps" (Prov 16:9). Rather than extolling the human will, we ought to humbly praise the Lord whose purposes shape our lives. As Jeremiah confessed, "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer 10:23). Yes, you may choose what you want, and you may plan what you will do; but your will is not free to accomplish anything contrary to the purposes of God. Neither have you any power to reach your goals but that which God allows you. The next time you are so enamored with your own will, remember Jesus’ parable about the rich man. The wealthy man said, "This I WILL do: I WILL pull down all my barns, and build greater: and there I WILL bestow all my fruits and my goods. . . But God said unto him. Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee" (Luke 12:18-21). He was free to plan but not free to accomplish; so it is with you. THE MYTH OF ETHICAL FREEDOM But freedom of the will is cited as an important factor in making MORAL decisions. Man’s will is said to be free to choose between good and evil. But again we must ask, from what is it free? And what is man’s will free to choose? The will of man is his power to choose between alternatives. Your will does decide your actions from a number of options. You have the faculty to direct your own thoughts, words, and deeds. Your decisions are not formed by an outside force, but from within yourself. No man is compelled to act contrary to his will, nor forced to say what he does not wish. Your will guides your actions. Yet this does not mean that the power to decide is free from all influence. You make choices based on your understanding, your feelings, your likes and dislikes, and your appetites. In other words, your will is not free from yourself! Your choices are determined by your own basic character. The will is not independent of your nature, but the slave of it. Your choices do not shape your character, but your character guides your choices. The will is quite partial to what you know, feel, love, and desire. You always choose on the basis of your disposition. according to the condition of your heart. It is just for this reason that your will is NOT free to do good. Your will is the servant of your heart, and your heart is evil. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that EVERY imagination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY evil CONTINUALLY" (Gen 6:5). "There is NONE that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom 3:12). No power forces man to sin contrary to his will, but the descendants of Adam are so evil that they always choose the evil. Your decisions are molded by your understanding, and the Bible says of all men, "And their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21). Man can only be righteous when he desires to have fellowship with God, but, "There is NONE that seeketh after God" (Rom 3:11). Your appetites crave sin, and thus you cannot choose God. To choose good is contrary to human nature. If you chose to obey God, it would be the result of external compulsion. But you are free to choose and hence your choice is enslaved to your own evil nature. If fresh meat and tossed salad were placed before a hungry lion, he would choose the flesh This is because his nature dictates the selection It is just so with man. The will of man is free from outside force, but not from the bias of human nature. That bias is against God. Man’s power of decision are free to choose whatever the human heart dictates; therefore there is no possibility of a man choosing to please God without prior work of divine grace. What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true. The human will and the whole of human nature is bent to ONLY evil CONTINUALLY Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots’? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil" (Jer 13:23). It is impossible. It is contrary to nature Thus do men desperately need the supernatural transformation of their natures, else their wills are enslaved to choosing evil. In spite of the great praise that is given to "free will," we have seen that man’s will is not free to choose a course contrary to God’s purposes nor free to act contrary to his own moral nature. Your will does not determine the events of your life nor the circumstances of it. Ethical choices are not formed by a neutral mind but always dictated by your personality makeup. THE MYTH OF SPIRITUAL FREEDOM Nevertheless many assert that the human will makes the ultimate choice of spiritual life or spiritual death. They say that here the will is altogether free to choose eternal life offered in Jesus Christ or to reject it. It is said that God will give a new heart to all who choose by the power of their own free will to receive Jesus Christ. There can be no question that receiving Jesus Christ is an act of the human will. It is often called "faith." But how do men come to willingly receive the Lord? It is usually answered, "Out of the power of their own free will." But how can that be? Jesus is a PROPHET . To receive Him means to believe all that He says. In John 8:41-45 Jesus made it clear that you were born of Satan. This evil father hates the truth and imparted the same bias into your heart by nature. Hence said Jesus, "Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." How does the human will jump out of man to choose to believe what the human mind hates and denies? Further, to receive Jesus means to embrace him as a PRIEST — that is, to employ and depend on him to sue out peace with God by sacrifice and intercession. Paul tells us that the mind with which we were born is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). How can the will escape the influence of human nature which was born with a violent enmity to God? It would be insane for the will to choose peace when every bone and drop of blood cries out for rebellion. Then too, receiving Jesus means to welcome Him as a KING. It means choosing to obey His every command, to confess His right of rule and to worship before His throne. But the human mind, emotions, and desires all cry out, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14). If my whole being hates His truth, hates His rule and hates peace with God, how can my will be responsible for receiving Jesus? How can such a sinner have faith? It is not man’s will but God’s GRACE that must be thanked for giving a sinner a new heart. Unless God changes the heart, creates a new spirit of peace, truthfulness, and submission. man will not choose to receive Jesus Christ and eternal life in Him. A new heart must he given before a man can believe, or else the human will is hopelessly enslaved to evil human nature even in the matter of conversion. Jesus said. "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye MUST be born again" (John 3:7). Unless you are, you will never see His kingdom. Read John 1:12 & 13. It says that those who believe on Jesus have been "born, not of the will of man, but of God." As your will is not responsible for your coming into this world, it is not responsible for the new birth. It is your Creator who must be thanked for your life, and if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation (II Cor 5:17). Who ever chose to be created? When Lazarus rose from the dead, he then could choose to answer the call of Christ, but he could not choose to come to life. So Paul said in Ephesians 2:5, "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] I hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)." Faith is the first act of a will made new by the Holy Spirit. Receiving Christ is an act of man just as breathing is, but God must first give life. No wonder Martin Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of the Will which he considered one of his most important treatises. The will is in the chains of an evil human nature. You who extol the free will as a great force are clinging to a root of pride. Man, as fallen in sin, is utterly helpless and hopeless. The will of man offers no hope. It was the will choosing the forbidden fruit that brought us into misery. The powerful grace of God alone offers deliverance. Cast yourself upon God’s mercy for salvation. Ask for the Spirit of Grace that He may create a new spirit within you. http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=256
Reformed View of Predestination St. Augustine St. Thomas Aquinas Martin Luther John Calvin Jonathan Edwards "We cannot determine truth by counting noses. The great thinkers of the past can be wrong. But it is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin's view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him." —R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God
It’s true that the body of Christ was predetermined. The coming of the Messiah was predetermined. You could even argue that certain people in the Bible were predetermined to play key roles. But this in not what I hear Kate saying. This is very different that the concept that there is only an “elect”, without free will on the matter, who will be justified. I have not heard that anywhere else. It many not be only in the American south. That’s was just my impression based on the fact that seems in keeping with some of the most extreme forms of Christian conservatism that only seem to exist there. It wasn’t meant to be an insult so I’m sorry if it came across that way. Please point out to me other instances of this definition of determinism if you know of them. I don’t think anybody says the word predestination does not occur in the Bible and that it does not mean something. But the concept that all those to be justified are the elect, without free will, is something I have seen nowhere else. Even this Canadian CRC that I found with a quick search does not seem to believe it: You become a Christian when you respond to the teaching of the Bible as outlined above by: 1. Accepting the free gift of salvation offered by Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) 2. Being sorry for your sins and turning from them. (Romans 6 & 8:10-14) 3. Committing yourself to follow Jesus and serve Him as Lord. (Mark 8:34-38), (John 15:14) Respond, accept, be sorry, commit, are all action words. You need to choose to act. http://www.calvincrc.ca/message.htm This “predestination heavy” is very dangerous and damaging stuff, and I have disused. Frankly I’m shocked. I didn’t really know this kind of thing existed. As far as I can see this goes to the very heart of what God is calling us to do, to choose accept the gift he offers to enter into a relationship with him. The Reform position (at least the one Kate is talking about) goes to that very central element and says that you don’t need to do it.! Perhaps worse, it says you can’t do it, so why would you even try? It councils people away from God! It doesn’t get a much more serious that that. You became a Christian as a child. I became one as a young adult. I remember the before, and the after, and the experience. I remember the choice. I remember the brokenness and the acceptance and then being engulfed in the Spirit that was simply unimaginably and indescribably powerful, and fundamentally transforming. I did not come from a Christian family. There was no reason to believe that I might be one of the “elect”. At that time in my life would this kind of teaching have turned me away from making the choice I made? I can’t say for sure, but there is absolutely nothing it could have done to help me. And for me, as clearly stated in the Bible, this is the most important measure. There is no good fruit here, and that is, as the Bible says, a clear indication of where it comes from. Catholics have done things for centuries that Protestants have considered wrong, that we feel are inconsistent with the Bible. I think you have to admit that it is possible that Protestants can also hold to things for centuries that are not of God, that are inconsistent with the Bible. First, I’m not even sure if this is consistent with Calvin’s teachings. It doesn’t even seem to be consistent with other CRCs elsewhere. Second, reasonable minds have reasonable positions. Have you seen a convincing or even reasonable position made for Kate’s version of predestination? If so, please point it out because I haven’t seen it. Indeed that is a central point here. It is not a reasonable position. If you consider the whole Bible to be the inspired word of God and that the Bible must be internally consistent on matters such as this, then it is not a reasonable position. It does not stand up. A reasonable person in a reasonable jury couldn’t come to such a conclusion. It is not reasonable when tested against all we know about the Spirit. I have showed solid evidence in both of these areas. If you disagree, then please feel free to make a case to the contrary. I’ve read the Bible on this. I’ve read other commentaries that have included references beliefs attributed to Calvin. No one here has been able to make a reasonable argument for it. What is reading Calvin going to give me? I trust that you’re not saying I should believe it just because Calvin said it. Protestants have criticised Catholics for years for being Papists, and many of their beliefs that we disagree with have been around for centuries. I trust you’re not holding that up as some kind of proof for this version of predestination. If one puts blind faith in Calvin, how is that any different that putting blind faith in the Pope? I really don’t understand where a position like this could come from, but for me it reads as purely conservative “us and them” type thinking. That is essentially all it is after all. There is no good fruit to it that I can see, and there is no solid foundation for the belief. I can’t see that it would have any place at all in a compassionate church. It has not been a part of any compassionate church I’ve been involved with. Lots of church fathers in both the Protestant and Catholics churches, not to mention those of numerous cults that have claimed to be Christian to know the truth, have warranted being thrown out (see Matt 23 for a Bible reference). The examination of what all teachers and church fathers are saying is what is needed, and such an examination, as you have seen, is what I have done here. I suspect my shock, and I’ll even admit some outrage, have come through in this, and that is not helpful to getting my point across. But if you could put that aside and look at the content of what I have said I would appreciate it. And I’m not catching the significance of your reference to the Trinity. You’ll have to elaborate.
I did, but as it is a diversion with no relevance to the topic at hand I ignored it. .... ok, I’ll respond. As a person who was at one point a non-Christian I can tell you that nothing could be more irrelevant that whether the Holy Spirit has a gender. This will not influence anybody one iota one way or the other. Further, it’s this exact kind of petty mentality that turns people way. It looks absolutely silly, and it is. I think it was Tony Campollo who said that the greatest damage done to Christianity is done by people who profess faith with their mouths and deny it with the way they live. Living a Godly life is about living love. Obsession with insignificant points like that has nothing to do with love, and it has nothing to do with God. You have probably a dozen or so Bible passages to respond to that directly contradict your position. I won’t bother responding to any else you post until you address them.
It was me as I don't think basso has posted in this thread. I believe in free will, thus the reason for my rejection of predestination. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about it (predestination) to have an intelligent discussion about it but Grizzled is doing a great job of discussing the against side. I will say that the article that KB7 posted was scary to read in the least. Every person's heart is filled with evil, huh? Even Mother Teresa's?? Little wonder that so many non-Christians look at us with skepticism. Can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, KB7.
Grizzled, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm attacking or judging you. I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that the Holy Spirit has a gender. The Holy Spirit is not a male or a female. I'm pointing out the truth that the Holy Spirit is a person—God the Holy Spirit. Many non-Christians don't know that the Holy Spirit is a person. I'm claiming that it's important that we refer to The Holy Spirit as we would refer to a person. I'm claiming that we should refer to the Holy Spirit as he and him because our Lord Jesus Christ does.
Note that this is fundamentally different than what Kate is talking about. Note also the dozen or so passages quoted on the last page which say that Christ died for ALL people. Saying that Christ “died for all people” is in clearly conflict with the suggestion that God did not offer some people the choice. Do you agree? You need to be a little more careful with your reading of this thread JV. That God predestined that there would be a Body of Christ is not at issue. That he predestined individual people and only those elect would be justified, is. Again JV, much more careful reading is required. Man is not able to choose right what is right and wrong. That has never been at issue in this thread Again, JV, read the thread … please? The passages relate to whether a person has the choice to accept God’s awesome gift, or whether, as Kate’s position suggests, the Bible is a pointless document and Jesus died for nothing, or perhaps as just a meaningless charade, because everything was predestined from the beginning anyway. I suggest that Kate’s position is plainly untrue. The whole point of the Bible is to encourage people to accept God’s gift and to support them after they have, in part to encourage them to be the “salt and light” of the world to show others the way. This can be seen on the macro level, the micro level, the Spirit level, or just about any other way you can look at it.
Answer me this first. If, as you believe, non-Christians are predestined never to accept Christ anyway, why would it matter to them one way or another?
That’s a pretty straight forward question, but let me break it into two parts to simplify it further. First, do you believe non-Christians are destined never to accept God’s gift of salvation?
Grizzled, A non-Christian reading these words right now might be one of the elect. If he/she is one of the elect, he/she will believe in Christ at some point. I think I know what you meant, though. I think you were asking if I think God predestines the non-elect to damnation. (To non-Christians: I would hate for any of you to be discouraged or worried by my words. If you're worried that you might not be one of the elect, I would encourage you not to be. If you're not one of the elect, you ultimately won't care that you aren't. People who go to hell are not people who wanted to believe in Christ. The elect only believe in Christ because God opens their hearts to the gospel of God's grace. Christians have different views of predestination. I'm confident that the Reformed view is correct, but I'm a sinner and I'm fallible and I could be wrong.) I believe that God predestines the elect to salvation and that he predestines the non-elect to damnation. I believe that God's decree of election is positive and that God's decree of reprobation is negative. I believe that God actively intervenes in the hearts of the elect and that he passes over the non-elect. That's the Reformed view of double predestination. It's called "unequal ultimacy." The Reformed view of double predestination is asymmetrical. There's a view called "equal ultimacy" that I think is wrong. According to the equal ultimacy view, not only does God intervene in the hearts of the elect, but he also works unbelief in the hearts of the reprobrate. The equal ultimacy view is symmetrical. Double Predestination —R. C. Sproul The "Double" of Predestination The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the "double" aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God's sovereignty to reprobation or preterition. The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term "double" has been set in contrast with a notion of "single" predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination. The Reformed View of Predestination In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship. In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us." http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
Excuse me, but for lack of a better word, this is just perverse. You say that God just picked out a few lucky lottery winners and the rest of the unlucky losers are damned to hell. But everyone should rejoice, because he is a God of Love. And then you flippantly "encourage" the "non-elect" not to worry, because you ultimately won't care that you have been predestined to hell for all eternity. Nice.
The Methodist position is different from the Reformed position that Kate has described, yes. It was an aside to address and issue MadMax brought up, which is why I addressed it to him. I wouldn't say that Christ dying for all people is mutually exclusive with choice or the lack of choice. You may not think so, but I've been following along. I'm talking about individuals, not the Church. I'll thank you to be less condescending in the future. If man (as an individual) is not able to choose what is right, how does he become a Christian without Election? That it has not yet been an issue in the thread isn't relevant. I thought I made it clear I was asking a different question. Again, I'll object to the condescension. I'll also object to the pathetic strawman of the Reformed position you've just propped up. I'll say plainly that it is a lazy and disreputable form of argumentation to not even recognize the doctrine your are trying to argue against. On second thought, don't worry about responding to me. I doubt I'll be back in this thread again. It would be nice to see a reasoned discussion on the weaknesses of the Reformed position on predestination. But, you don't seem to understand it well enough to refute it and aren't willing to come to understand it through reading the arguments put forth here. You're taking too much time trying to educate without taking enough to learn about the objections. It feels like ships passing in the night. But, since it looks like Kate's in for the long-haul, I'd encourage you to address Grizzled's idea that predestination means that Christ's death on the cross was meaningless. It may grease the conversation some to explain why that isn't the case.
Moe, I wasn't encouraging the non-elect not to worry. I was encouraging non-Christians not to worry. As I said, I'm a sinner and I'm fallible and I could be wrong. I should also add that I think that a majority of Christians today would tell you that I am wrong. I can understand why you called the concept "perverse." You might think that the Reformed position does not recognize that God is a God of love. You might argue that God would not be a God of love unless he saved everyone. Or you might argue that a God of love would at least give everyone the ability to believe in Christ. Or you might argue that it would be unfair for God to give the ability to believe in Christ only to certain people. I can understand the reasoning and the sentiments behind those arguments. Christians must set aside what they think a loving God's plan to save people should look like and try to understand what the Bible states about God's plan to save people. I believe that God decided to save certain people. He devised a plan to redeem those people. Those people would believe in Christ and be saved. Some people believe that God gives everyone the ability to believe in Christ, and that the believer's act of faith in Christ is not the result of God regenerating that person, but the cause of it. I understand the appeal of that view, but the Bible states that a person controlled by the sinful nature (i.e., an unregenerate person) cannot please God. It's pleasing to God for a person to believe in Christ. Everyone deserves to go to hell. The elect deserve to go to hell. The non-elect deserve to go to hell. That's the punishment for sinning, and everyone has sinned. A member of the elect, though, is justified (declared righteous) by God because Christ bore and paid for his/her sins on the cross, and because—through faith in Christ—Christ's righteousness is imputed to his/her account. A person is justified by faith alone in Christ alone. If God gives everyone the ability to believe in Christ, then what is it that ultimately separates those who go to heaven from those who go to hell? We know that those who believe in Christ go to heaven and that those who don't believe go to hell. But what causes a person to believe in Christ? (One might claim that God causes everyone to believe in Christ. I won't address that argument unless someone raises it, because the Bible teaches that God does not save everyone.) One might claim that, ultimately, the cause of a person's belief in Christ is the person himself/herself. If that's the case, then what is it in a person that causes him/her to believe in Christ? What is it about that person that differentiates him/her from a person who rejects Christ? The Bible teaches that unregenerate people are dead in their transgressions (i.e., spiritually dead). What is it about some people who are dead in their transgressions that causes them to believe in Christ? And if those people believe in Christ while everyone else has the ability to believe and don't, doesn't that imply that there's something superior about those who believe that causes them to believe in Christ? According to the Reformed view, there is nothing in any unregenerate person that makes him/her believe in Christ. The elect are not superior to the non-elect in any way. A person only believes in Christ as a result of God opening his/her heart. A Calvinist (one who believes that the Reformed view is correct) does not wonder why some people believe in Christ and others don't. A Calvinist knows that any pride or arrogance that he/she has regarding his/her faith in Christ is unfounded, because God alone caused him/her to believe in Christ.
I'll just address this part of your longer post. Why does everyone deserve to go to hell? Because we are all sinners? We could have done absolutely nothing to avoid being sinners. We have absolutely no options. We all deserve to be tormented eternally for the simple reason that we were born! No other alternatives. Who did this to us? Who condemned us (except for the lucky lottery winners, according to you) to eternal damnation from the moment of conception? Well, I guess it was the creator. According to you. But he is a God of Love. Why does he hate me? Maybe he doesn't hate me. Maybe he likes me. Why does he hate my son or my daughter or my good friend? I don't believe that he does. I don't believe that all powerful, all knowing, perfect in every way, loving God created Adam and Eve, tempted them, and when they ate a forbidden fruit, called that sin, and condemned an entire race, with some exceptions, to eternal damnation and torment. What I do believe is that the Bible is not infallible. In fact, there are many conflicting passages in the Bible. Grizzled has quoted you verses that are in direct conflict with your predestined view. The Bible cannot be infallible and in conflict at the same time. We know very little for sure from the Bible. People pick and choose what they want to believe and what they want to dismiss. Your view of predestined salvation is very, very depressing. It gives no hope to people who are not elected. I don't know what parts of the Bible are literal and true and which are not. Neither does anyone else, no matter how much they study and read.
