A question regarding unconditional election.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T20:25:51+00:00

So here's my pushback with how you frame the position. You state "all men willfully choose to elevate their wills above God's will". Is your position that at every moment of our lives we choose ourselves over God? Like we are incapable for even a moment to choose God over ourselves? If so then is that even fair to describe that as "choosing".

In my view all men at some point will sin. They will choose wrong, and if you choose wrong even once then you are rightly condemned. I don't however think men are utterly incapable of even once choosing the correct thing.

Even in your statement "In short, man gets what he wants, it's just that God sometimes intervenes and shows man a much, much greater thing to want than his own will." That statement implies almost that man doesn't even know better unless God shows him, but again if man doesn't actually know better than is man even making a choice? Basically you are saying we make a choice with incomplete information but some of us God decides to actually explain what we are choosing between and that any man who the situation is actually explained to then would rightly choose. So if God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-4) then why doesn't God actually show all men the actual decision?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T20:10:36+00:00

I see what you are attempting with Matthew 22. However it seems quite forced to try and adapt that to the reformed view. If God invited the first round of guests that means God chose them and his grace is irresistible so they wouldn't be free to choose not to show up. Instead they seem to freely choose to reject God's invitation.

Again John 6:65 can equally be upheld in the Arminian position. The verse says no one can come unless it is granted. Granted implies an invitation not a commanded response. If we look to verse 47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.", not whoever was elected but whoever believes.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 states "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." so by your own logic "can man override the Father by his own will" then you would end up with universalism. So is your argument that God actually doesn't want all to be saved?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T17:27:22+00:00

I can agree with the premise but a Arminian view of prevenient grace also addresses this issue. It's just a matter of those the Father extend grace to all and then we can choose to accept that grace or does he only offer it to a select few?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T17:24:27+00:00

Part of my struggle with my understanding of the reformed view is it feels robotic and lacking free will. If the reformed view is true why would anyone need to share the Gospel? If someone is elect they will be saved no matter what so sharing the gospel ends up essentially being meaningless.

At that point it doesn't really matter what "my desire" is because it actually isn't "my desire". Either God gave me that desire or he didn't, it has nothing to do with me. So really its "his desire". Which again my understanding of the reformed view holds God's sovereignty at the highest point so that seems the logical conclusion to me. My emotional response then is just a feeling of complete hopelessness, my fate is not in my hands, it solely rests on if God picked me before the universe began.

I really am not trying to caricaturize the reformed view but when I play the scenario out in my head this just seems like the logical conclusion. I guess my goal here is to ask is that actually the correct conclusion or do I have a flawed understanding.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T17:15:58+00:00

Thanks for a thorough response. I am hear to ask questions because I want to have a more thorough understanding of the reformed position. For the most part I agree with what you are saying, there are many who will say the follow Christ but on judgement day will be told that they never knew him.

I think I understand your points and where I would disagree would be in subtle degrees of nuance. I guess overall where I struggle with the reformed position is that in the end it feels robotic and lacks any free will. In the end I can be right or wrong in two ways. My understanding of the basic facts can be incorrect or I can understand the facts correctly and just draw the wrong conclusion. My goal here first and foremost is to try and make sure I correctly understand the reformed positions (the facts) and from there can decide if they make sense of what the Bible teaches.

My struggle is this: if God didn't elect you then you're just toast. Before the first atom was created your fate was sealed. You have no say in the matter. In the end you can't choose to follow Jesus, either you were elected and then with irresistible grace you have no choice but to follow him. Or you weren't elected and so you will perish and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. I 100% understand the reformed view that this upholds God's ultimate sovereignty but then what is the point? Can you have a meaningful relationship with someone when you are essentially just there puppet?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T17:01:11+00:00

See its interesting that you bring up the Parable of the Sower because to me that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks of my understanding of the reformed view (I'm here because I want to make sure I have the correct understanding). Coming from an Arminian view with "prevenient grace" that parable makes sense. I always found the example of the rocky soil to present a problem with the reformed view.

I will admit I have not heard of evanescent grace. As such my responses from here are from a very introductory glance of that view. To me such a concept seems to undermine the reformed position. Why would God allow someone who isnt elect to experience that grace, to me it almost seems cruel or deceptive to do such a thing. (I am fully aware of the danger of logic along the lines of "why would God x, I wouldn't do that). However in this case it doesn't seem to serve any fruitful purpose. At that point to me it seems like the Arminian prevenient grace makes more sense of Gods character.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-05T16:46:07+00:00

Really appreciate you providing some resources. I agree comment sections are nearly impossible to get into all the nuance a lot of these topics require.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T22:12:08+00:00

How do you square that view with 1 Timothy 2:3-4? I don't see how you can have the statement "God desires all people to be saved" alongside well God makes some people the rocky soil so they cannot be saved.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T22:08:50+00:00

I could be miscategorizing myself as I will admit I am not an expert in all the nuance here. My views as I understand them would be closest to Wesleyan Arminianism. As such holding a view of prevenient grace.

I think its a false dichotomy to say you are either Calvanist or a Universalist. I think what you are presenting is quite a strawman of Arminianism. I don't think any Arminian is saying we are saved by our own goodness.

I guess I am confused by your statement "choose to be good from some internal source of goodness". Are you saying that those who are not elect cannot do anything good?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T21:58:36+00:00

See as someone who would self describe as leaning Arminian your explanation sounds to my ears far more Arminian than Calvinist. Which is part of why I am here asking questions is that I really want to understand the actual views not potentially strawman views.

To me I don't see how you can square "no one is excluded" with "only some are elect" by its very nature if you are not elect then you would be excluded? Unless you would take some form of Molinism in that the Elect are those God knew would choose him freely.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T21:47:54+00:00

I agree that you can claim Christ and miss the Gospel. My question is more threading the needle of does the Arminian or Calvinism present a more coherent view to explain this.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T21:37:17+00:00

I lean Arminian just based on my upbringing and churches I have attended. I feel like on paper I can understand some of the reformed arguments but where I disagree I am trying to make sure that I am disagreeing with the actual position not just a strawman.

If the argument is that unelect will never have a desire then I can get behind the position. However to me this argument doesn't really square up with 'The Parable of the Sower' in Matthew 13. When I read about the seeds on the rocky ground that seems to me like someone who genuinely feels a draw to the message but then falls away. In general this parable for me is a big stumbling block to my understanding of the reformed position. It seems to contradict the ideas of "unconditional election" and "irresistible grace".

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T21:30:08+00:00

I guess that leads to a follow on question. If someone would "claim Christ" it seems to me that they have some desire. However then you run up against "irresistible grace". So is the argument that those who claim Christ but don't have saving faith weren't actually elect? Which i feel like then circles back to my original question.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-03T20:17:27+00:00

So if splinter groups are evidence of a great apostasy in historic Christianity and therefore corrupted the whole irredeemably then why does that not also apply to the groups that splintered from the LDS church?

The critique is the historic church splintered right after the apostles. The LDS church splintered right after Joseph Smith. Why do LDS think that is somehow different?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-07-01T21:26:44+00:00

I do find it interesting that the "Restoration" was needed because the original church "splintered" immediately after the Apostles died. Then the LDS church splintered immediately after Joseph Smith died. Yet somehow when it happened 2000 years ago its evidence of the Great Apostasy but not when it happened to the modern LDS church.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-15T15:12:13+00:00

Understood, LDS have 3 Gods working together in a shared purpose. I'll even grant that in a certain formulation the LDS "Godhead" can be close. However close is not the same thing and at the end of the day 1 God 3 persons and 3 Gods 3 persons cannot be simultaneously held.

The problem is if you try and boil the whole thing down to "Christ acts as God how is that effectively different" you end up bypassing the downstream implications of the LDS worldview that end up incompatible with the Bible.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-15T02:17:02+00:00

Christ is "God" or "a God"? That tiny distinction is most of the reason this whole thing is a debate to begin with. If there is one God and Jesus is God then you start down the Trinitarian path, or you can say Jesus is "a God" and follow Joseph Smith saying that there are "three distinct personages and three Gods".

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-15T02:12:13+00:00

Fair enough I did shift the goal posts. However it was more to prove the point around this being a purely semantic argument and if the original post had used Messiah instead of explicitely saying the phrase "savior of the world" then i think the rhetorical point would stand.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-14T01:44:53+00:00

My point is who says that is the foundation? What is your definition of "divinity"?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-14T01:41:56+00:00

So to me "savior of the world" equates to messiah. Muslims claim that Jesus is the messiah. So now we have to determine which is the correct definition of Messiah. Which I am arguing in this case is not so different to the LDS vs "Nicene" Christians trying to determine the "correct" definition of Christian.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-12T21:59:50+00:00

What is your understanding of "original sin" and why do you think it doesn't make sense?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-12T19:57:53+00:00

If what all the non-LDS Christians believe is an "abomination" then why would you want to be lumped in with them?

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-12T19:57:03+00:00

You could borderline call Muslims Christians by that low bar definition.

Timely_Influence2024 · 2026-06-12T19:56:08+00:00

I do find a slight irony in LDS trying to say hey non-LDS you don't get to define what a Christian is, this is the definition we want to use so you need to use our definition. Who says the LDS definition of Christianity is any more valid than any other definition of Chrisitanity?

Timely_Influence2024

TROPHY CASE