One horrendous doctrine

[Daniels]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+John+2%3A2) at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295 (http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295)

[BlakeRussell]

http://www.pacifichighlander.postkiwi.com/images/Can-of-worms.jpg

[BlakeRussell]

On a more serious note, there is one thing that is of utmost importance and it is this. It goes way beyond doctrine. The last sentence in particular is what I'm making most of my reference to.

"Two young Moravians heard of an island in the West Indies where an atheist British owner had 2000 to 3000 slaves. And the owner had said, "No preacher, no clergyman, will ever stay on this island. If he's ship wrecked we'll keep him in a separate house until he has to leave, but he's never going to talk to any of us about God, I'm through with all that nonsense." Three thousand slaves from the jungles of Africa brought to an island in the Atlantic and there to live and die without hearing of Christ.
Two young Moravians heard about it. They sold themselves to the British planter and used the money they received from their sale, for he paid no more than he would for any slave, to pay their passage out to his island for he wouldn't even transport them. As the ship left its' pier in the river at Hamburg and was going out into the North Sea carried with the tide, the Moravians had come from Herrenhut to see these two lads off, in their early twenties. Never to return again, for this wasn't a four year term, they sold themselves into life time slavery. Simply that as slaves, they could be as Christians where these others were. The families were there weeping, for they knew they would never see them again. And they wondered why they were going and questioned the wisdom of it. As the gap widened and the housings had been cast off and were being curled up there on the pier, and the young boys saw the widening gap, one lad with his arm linked through the arm of his fellow, raised his hand and shouted across the gap the last words that were heard from them, they were these, "MAY THE LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN RECEIVE THE REWARD OF HIS SUFFERING!"
This became the call of Moravian missions. And this is the only reason for being, That the Lamb that was slain may receive the reward of His suffering!"

[Erinwilcox]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+John+2%3A2) at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295 (http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295)

One of the key things that many who dislike and misconstrue doctrines such as predestination and limited atonement miss is the fact that God is sovereign over all things. Sure they're willing to sing about it, talk about how God is in control, but they limit His sovereignty to helping them or others and to working things for their good. However, a proper understanding of God's sovereignty can lead to a better understanding of why Reformed believers believe as they do.

Realizing that God, being completely sovereign over all, is the creator of the universe and is in complete control of His creation is key. If God really created all things, does He then not have power over them? When a potter forms something from clay, can he not do with it as he wills? Does the clay have any say over what it is being formed into? No. In the same way, we need to realize that God is our potter and we are merely the dirt that He forms. He can do with us as He wills. He chose to give me blue eyes, freckles on my nose, dark curly hair, and He chose to make me five feet and four and a quarter inches. If it had been up to me, I probably would have made myself taller, changed my hair into something more manageable, etc. But it wasn't up to me. Now, I know that nobody would dispute that. However, if God so formed me, so chose what to make me, doesn't that give Him the right to do what He wills with me? If God decided that I was to die in my sleep tonight or that my life was to end in a car crash on the way to church tomorrow morning, that is his
prerogative. There is no way that I can tell God to change His mind because that isn't what I want. He is in control. THAT being said, God is a god of love.

Now, in that love, God, before the foundation of the world, knew that man would fall from the state of grace that he was created in and into a state of sin. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Any who sin deserve hell; therefore, without Christ, the entire world would be damned. You would not disagree with that. The Bible also says that there is none righteous, no not one. We are told that all of our "good works" are as filthy rags in the sight of God. “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Now, what is believing in Jesus? If salvation is completely up to man, then would not choosing God be considered a good work? I wouldn't call it sin, so it must be a good work. However, God has told us that there is none righteous, none that does good. So how does man choose God if no man does good? Also, we are taught that man is dead in his trespasses and sins. What does dead mean? If we listened to the Princess Bride theology, there is a state called "mostly dead". . .but the Bible says dead, not mostly dead, not almost dead, DEAD. What is a dead man capable of? Can he smell the flowers? Is he able to eat his favorite dinner? No, he's dead. So how does a dead man call out to God? Often, a portrait of a man drowning in the ocean and reaching up to God is used to demonstrate salvation. Since the Bible says that man is dead and not drowning, I think a better illustration would be a dead man floating in the water with God pulling him out of the water and breathing life into him. Obviously, a dead man can't reach out to God. In His infinite love and mercy, God chose to send Jesus to die. But why would God send His only begotten Son to die for a race of dead men? That is where predestination and God's sovereignty come in. God, before the foundation of the world, in His good pleasure, chose to save some from sin and darkness. Chose to give them eternal life and save them from damnation. Merciful God that would do this. He had created a perfect world with sinless people who scorned Him, sinned, and threw the world into a state of sin. They ruined His creation. God was the Creator. If He had just left man to his sinful and evil ways, would that not have been righteous? Would it have been wrong? It was His creation to do with as He pleased. In His wonderful mercy, He chose to save some out of darkness and to bring them into light. To draw them to Himself and grant them salvation. He didn't have to do that. He could have let us all be damned. And we would have deserved it. But He didn't. Now, though, people, instead of praising Him for His mercy, scorn Him for not saving everyone. He didn't have to save ANYONE. Man, in his sinful, dead state, would not choose God. Man loves his sin. When offered grace, the sinful man laughs in its face. God will not turn away any who come to Him. But who will come? Those whom He draws to Himself in love and mercy. What of those who are not saved? Well, many of them heard the Gospel and refused it, choosing to remain in their sinful, fallen condition instead. Man, a slave to sin (as taught in the Bible), will not choose God. That is why God saves sinners. Again, it is His creation, He didn't have to save anyone. But He has. And praise God for His sovereignty in salvation. Without it, neither you nor I would be saved.

[Beoga]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)


Here I thought the God loves and Christ died for a great multitude that cannot be numbered:
Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and behold, ba great multitude that no one could number, cfrom every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dclothed in white robes, with epalm branches in their hands,

God is free to set His love on whomever He pleases, and God is free to set His wrath on whomever He pleases. It would be foolish enough to think that God's love is more important than His wrath, for God is glorified in the displaying of His wrath just like He is glorified in the displaying of His love. The Potter has the right to do whatever He wants with His clay, and the clay has no right to talk back or question what the Potter has chosen to do.


Many of us take 1 John 2:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+John+2%3A2) at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295 (http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295)

Do you really take at face value the words of 1 John 2:2? What then is your understanding of the word "propitiation?"
What value then does Christ's shed blood has if He died for everyone yet not everyone is saved? Does His shed blood sufficient enough to actually accomplish what Christ set out to do, and that is to save His people from their sins? Or is His shed blood inefficient and need the aid of the willingness of us creatures?
We Reformed folk believe that Christ accomplished what He set out to do. All that the Father has given to Christ will be raised up on the last day. This is because Christ died for those given to Him thus guaranteeing and securing their salvation. We believe that salvation is completely the work of God and is not aided by any works done by us. Christ's blood was sufficient for all, but it was only efficient for those it was spilled for.

[heymikey80]

Given that you have over 5000 posts, have you reflected on the additional constraints of posting to this particular discussion?

The Synod of Dordt, essentially the constitution of Reformed Theology, denies that God "foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them)." So your shot fires at another.

If John Piper made such a statement (and context is often quite significant) he's wrong. I've never seen Calvin say such a thing, though I can certainly come up with statements close enough to make anti-Calvinists think he did. Produce the citations from Calvin, and if you can from Piper.

But either way, you are posting a complaint about hypercalvinism from a viewpoint I'm pretty sure isn't Calvinistic. So please remain irenic and inquiring in this discussion, because a couple of mistakes have already been made.
Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

--that the teaching of the Reformed churches on predestination and on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance;
--that this teaching makes God the author of sin, unjust, a tyrant, and a hypocrite; and is nothing but a refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism;
--that this teaching makes people carnally self-assured, since it persuades them that nothing endangers the salvation of the chosen, no matter how they live, so that they may commit the most outrageous crimes with self-assurance; and that on the other hand nothing is of use to the reprobate for salvation even if they have truly performed all the works of the saints;
--that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers' breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.

[Paleoconservatarian]

Good point, mikey... I think we ought to require that anyone who wants to come on here and criticize Calvinism (especially outside of the Debate with a Calvinist (http://www.christianforums.com/f789-debate-with-a-calvinist.html) or Ask a Calvinist (http://www.christianforums.com/f493-ask-a-calvinist.html) subforums) must first have read at least the Canons of Dordt (http://reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html). It doesn't take long.

[GrinningDwarf]

This thread need to be moved to 'Debate a Calvinist' or 'Ask a Calvinist'. (Although the tone of the OP would suggest 'Debate' would be a better fit.)

[bradfordl]

One horrendous doctrine A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you to carry out His will, and anything you could offer is corrupted filth. He will save for Himself the exact number He determined before creation to glorify Himself in mercy, and He will send to hell the exact number He determined at the same time to glorify Himself in justice. Your bleating that any of that is "unfair" only exposes the arrogant opinion you have of yourself. You deserve nothing from God but the flames of eternal hell, and you have deserved that from the moment you were born.

[heymikey80]

OP was crossposted by the originator. (http://www.christianforums.com/t5793622-one-horrendous-doctrine.html)

[arunma]

Sorry brother Daniels, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. The Bible very clearly teaches Reformed doctrine, and I don't see how it could be read otherwise. I'd be happy to discuss specific Scriptures with you if you like.

Regarding John Piper: back in college I attended his church. Even today I continue to listen to his sermons and read his books (in fact I plan to move back to Minneapolis and return to his church when I finish my PhD). So I'm quite familiar with the man. If you'd like to discuss specifics on John Piper's teaching, I'd also be happy to do so.

[JimfromOhio]

I am finding him everywhere :(

[Daniels]

Thank you so much for all your sincere views.

[cygnusx1]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you .........



:D but what's the tune brad ?

[calmcoolandelected]

:D but what's the tune brad ?


The Farmer in the Dell....do you guys have that one over there or am I going to have to post a mp3 of me singing it???:eek: It'll make you :cry:

CC&E

[BBAS 64]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+John+2%3A2) at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295 (http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295)

Good Day, Daniels

I have moved your thread to this debate fourm....

So, then let's debate :P


In the OP you said:

but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world

Please provide the source for such a broad statment for each of these people to paint with your assertion.

Do you deny the word "world" is used in scripture to mean "people from every tribe and nation" ?

Yet another, You said:

God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture

Please provide a source for this also.

In Him,

Bill

[cygnusx1]

The Farmer in the Dell....do you guys have that one over there or am I going to have to post a mp3 of me singing it???:eek: It'll make you :cry:

CC&E

:D sounds like olde mcdonalds had a farm ^_^

[cygnusx1]

man loves to be the center of things , man will welcome a God who is love and nothing more . Man will tolerate a God who loves everyone exactly the same , leaving all at men's hands to determine their own destinies by their own will and works , to leave much room for boasting and grandstanding . this they can agree to .

but man controls very little , whatever his boast.

"Nae man can tether time nor tide." Bunyan

IF God loves the world , then it is for the sake of the elect. (see Romans 11;28)

[Elect]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family. The story is that before he created the human family God chose some to enjoy eternal life with him and the rest he consigned to eternal torture. Some of these teachers are bolder than others and without apology they insist that not only did God foreordain the saved to be saved (independent of anything God foresaw in them) he also foreordained the lost to eternal torture (independent of anything he foresaw in them). Others who sense the horror of such a view try to ease the situation by saying that God chose some and "simply passed by" the rest. Hard-line Calvinist, John Piper (rightly in my view), thinks that lacks consistency and follows John Calvin who made no bones about it: he said God created some (including those that die in infancy) for no other reason than to consign them to eternal torture. (He admitted it was a horrible decree but thought if the Bible taught it he should go along with it.)
Many of us take 1 John 2:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+John+2%3A2) at face value and think that Christ died to deal with the sins of the entire human family (even John Calvin believed that) but people like Piper and Sproul, Packer and Feinberg tell us that "the world" really means the elect that are scattered throughout the nations of the world. They limit the love of God to the relatively few he chose.
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295 (http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/weekly2.asp?id_message=295)
I do not believe that it is a horrendous Doctrine. What ever God does is just and we should praise Him for it.

[Iosias]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

:D

[justsurfing]

In my biblical opinion, a clear reading of the scriptures is undeniable in revealing that God is sovereign and holds the destinies of all mankind in His hand. I saw the doctrine of election and reprobation (first head of doctrine - canons of dort, btw, to a person who said the canons of dort does not teach it)... without benefit of reading the canons of dort.

Yes, it's horrific. Yes, it's horrendous. But the scriptures also state that God cannot be charged with wrongdoing and, "who are you, oh man to reply to God?"

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.

Horrific. But biblical (or so I thought)...

That's what happens when a person doesn't study from the original language, I guess. It didn't take me but a weekend to study the original Greek/Hebrew, do another review of the scriptures and see that when God said it, He really meant it... and there is no "exclusion" to the "reprobate":


1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

[heymikey80]

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Then -- in the original Greek -- how might you have missed the obvious point of this passage? Greek doesn't have a word-order distinction in meaning between "in Adam all" and "all in Adam". Clearly the equivalent meaning of this slim prooftext is:For as all in Adam die, so all in Christ will be made alive.
The verse is no comfort in its original Greek to those who are not in Christ.

Oh -- that's right. You've only had a weekend to study Greek. I assume that was on your own? It'd only take a few months of training from someone who knows New Testament Greek.

[UMP]

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.


You make it sound like God will be an unjust judge.
Mans inability is not necessarily a physical problem but a heart problem. In other words, man has all the faculties to worship God, he has the natural ability to call on God but not the moral ability. Even with all the evidence that God exists, so much so that everyone is "without excuse", man refuses to worship God.
As an example, if you showed up to court to go on trial for murder and your defence was "I could not help but kill the man, I hated him with every part of my being. I was born a killer, my parents trained me to be a killer and if given the same opportunity, I could not help but do it again". What would the judge rule? Guilty. The mans problem was not that he could not physically stop from killing this man, the problem was in his heart. When God judges the goats, He will judge righteously. Man is not guilty by design, he is guilty on his own. God does not force man to sin. Man sins, because he wants and loves sin rather than God.

I paraphrase from this:

Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of the sinner's inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner's inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Ahijah could not see;for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not:for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him" for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2 Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8-"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse-"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ.

We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural ability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimaeus, who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were closed "lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted" (Matt. 13:15). But should it be said, "The natural man could come to Christ if he wished to do so," we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the whole matter. The inability of the sinner consists of the want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually perform.
What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner's natural Ability, and his moral and spiritual Inability rests his Responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man's accountability to God; so far from this being the case the very moral inability of the sinner only serves to increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the Scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph's brethren "could not speak peaceably unto him," and why? It was because they "hated" him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, "They cannot cease from sin" (2 Peter 2:14), and why? Because "their eyes were full of adultery," but that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them-it only made their sin the greater.

Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability He in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might pity me but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper and then sought to extenuate myself on the ground of having inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou wicked servant" surely applies here! What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him and who later argued in defense, "I cannot help being a thief, that is my nature"? Surely the reply would be, Then the penitentiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help following the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake of Fire is where such an one must go. Did ever a murderer plead that he hated his victim so much that he could not go near him without slaying him. Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of the one who loves sin so much that he is at "enmity against God"!

The fact of man's responsibility is almost universally acknowledged. It is inherent in man's moral nature. It is not only taught in Scripture but witnessed to by the natural conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. What is implied by this general term "ability" must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an abstract argument.
Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No; I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability.*
Now, in like manner, the sinner while altogether lacking in moral and spiritual ability does, nevertheless, possess natural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable unto God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to believe with as to disbelieve, and it is their failure to love and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an infant is not personally responsible to God, because lacking in natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience
*The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew Fuller.
that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who is able to weigh eternal issues IS a responsible being, and it is because he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to "give an account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:12).

We say again that the above distinction between the natural ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are two men guilty of theft: the first is an idiot, the second perfectly sane but the offspring of criminal parents. No just judge would sentence the former; but every right-minded judge would the latter. Even though the second of these thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from criminal parents that would not excuse him, providing he was a normal rational being. Here then is the ground of human accountability-thepossession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; because he does not use his natural powers for God's glory, constitutes his guilt.
How can it remain consistent with His mercy that God should require the debt of obedience from him that is not able to pay? In addition to what has been said above it should be pointed out that God has not lost His right, even though man has lost his power. The creature's impotence does not cancel his obligation. A drunken servant is a servant still, and it is contrary to all sound reasoning to argue that his master loses his rights through his servant's default. Moreover, it is of first importance that we should ever bear in mind that God contracted with us in Adam, who was our federal head and representative, and in him God gave us a power which we lost through our first parent's fall; but though our power is gone, nevertheless, God may justly demand His due of obedience and of service.

A.W. Pink
http://www.freegrace.net/library/Pink/sovereignty/pink_sov_08.html

[justsurfing]

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.


Then -- in the original Greek -- how might you have missed the obvious point of this passage? Greek doesn't have a word-order distinction in meaning between "in Adam all" and "all in Adam". Clearly the equivalent meaning of this slim prooftext is: For as all in Adam die, so all in Christ will be made alive.
The verse is no comfort in its original Greek to those who are not in Christ.

Oh -- that's right. You've only had a weekend to study Greek. I assume that was on your own? It'd only take a few months of training from someone who knows New Testament Greek.

The weight of evidence was incredible.

God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.

I knew they were 100% powerless to be saved (total inability). 100% powerless to choose to be born.

How could the same God who died on the cross for the sins of all the world... the Savior of all men... who revealed such Perfect Love... just not "care"... that people with no choice but to be sinners... were suffering? Eternally?

Does He have no care for His creation?

It never made true sense... God's character did not align with creating people with the full intention to send them to hell to torture them forever.

All I needed to see was that "eternal" was not really eternal... not in English meaning from the original Greek.... nor was "for ever and ever".

I believe I know Jesus a little too well to fail to believe He is truly the Savior of all men...the moment the smallest crack in the foundation of "eternal torment in hell" was made manifest.

Then, I really saw it. My doctrinal position wasn't founded fully on Jesus Christ... if my foundation was half on hell.

My foundation, as a truly "Jesus Christ alone"... reformed believer... must be wholly on Jesus Christ alone... to be sound.

Hell had to go! Hell is NOT eternal!!! Jesus Christ is... Jesus Christ... alone. And all things are in God in Christ for all eternity. Numerous scriptures say so.

Many, many reasons why once a crack in the foundation of "eternal hell"... showed up... that foundation was shaken.

My foundation is on Jesus Christ alone.

[justsurfing]

[quote=UMP;39108209]You make it sound like God will be an unjust judge.


God will be merciful. God will not be angry forever.... but will turn and have mercy on those undeserving in death as in life.

Mans inability is not necessarily a physical problem but a heart problem.It is a profound spiritual problem. A heart problem, agreed.

In other words, man has all the faculties to worship God, he has the natural ability to call on God but not the moral ability. Having eyes, he sees not. Having ears, he hears not. He cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God with a natural spirit.

Even with all the evidence that God exists, so much so that everyone is "without excuse", man refuses to worship God. Amen.

As an example, if you showed up to court to go on trial for murder and your defence was "I could not help but kill the man, I hated him with every part of my being. I was born a killer, my parents trained me to be a killer and if given the same opportunity, I could not help but do it again". What would the judge rule? Guilty. The mans problem was not that he could not physically stop from killing this man, the problem was in his heart. When God judges the goats, He will judge righteously. Man is not guilty by design, he is guilty on his own. God does not force man to sin. Man sins, because he wants and loves sin rather than God.All very true.

God has bound all men over to disobedience that He may have mercy on all. That we deserve to be judged is not in question. Yet the weight of the cross is greater in declaring God's grace. The horror of God saving some and not all (in the final summation - not just including the 1000 year reign of Christ but beyond that) - is what is objectionable.

Jesus paid the full penalty for all sin. Since Jesus paid the full penalty for all sin... how many sinners were atoned for? If all their sins were atoned for... how can any say that they themselves, as sinners, were not atoned for?

Romans 11:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=32&version=31&context=verse)
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(The same "all" means the same "all" in this scripture... as in the other.... no matter how any tries to "switch around" the words. All in Adam = the same # all in Christ. This scripture is clear that all men in disobedience are the "all" on whom He will have mercy.)

God bless,

js

[UMP]

[quote]

Romans 11:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=32&version=31&context=verse)
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(The same "all" means the same "all" in this scripture... as in the other.... no matter how any tries to "switch around" the words. All in Adam = the same # all in Christ. This scripture is clear that all men in disobedience are the "all" on whom He will have mercy.)

God bless,

js

Universalists may be divided, broadly, into two classes: those who teach the ultimate salvation of every member of Adam’s race, and those who affirm the ultimate salvation of all creatures, including the Devil, the fallen angels, and the demons. The class of passages to which both appeal are verses where the words "all," "all men," "all things," "the world" are to be found. The simplest way to refute their contentions on these passages is to show that such terms are restricted usually modified by what is said in the immediate context.

The issue raised by Universalists narrows itself down to the question of whether "all men" and "all things" are employed, in passages which speak of salvation, in a limited or unlimited sense. Let us, then, point to a number of passages where these general terms occur, but where it is impossible to give them an absolute force or meaning:

"And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5). "And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not" (Luke 3:15). "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all come to Him" (John 3:26). "And early in the morning He came again into the temple," and "all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them" (John 8:2). "For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard (Acts 22:15). "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men" (2 Cor. 3:2).

In none of the above passages has "all," "all men," "all the people" an unlimited scope. In each of those passages these general terms have only a relative meaning. In Scripture "all" is used in two ways: meaning "all without exception" (occurring infrequently), and "all without distinction" (its general significance), that is, all classes and kinds—old and young, men and women, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, and in many in-stances Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations. Very frequently the "all" has reference to all believers, all in Christ.

What we have just said concerning the relative use and restricted meaning of the terms "all" and "all men" applies with equal force to "all things." In Scripture this is another expression which often has a very limited meaning. We give a few examples of this: "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (Rom. 14:2). "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure" (Rom. 14.20). "I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient" (1 Cor. 10:23). "Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things" (Eph. 6:2 1). I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4:13). In each of these passages "all things" has a restricted force.

Another class of passages appealed to by Universalists are verses where "the world" is mentioned. But a careful examination of every passage where this term occurs in the New Testament will show that we are not obliged to understand it as referring to the entire human race, because in a number of instances it means far less. Take the following examples. "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world" (John 6:33). Mark that here it is not a matter of proffering "life" to the world, but of giving "life." Does Christ "give life"—spiritual and eternal life, for that is what is in view—to every member of the human family? "If thou do these things, show Thyself to the world" (John 7.4). Here it is plain that "the world" is an indefinite expression—show Thyself in public, to men in general, is its obvious meaning here. "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how we prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after Him" (John 12:19). Did the Pharisees mean that the entire human race had "gone after" Christ? Surely not. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8). Must this mean that the faith of the Roman saints was known and spoken of by all the race of mankind? Did all men everywhere "speak" of it? Did one man out of every ten thousand in the Roman Empire know anything about it? "The word of the truth of the Gospel, which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5, 6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all men everywhere heard the Gospel? Surely the meaning of this verse is, that the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea and the lost sheep of the house of Israel, had gone forth abroad without restraint, into many places. "And all the world wondered after the beast" (Rev. 13:3). That the reference here cannot be to all men without exception we know from other scriptures.

It will be seen, then, from the passages cited above that there is nothing in the words themselves which compel us to give an unlimited meaning to "all men," "all things," "the world." Therefore when we insist that "the world" which is saved, and the "all men" who are redeemed, are the world of believers and the all men who receive Christ as their personal Saviour, instead of interpreting the Scriptures to suit ourselves we are explaining them in strict harmony with other passages. On the other hand, to give to these terms unlimited scope and to make them mean all without exception is to interpret them in a way which manifestly clashes with the many passages which plainly teach there are those who will be finally lost.

One other remark may be made upon Universalism before turning to our next sub-division, and that is, the very fact that Universalism is so popular with the wicked, is proof irresistible, that it is not the system taught in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." That the natural man does receive the teaching that every one will ultimately be saved, is a sure sign it does not belong to "the things of the Spirit of God." The wicked hate the light, but love the darkness; hence, while they deem as "foolishness" the truth of God and reject it, they esteem as reasonable the Devil’s lies, and greedily devour them.

A.W. Pink

[justsurfing]

Hi UMP, :),

I'm would love to respond in further detail.

One thing I find objectionable is trying to paint with a broadbrush a biblical doctrine saying "the wicked like it".

I hear this same errant objection to salvation wholly by God's grace and unconditional election to the elect.

Critics state, with no biblical basis, that such grace would cause the elect to be very lax towards their salvation... because they would have no fear of hell... believing they were saved wholly by grace... and they have eternal security.

Surely, the critics say, this would lead to wantonness and license!

That is entirely a false conclusion. The grace of God wholly... wholly draws the elect close to the heart of God in filial love.

The response, therefore, of sinners to hearing and knowing of God's grace is not the same response that the redeemed have towards God's grace in relationship with God in Christ... drawn to God's very heart by the firm assurance of His imoveable grace and love towards the elect effectually through the Lord Jesus Christ. Our security in Christ draws us ever truer and nearer and dearer to God's heart in love and much comfort in the Holy Spirit.

That those who are carnal, worldly, and reprobate twist the Word of God to make license for sin is to be expected: they are sinful and carnal and worldly and at enmity towards God.

The effect, however, of the teaching of God's grace to all.. is of precious comfort to the elect in knowing that God's grace is truly without limit and in keeping with the heart of Jesus Christ on the cross.

To know and understand that God's grace in the final judgment is fully released to all is a blessed hope and comfort to God's chosen people who interpret this in the love and grace of God in sure conviction of the Holy Spirit.

The response of sinful men to the gospel of Jesus Christ is no measure of the veracity of the truth of the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ... but rather a measure of the desperate wickedness of their own sinful hearts for which they are accountable to God.

This doctrine of universalism, it's merits and it's fruit, cannot, likewise, be known or evaluated on the basis of how worldly men corrupt the Word to their own advantage in sinful lust and greed.

God's Word stands true... and bears true fruit in those in whom the Spirit dwells and who are convinced by the Spirit of it's truth unchanging.

The doctrine of ultimate reconciliation is testified of, it's fruit and love and grace and comfort, by those born-again Christians who are convinced of it by the Holy Spirit... and it deserves, as all other doctrine, to be studied solely on the basis of it's truthful revelation in the Word of God.

Does it reveal Jesus Christ? Truthfully? Accurately?

My answer: yes. Jesus is the Savior of all men. And that scripture clearly refers to all men whether in the church or in the world.

Blessings,

js

[heymikey80]

The weight of evidence was incredible. God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.

I knew they were 100% powerless to be saved (total inability). 100% powerless to choose to be born.

How could the same God who died on the cross for the sins of all the world... the Savior of all men... who revealed such Perfect Love... just not "care"... that people with no choice but to be sinners... were suffering? Eternally?

Does He have no care for His creation?

It never made true sense... God's character did not align with creating people with the full intention to send them to hell to torture them forever.

All I needed to see was that "eternal" was not really eternal... not in English meaning from the original Greek.... nor was "for ever and ever".

I believe I know Jesus a little too well to fail to believe He is truly the Savior of all men...the moment the smallest crack in the foundation of "eternal torment in hell" was made manifest.

Then, I really saw it. My doctrinal position wasn't founded fully on Jesus Christ... if my foundation was half on hell.

My foundation, as a truly "Jesus Christ alone"... reformed believer... must be wholly on Jesus Christ alone... to be sound.

Hell had to go! Hell is NOT eternal!!! Jesus Christ is... Jesus Christ... alone. And all things are in God in Christ for all eternity. Numerous scriptures say so.

Many, many reasons why once a crack in the foundation of "eternal hell"... showed up... that foundation was shaken.

My foundation is on Jesus Christ alone.
Mkay. This is not an argument from Greek.

The Second Death is eternal. Sin has to be utterly destroyed and fully atoned. Those who don't rely on Christ Jesus -- they are bound for eternal punishment, where "the fire is not put out."

Eternal life is compared directly with eternal punishment. The connection being made is unmistakable. Of course there are reasons of decorum not to describe the eternality of punishment. But the point is clear. Numerous illustrations in Scripture point to the inaccessibility of eternal life for those who miss it at the time it is offered.

God certainly cares about this creation (the whole thing, not simply humans). But it's not all about us. It's not God putting us on a pedestal, it's God putting His Son on a pedestal as Exhibit A in defense of His people. 'Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.' He 10:28-31

The grace of God doesn't keep Him from condemning supernatural beings to eternal punishment. Why would it keep lesser beings from this punishment?

Tossing eternal punishment when Christ and the Apostles didn't -- it's just sophistry trying to undermine Scripture. To base an entire theology on silence is futile at best. But Scripture's not silent.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Mt 25:46

[kj7gs]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family.

I'll partially agree with this. I'm also incredulous that God would set his love on a fraction of mankind. Especially since ALL have sinned and NOBODY deserves salvation anyway. That He would pay any attention to a creation that lost fellowship with Him from the start, is beyond my understanding.

[pippa]

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.

Horrific. But biblical (or so I thought)...


1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.


i'm so glad i found this forum. these issues have been bothering me for some time. i'm in the process of losing my faith. i havent been to my calvinistic church for 4 weeks now.

anyway, without even going into too complex a debate about free will and predestination, this is a simpler question. even if the person DOES have the free will to choose, and doesnt choose to obey God, for whatever reason, its still not kind and loving of God to have created us in the first place, knowing that the majority would not choose him EVEN IF ITS THEIR OWN CHOICE/FAULT/FOOLISHNESS/WICKEDNESS. he knew this would happen and billions would be eternally tortured and he went ahead and created us anyway. THAT WAS NOT A KIND AND LOVING ACT. how can you say its kind?? will any christian admit God is actually cruel? he says it himself in isaiah 13.9, so i dont think its blasphemy to agree.
pippa

[cygnusx1]

i'm so glad i found this forum. these issues have been bothering me for some time. i'm in the process of losing my faith. i havent been to my calvinistic church for 4 weeks now.

anyway, without even going into too complex a debate about free will and predestination, this is a simpler question. even if the person DOES have the free will to choose, and doesnt choose to obey God, for whatever reason, its still not kind and loving of God to have created us in the first place, knowing that the majority would not choose him EVEN IF ITS THEIR OWN CHOICE/FAULT/FOOLISHNESS/WICKEDNESS. he knew this would happen and billions would be eternally tortured and he went ahead and created us anyway. THAT WAS NOT A KIND AND LOVING ACT. how can you say its kind?? will any christian admit God is actually cruel? he says it himself in isaiah 13.9, so i dont think its blasphemy to agree.
pippa


Hi Pippa :wave:

Keep your chin up , your redemption is coming with Christ .

If all God is is love and nothing more then we couldn't make sense of this world , yet Romans 11 does call on us to take notice of the kindness and severity of God , by which I mean , events described in your post do not as you have said (even under the Arminian accounts) amount to love ...... I look upon these events as coming from the wisdom of God , God permitted man to fall for a good reason .


Don't be down hearted , the Lord will direct your feet sister. :hug:

[pippa]

I'll partially agree with this. I'm also incredulous that God would set his love on a fraction of mankind. Especially since ALL have sinned and NOBODY deserves salvation anyway. That He would pay any attention to a creation that lost fellowship with Him from the start, is beyond my understanding.

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa

[mlqurgw]

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa

pippa; If you would like I would be willing to have a one on one conversation with you by PM on these things. My reason for doing it by PM is not that I have anything to hide but in order that you and I can focus on the subject without others confusing you and me with all sorts of comments. It is difficult to get any real understanding when you have so many who give you conflicting views. I have no particular axe to grind nor do I wish to defend Calvinism. I simply want to help you with your questions. Perhaps we could start with a study of the attributes of God. Normally if I were to do this in a more conventional setting such as Sunday School or a series of sermons I would start with the supremacy and sovereignty of God. But you seem to be having some difficulty with grasping the love and mercy of God. We can start there if you would like. And you are free to post anything I might say to you by PM in a public forum for others to comment on if you wish. I want to help you without having to answer every question that others can come up with. I am not interested in a debate but with doing what I can to help you. PM me if this is something you think you might be interested in.

[justsurfing]

Hi everyone,

I'm back after a brief respite... saying hi to all.

God IS Love!!! Jesus Christ is the express image of God the Father. We've seen all we need to see when we see Jesus on the cross.

Do you think Jesus was on the cross thinking, "Forgive a few of them, Father... and ETERNALLY TORMENT THE REST!!! (Most of them)"

Ummmmm.... that's not Jesus.

That's not God.

God really IS Love. His wrath last for but a moment. But His mercy endureth forever.
Mercy triumphs over judgment. Never think judgment is "the end".

JESUS is the beginning and the end.

God will draw all men to Jesus... and wills for all to be saved... and has power as our Sovereign Creator God... to save all.

Everyone God loves God will save. God IS Love. That should tell us how many are saved.

A few? A fraction? Just some - the smaller percentage? Or all?

Come on, people... it's not that hard to see. See Jesus on the cross. There's your answer.

Merry Christmas all...

for unto is a Child is born... unto us a Son is given... and this shall be GOOD NEWS... to ALL people!!! (not just some... and is it really "good news" to hear God hates people and created them because He really just wanted to so He could torture them forever and ever... in hell... like a bigger dictator/torturer than Stalin/Mussolini/& Hitler all rolled into One??? Come on, people!!!! Think about it. Think about Jesus.... it's SO OBVIOUS!!!! Quit being religious... think about Jesus... and let freedom ring!!! Jesus is God's grace revealed... to all people. Think about Jesus... and be set free of the lies of Satan - like he won and is going to hold most of the world's people in hell for eternity. What superstitious nonsense!!! The truth sets free. Jesus is the truth).

God is not a SUPER-ETERNAL TORMENT IN HELL-GRINCH!!!

Merry Christmas... all.

[AudioArtist]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you to carry out His will, and anything you could offer is corrupted filth. He will save for Himself the exact number He determined before creation to glorify Himself in mercy, and He will send to hell the exact number He determined at the same time to glorify Himself in justice. Your bleating that any of that is "unfair" only exposes the arrogant opinion you have of yourself. You deserve nothing from God but the flames of eternal hell, and you have deserved that from the moment you were born.

How pleasant.

[heymikey80]

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa
But ... doesn't that (1) put your limited wishes above the wishes of an unlimited Creator, Who can see beyond your limits? Doesn't it also (2) place you in the position of wishing to be independent of God and at the same time approved by God? Where might that have led? It might well lead to a creation where nobody is treated as a human being, because everybody is self-sufficient.

With interdependence comes insufficiency.

[UMP]

Hi everyone,

I'm back after a brief respite... saying hi to all.

God IS Love!!! Jesus Christ is the express image of God the Father. We've seen all we need to see when we see Jesus on the cross.

Do you think Jesus was on the cross thinking, "Forgive a few of them, Father... and ETERNALLY TORMENT THE REST!!! (Most of them)"

Ummmmm.... that's not Jesus.

That's not God.

God really IS Love. His wrath last for but a moment. But His mercy endureth forever.
Mercy triumphs over judgment. Never think judgment is "the end".

JESUS is the beginning and the end.

God will draw all men to Jesus... and wills for all to be saved... and has power as our Sovereign Creator God... to save all.

Everyone God loves God will save. God IS Love. That should tell us how many are saved.

A few? A fraction? Just some - the smaller percentage? Or all?

Come on, people... it's not that hard to see. See Jesus on the cross. There's your answer.

Merry Christmas all...

for unto is a Child is born... unto us a Son is given... and this shall be GOOD NEWS... to ALL people!!! (not just some... and is it really "good news" to hear God hates people and created them because He really just wanted to so He could torture them forever and ever... in hell... like a bigger dictator/torturer than Stalin/Mussolini/& Hitler all rolled into One??? Come on, people!!!! Think about it. Think about Jesus.... it's SO OBVIOUS!!!! Quit being religious... think about Jesus... and let freedom ring!!! Jesus is God's grace revealed... to all people. Think about Jesus... and be set free of the lies of Satan - like he won and is going to hold most of the world's people in hell for eternity. What superstitious nonsense!!! The truth sets free. Jesus is the truth).

God is not a SUPER-ETERNAL TORMENT IN HELL-GRINCH!!!

Merry Christmas... all.

If universalism is true, what's to stop me from committing suicide when things get painful, oh and yes, things can and do get VERY painful. Sounds like suicide would become an attractive option for many. After all, no punishment, no problem. Let's just end the misery.
Let's see, daily misery versus eternal bliss. Mmmm which to choose??

[ReformedChapin]

If universalism is true, what's to stop me from committing suicide when things get painful, oh and yes, things can and do get VERY painful. Sounds like suicide would become an attractive option for many. After all, no punishment, no problem. Let's just end the misery.
Let's see, daily misery versus eternal bliss. Mmmm which to choose??
Well nothing in scripture explicitely states that suicides causes someone to lose their salvation or any work for that matter. ;)

[UMP]

Well nothing in scripture explicitely states that suicides causes someone to lose their salvation or any work for that matter. ;)

No elect child of God will lose his salvation, of that I am certain. Will an elect child of God commit suicide? Not sure on that.
Regardless, I'm discussing this with a universalist, not you.;)
I'll take it for granted that you're not condoning suicide on ANY grounds, or at least I hope so.
However, for convenience sake I'll change my wording to "suicide would become a MORE attractive option for many"
No angry God, and certainly no eternal punishment for any reason, at all.
</IMG>

[heymikey80]

The weight of evidence was incredible.

God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.
This is that Jesus who said there are some things that'll never be forgiven, right?

This is that Jesus who said -- minutes away from the Cross -- "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.' For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Lk 23:28-31
The fact is, this is projecting out beyond the character of God into a desire to keep man in convenience and care -- and that above what he deserves by his thoughts, will and actions.

God is indeed willing to shed grace -- but not comprehensively, and not equally. A basic view of this creation says as much -- but so does a basic review of Christ's teaching."... in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."Mt 18:34-35

"But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last." Mt 20:13-16
These observations from Scripture grate against the view of God as a supernatural vending machine, and with good reason. He's not.

I think the knot was untied for me on seeing something drastically different than what you've seen. For me, I've seen God's redemptive activity as a character trait -- He picks a remnant that He delivers, He draws, He acclaims, and He glorifies. Look around: it's not a comprehensive change that He makes. It's a remnant, again & again.

Paul proposed in Romans 9:20ff that this itself has a purpose, and there are clearly possible answers -- but that we don't have the standing to ask Him what that purpose is. And likely there's a redemptive purpose in singling out people for special favor. There's certainly aspects of this isolated favor throughout creation, in the way we treat our young, the way we treat our spouses (itself an illustration of the grace and love of Christ). That's why we constantly encounter a special term for it in human dealings: "grace" or "agapao", or "mercy".

Modern philosophy has only sought to generalize on its principles in the past century, and to me that weakness has produced profound error in many cases with respect to ethics. Some things can't be generalized. This is one.

[rockytrails]

i guess this is the place for debate.
now the reformed love to use their reason so let me put this very reasonble

the calvanist would have us believe the very worst thing about God . that He mainly created "most "people for the very specific purpose of being able to punish them for ever in Hell . in fact he predestined most people to unbelief in Jesus so he could punish them eternaly in hell.


ah what a fine and wonderful God that would be!

[Elderone]

i guess this is the place for debate.
now the reformed love to use their reason so let me put this very reasonble

the calvanist would have us believe the very worst thing about God . that He mainly created "most "people for the very specific purpose of being able to punish them for ever in Hell . in fact he predestined most people to unbelief in Jesus so he could punish them eternaly in hell.


ah what a fine and wonderful God that would be!

You are assuming that we, the created, are able to understand God fully. How egotistical.

He said:

Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Here are some other passages to mull over:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

[BBAS 64]

as you asume you know God predestined people to hell .
but the truth is.

the corupt will of man rejected Gods grace . No where does the bible say God made his grace irrisistable as the calvanist assumes .

scripture says

Matt. 23:27,
"How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would
not."



yes it is a dangerous thing to keep rejecting Gods grace .
God is no one to disrespect and who is able to blame him for
hardening such a rejecting heart .
He will have mercy on who he will have mercy on . He is God

why some saved and not the others?


but the truth is
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.whysome.html


Good Day, Rockytrails

If you are going to quote sripture, please quote it correctly....

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

As to your question consider Luther, as you claim to be one:

Commentary on Romans, All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.

He foreordained who shoukd receive it and who should not.

In Him,

Bill

[rockytrails]

[quote=BBAS 64;42293400]Good Day, Rockytrails

If you are going to quote sripture, please quote it correctly....

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

As to your question consider Luther, as you claim to be one:

Commentary on Romans, All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned.

He foreordained who shoukd receive it and who should not.

In Him,

Bill

[/quote/)

I did not type out the complete verse I did not think i needed to but thanks for your effort.Lutherans often take forgranted that the reader would already know the verse

why not look it up also in the Niv translation . Both the niv and kjv chief translators or editors were reformed protestant not lutheran .


On the luther quote on Romans . Our study bibles contains his quote on romans .
and what you wrote does not agree with either Luther Works 35:365 OR Lw 35:380.
That does not mean that He did not write this quote you gave for romans . But it does mean like the quote our pastors chose it is not his complete work on Romans .
So I can not comment on it . since a lot of people take his quote's out of context.

yet

The complete verse you gave is clear enough that even a calvanist must yield to it . Look and stare and say to himself I must believe what it say's.

You post a comentary by a reformed protestant. why would you need to do that when they weere the translators? Did they really do that Lousy a Job at translating?
I don't think so their translation agrees with our pastor's commentary. Much better than the one you gave.
Look and see complete comentary of the holy bible http://www.kretzmannproject.org/

And Ye would not! if God made his grace irrisisatable that could not be .!!!!! ARE YOU SURE YOUR REFORMED TRANSLATORS TRANSLATED tHE kjv CORRECT???

[BBAS 64]

now dear sir
i am not as stupid as you thi nk

The king James version and the Niv version of the bible are very accurate translation's and can properly be called the word of God .But in them we are not surprised to find verses with a refomed bias. As we know who were the chief translators.

Thats why all our wels pastors must take the biblical languages so they can go back to the biblical language
when we find such Bias in a passage.


Good day, Rockytrails

Good then please note:

(ALT) "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning the ones having been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her own chickens under the wings, and you did not want to!

(ASV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

(Bishops) O Hierusalem, Hierusalem, thou that kyllest the prophetes, and stonest them which are sent vnto thee: Howe often woulde I haue gathered thy chyldren together, euen as the henne gathereth her chickens vnder her wynges, and ye woulde not?

(ESV)"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

(GB) Hierusalem, Hierusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them which are sent to thee, how often would I haue gathered thy children together, as the henne gathereth her chickins vnder her wings, and ye would not!
(GNT)ierousalhm ierousalhm h bapoktenousa tsaapokteinousa touv profhtav kai liqobolousa touv apestalmenouv prov authn posakiv hqelhsa episunagagein ta tekna sou on tropon tsbepisunagei orniv aepisunagei ta nossia aauthv tsbeauthv upo tav pterugav kai ouk hqelhsate
(HCSB)"Jerusalem, Jerusalem! The city who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing!


(KJVA) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

(NASB) "(42) Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who (43) kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, (44) the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

(RSVA) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

(Vulgate) Hierusalem Hierusalem quae occidis prophetas et lapidas eos qui ad te missi sunt quotiens volui congregare filios tuos quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas et noluisti

(YLT) `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will.


.


Would you please seeing you are apealing to the Greek, translate the greek here:


(GNT)ierousalhm ierousalhm h bapoktenousa tsaapokteinousa touv profhtav kai liqobolousa touv apestalmenouv prov authn posakiv hqelhsa episunagagein ta tekna sou on tropon tsbepisunagei orniv aepisunagei ta nossia aauthv tsbeauthv upo tav pterugav kai ouk hqelhsate


If you feel you have a wels pastor's writting who has another plese post it....

Hint (there are none), translate the greek please parse if you like.

In Him,

Bill

[heymikey80]

the corupt will of man rejected Gods grace . No where does the bible say God made his grace irrisistable as the calvanist assumes .
The effectual call as it's called in Calvinism is directly stated in Scripture:
Those he called, he justified. Rom 8:30
Or maybe from what Jesus said
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ... And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. Jn 6:37,39,40,44

[bradfordl]

You post a comentary by a reformed protestant. why would you need to do that when they weere the translators? Did they really do that Lousy a Job at translating?

That reformed protestant was Luther, neighbor.

[BBAS 64]

That reformed protestant was Luther, neighbor.

Good Day, Bradford

Seems our new "Lutheran" buddy missed that....

Seems Rocky also likes to change posts after they have been responed to.

Good Day, Rocky

Rocky are you going to translate the greek?

Not only should never assume, but if you are going to quote scripture please quote the whole verse it is really not that hard, that will stop you from misquoting it, it also means we will not have to correct you of your misuse and misquotes of the Scripture.

We are strict Sola Scriptura types here.

In Him,

Bill

[MeanieCalvinist]

Hello,

I have read most of this thread and have seen the same rhetoric concerning the Decrees of God by those that oppose the Doctrines of Grace in a multitude of forums. It seems as though they believe by using such terminology as "Eternal Torture"(which no Reformer uses), when describing God's Holy justice being poured out upon those who rebel against Him, they will get a charge out of us.

I encourage those who oppose to have enough integrity to understand what it is we really believe when we discuss the Soverneigty of God in election and reprobation. A great place to start would be reading A.W. Pink.(free online).

Here is the link below.

http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/0-index.htm

Now in addressing the topic- at- hand I have not seen a better defense for the Sovereigty of God in the Reprobation of Sinner's than in the 5th chapter of this work published by Pink, published by Baker Publishing, linked below.

http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/chapter05.htm


"Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God" Rom. 11:22.

Please take the time to read A. W. Pink in this 5th Chapter and share your thoughts.

[Reformationist]

i guess this is the place for debate.

This is the place for debate, not the place for insults. Please refrain from such behavior as it does nothing to endear support or patience for your view.

now the reformed love to use their reason so let me put this very reasonble

the calvanist would have us believe the very worst thing about God . that He mainly created "most "people for the very specific purpose of being able to punish them for ever in Hell . in fact he predestined most people to unbelief in Jesus so he could punish them eternaly in hell.


ah what a fine and wonderful God that would be!

Please be so kind as to cite the reformed source you reference which submits a quantifiable estimate of the redeemed or the lost, i.e., "most."

God bless

[ReformedChapin]

This is the place for debate, not the place for insults. Please refrain from such behavior as it does nothing to endear support or patience for your view.



Please be so kind as to cite the reformed source you reference which submits a quantifiable estimate of the redeemed or the lost, i.e., "most."

God bless
I think his deduction is based on his observation of peoples rejections of Christ. Lets face it, even in "christian countries" the level of "true belief" is low.

[thelasttrumpet]

He will save for Himself the exact number He determined before creation to glorify Himself in mercy, and He will send to hell the exact number He determined at the same time to glorify Himself in justice...You deserve nothing from God but the flames of eternal hell, and you have deserved that from the moment you were born.


As a former Calvinist, I agree that some of the doctrines that set calvinism apart from other Christian theologies are indeed horrendous. I am ashamed to think that I ever believed anything resembling what I have quoted above, which is what someone said earlier in this thread. I can't help thinking how offensive such words ought to be to anyone made in the image of God. What could be more God-dishonoring than the thought of the endless misery of any creature bearing his divine image? For all of you John Piper fans, try to reconcile the above quotation with the following words:

"God is MOST GLORIFIED in us when we are MOST SATISFIED in him."

God bless,
Aaron

[Reformationist]

As a former Calvinist, I agree that some of the doctrines that set calvinism apart from other Christian theologies are indeed horrendous. I am ashamed to think that I ever believed anything resembling what I have quoted above, which is what someone said earlier in this thread. I can't help thinking how offensive such words ought to be to anyone made in the image of God. What could be more God-dishonoring than the thought of the endless misery of any creature bearing his divine image? For all of you John Piper fans, try to reconcile the above quotation with the following words:

"God is MOST GLORIFIED in us when we are MOST SATISFIED in him."

God bless,
Aaron

Well Aaron, if you have traded the truth for a lie then it is likely because your esteem for the creation has come to supercede the value you place on God's glory. Don't worry though. There are multitudes of people who, like you, love to view the Gospel as a vindication of their inherent virtue rather than acknowledging that it is, in fact, a revelation of God's mercy towards the undeserving.

Words like "justice" have no meaning in the anthropocentric beliefs of those who reject the doctrines of grace as they don't actually see salvation as the product of God's grace, no matter how much they proclaim it to be so.

Well, at least you have revealed yourself for what you are and in doing so you help equip us in dealing with you in the most fruitful way possible, through prayer.

God bless

[thelasttrumpet]

Well Aaron, if you have traded the truth for a lie then it is likely because your esteem for the creation has come to supercede the value you place on God's glory. Don't worry though. There are multitudes of people who, like you, love to view the Gospel as a vindication of their inherent virtue rather than acknowledging that it is, in fact, a revelation of God's mercy towards the undeserving.

Words like "justice" have no meaning in the anthropocentric beliefs of those who reject the doctrines of grace as they don't actually see salvation as the product of God's grace, no matter how much they proclaim it to be so.

Well, at least you have revealed yourself for what you are and in doing so you help equip us in dealing with you in the most fruitful way possible, through prayer.

God bless


On the contrary, I place a supreme value on God's glory (the "manifold beauty of His perfections" - Piper), and it is because of this that I consider it a God-dishonoring doctrine which says that multitudes of God's image-bearers will never reflect back His glory in being "most satisfied" in Him.

I do not, in fact, believe in the "inherent virtue" of man. I believe that we are nothing apart from our Creator. All the worth and value we posses is derived from God Himself, and thus all glory goes to Him alone. Any worth and value we possess is due soley to the fact that we bear His divine image. He is like the Sun, and we are but the moons that reflect His light. But the fact that you seem to place so little value on the image of God that we bear tells me you place little value on God Himself, no matter how much you may claim otherwise.

You seem to think that "grace" isn't "grace" unless it is shown against the backdrop of post-mortem, endless torment. If you didn't believe God had exposed mankind to this nightmarish fate, you would not even see God's love for you as "grace." But such a punishment is not even revealed in scripture. It's uninspired nonsense; the doctrine simply cannot be substantiated with scripture. So I'm afraid that you are the one not acquainted with God's grace. And as for justice, I believe no more and no less than what the Bible says about it. The fact that you see endless suffering as being a "just punishment" for sin shows how perverted and unscriptural your understanding of true justice is.

I will be praying for you as well, my friend.
Aaron

[GrinningDwarf]

But such a punishment is not even revealed in scripture.

Actually...it is. It's been demonstrated to you again and again, but you insist upon explaining it away.

http://www.graceforums.com/img/smilies/0164.gif (javascript:xBB_Insert_Text(' :deadhorse: ', '');)

[thelasttrumpet]

Actually...it is. It's been demonstrated to you again and again, but you insist upon explaining it away.

How can I "explain away" something that's not even there? Neither "Mikey" nor "Boxmaker" has demonstrated that the Bible teaches endless punishment after death. Every scriptural example they've given of anyone experiencing (or being exposed to) some kind of punishment or loss makes perfect sense as pertaining to this life alone. The continued unjustified assumption has been that the punishment or loss is endless and post-mortem in nature. I've asked again and again that this be proven, and all they do is beg the question (or baselessly assert that I'm simply "explaining it all away").

[GrinningDwarf]

Every scriptural example they've given of anyone experiencing (or being exposed to) some kind of punishment or loss makes perfect sense as pertaining to this life alone.

Only to a universalist. Everyone else understands it the way it was written. As has been demonstrated to you.

[thelasttrumpet]

Only to a universalist. Everyone else understands it the way it was written. As has been demonstrated to you.

If you don't think I understand something "the way it was written," why don't you demonstrate how I've misunderstood it. You're more than welcome to enter the debate.

[GrinningDwarf]

If you don't think I understand something "the way it was written," why don't you demonstrate how I've misunderstood it. You're more than welcome to enter the debate.

Because I've seen several others demonstrate it to you in pretty simple and straightforward terms. You don't get it because you don't want to get it.

[Reformationist]

You don't get it because you don't want to get it.

I'm sure he wants to get it, but not at the cost of his own self-esteem. Most people want to follow God, no matter where the truth of God leads them. It's just that they are reticent to go down any road that forces them to acknowledge their depravity and their helplessness apart from God's transforming grace.

God bless

[Reformationist]

.

[pippa]

it is in the bible. and it is a horrendous doctrine by humane standards. maybe God is not nice according to humane standards. i wonder why he expects us to be nice.

[thelasttrumpet]

I'm sure he wants to get it, but not at the cost of his own self-esteem. Most people want to follow God, no matter where the truth of God leads them. It's just that they are reticent to go down any road that forces them to acknowledge their depravity and their helplessness apart from God's transforming grace.

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

[GrinningDwarf]

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

Well...when it leads you to believe untrue things about Him and what He has told us in His Word...

[thelasttrumpet]

Because I've seen several others demonstrate it to you in pretty simple and straightforward terms. You don't get it because you don't want to get it.


I could say the same of you and those with whom I'm in discussion; maybe it's you who doesn't "get it because you don't want to get it." But such blanket assertions are pointless; they never get us anywhere. I don't know your true motives, and you don't know mine. Only God knows our hearts. Let's keep the discussion centered around what we believe scripture teaches.

[Reformationist]

it is in the bible. and it is a horrendous doctrine by humane standards. maybe God is not nice according to humane standards. i wonder why he expects us to be nice.

If you're truly asking this question, I think it's pertinent to address the issue of "nice" as it is a word that is open to much interpretation. It would seem, and I admit to making an assumption here, that "nice" in this context refers to either "that which is pleasing or agreeable" or "that which is polite or kind." If that is correct, it is important that we not lose sight of some pivotal facts. The implication in both of the previous definitions is relative to you. That is, it is what you find "pleasing or agreeable" or what you find "polite or kind." Additionally, both of these definitions likewise revolve around your perception of propriety, i.e., your contention of what is pleasing/agreeable/polite/kind stems directly from what you feel is appropriate. Part of the problem with analyzing these types of things this way is that many Christians, possibly yourself, start out with preconceived notions that demand that they perceive as unbiblical any view that purports that God's actions do not ultimately have as their goal someone's salvation. This is, of course, rather anthropocentric and easily defeated by a myriad of Scripture. Not to mention that bold pronouncements of "God IS Love" as we've seen in this thread make the grave error of presumption in that they see any action by God that does not have as its intent the salvation of all without exception as unloving, as if God's love demands that He intend to save all without exception. This, like the previous presumption, stems from esteeming the creation rather than the Creator.

The way I try to approach the issue of salvation is by first acknowledging that salvation is, first and foremost, undeserved. When we acknowledge that man, by his sin, has merited only condemnation then we will not fall prey to interpreting other Scripture based on the inaccurate foundation God is being unkind or unfair or impolite or unloving if He doesn't intend to save someone.

So, I would say that the reason God expects us to be "nice" is because He has given us life and the opportunity to serve Him. That we choose to reject His Son does not vindicate us from wrongdoing when we are ungodly. It simply magnifies it.

God bless

[Reformationist]

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

You seem awfully defensive. You needn't be. I make no assumptions about your views. I comment on what I see in what you actually say. Part of where I think you err is that you keep referring to man being in the image of God. Man's ability to reflect the glory of God has been impugned by sin. Also, despite your self-righteous indignation and posturing, you are the one making unsubstantiated presumptions about others' views. I am not aware that I have stated that "endless suffering" was either biblical or a "just punishment." Maybe you were just referring to such claims in a general sense so, if so, maybe you could be more clear about that.

With that said, it seems that, based on your ever so judicious input thus far, you leave us with having to choose between the two options that you define if we wish to continue this discussion. We can either believe that "multitudes of God's image-bearers will never reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him" or "all of God's image-bearers will reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him."

Or was there another option that you feel represents your view?

Two things before I leave it to you: First, I greatly appreciate the prayers as God knows I need all the help I can get. And second, you needn't maintain the facade of mock offense. Like the rest of us, you could never honor God even to the extent that He deserves, much less "too highly" so it is rather arrogant to even submit the possibility of doing so.

God bless

[thelasttrumpet]

You seem awfully defensive. You needn't be. I make no assumptions about your views. I comment on what I see in what you actually say.




I certainly didn’t intend to come off as defensive (especially “awfully” so), and I’m not sure how what I said gave you that impression. I regret that what I said led you to think that I thought highly of myself, and that I read the scriptures through the lens of a man-centered philosophy.




Part of where I think you err is that you keep referring to man being in the image of God. Man's ability to reflect the glory of God has been impugned by sin.




The fact that man in his sinfulness doesn’t reflect the glory of God doesn’t mean he ceases to be a creature made in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, I believe humanity was created to reflect the glory of God, and as long as we remain his image bearers, I believe we can never lose the potential and capacity to do so.

What are your thoughts on this?



Also, despite your self-righteous indignation and posturing, you are the one making unsubstantiated presumptions about others' views. I am not aware that I have stated that "endless suffering" was either biblical or a "just punishment." Maybe you were just referring to such claims in a general sense so, if so, maybe you could be more clear about that.



What leads you to believe that my "indignation" and "posturing" is self-righteous?

As far as my unsubstantiated presumptions, do you not believe that the post-mortem experience of the non-elect will be one of endless suffering? (If not, then we are more in agreement than I thought!)



With that said, it seems that, based on your ever so judicious input thus far, you leave us with having to choose between the two options that you define if we wish to continue this discussion. We can either believe that "multitudes of God's image-bearers will never reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him" or "all of God's image-bearers will reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him."

Or was there another option that you feel represents your view?



My understanding of what scripture teaches about the destiny of mankind is that all who were made sinners in consequence of Adam’s act of disobedience will be made just in consequence of Christ’s act of righteousness (Rom 5:19), that all who die in Adam will be being made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22), to bear the image of the man of heaven, just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (1 Cor 15:48-49), and that God will be “all in all” when all people become subjected to Christ, just as Christ will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

It makes no difference to me whether one believes that multitudes of people made in God’s image will be punished without end, or just a solitary individual; I do not see how anything less than the final salvation of all people can be substantiated from scripture.



Two things before I leave it to you: First, I greatly appreciate the prayers as God knows I need all the help I can get.



I believe God knows that all people need all the help they can get. What would you think and feel if God were to actually give all people all the help that they need? And what is it that you think slams the door on this ever being realized?




And second, you needn't maintain the facade of mock offense. Like the rest of us, you could never honor God even to the extent that He deserves, much less "too highly" so it is rather arrogant to even submit the possibility of doing so.



When I said “think too highly of God” I was thinking along the lines of being captivated by the most exalted sense of God as is possible for us. I believe that some ideas of God are more worthy of our thoughts, and of His true character and nature, than others. What do you think?

[Reformationist]

The fact that man in his sinfulness doesn’t reflect the glory of God doesn’t mean he ceases to be a creature made in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, I believe humanity was created to reflect the glory of God, and as long as we remain his image bearers, I believe we can never lose the potential and capacity to do so.

What are your thoughts on this?

It seems that you just stated that man, being the image bearer of God, can never lose the potential and capacity to reflect the glory of God.

Couple that with the following quote:

My understanding of what scripture teaches about the destiny of mankind is that all who were made sinners in consequence of Adam’s act of disobedience will be made just in consequence of Christ’s act of righteousness (Rom 5:19), that all who die in Adam will be being made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22), to bear the image of the man of heaven, just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (1 Cor 15:48-49), and that God will be “all in all” when all people become subjected to Christ, just as Christ will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

and you have identified you as a universalist. There is manifold biblical evidence that many die in unbelief and will not inherit the blessings of God in salvation. Until these inconsistancies are reconciled, I do not feel it wise to spend much more time debating doctrine with someone who has so gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. You seem to have come to the conclusion that biblical differentiations between those who will experience condemnation and those who will not by the grace of God are mere wasteful lip service to a concept that doesn't actually apply to mankind.

As far as my unsubstantiated presumptions, do you not believe that the post-mortem experience of the non-elect will be one of endless suffering? (If not, then we are more in agreement than I thought!)

First, you clearly started off with the presumption that I do believe that very thing without having ever asked so asking now is rather tardy. Secondly, I do not know the extent or nature of condemnation but I do not presume that my finite capacity for understanding on this issue substantiates the clearly unbiblical presumption that Christ saves all without exception.

I do not see how anything less than the final salvation of all people can be substantiated from scripture.

Taking Scripture in context would prevent you from substantiating such a claim with any part of God's Word.

When I said “think too highly of God” I was thinking along the lines of being captivated by the most exalted sense of God as is possible for us. I believe that some ideas of God are more worthy of our thoughts, and of His true character and nature, than others. What do you think?

Of course I think we should be captivated but, like the rest of us, you suffer from an inconsistant reverence for God and if you were captivated by God for every second of every day you would only be doing what was appropriate. As that is the most you could do, you'd be unable to go beyond that so "too highly" is a term that doesn't apply.

God bless

[thelasttrumpet]

There is manifold biblical evidence that many die in unbelief and will not inherit the blessings of God in salvation.


I agree that there is "manifold evidence" that many die in unbelief. There is also evidence that many do not, and will not, experience the blessings of God in salvation in this life. However, there is not a shred of biblical evidence that these facts exclude them from salvation after they die. Nor is there a shred of biblical evidence that the present distinction between "elect" and "non-elect" continues beyond this mortal life.

Until these inconsistancies are reconciled, I do not feel it wise to spend much more time debating doctrine with someone who has so gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. You seem to have come to the conclusion that biblical differentiations between those who will experience condemnation and those who will not by the grace of God are mere wasteful lip service to a concept that doesn't actually apply to mankind.

With all due respect (again, I used to be a Calvinist myself), I believe it is you who have gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. And regarding condemnation, you will be searching in vain to find a verse in the Bible that extends it beyond this mortal existence.

Also, you never gave me your thoughts on what I said about mankind being God's image-bearers.

Secondly, I do not know the extent or nature of condemnation but I do not presume that my finite capacity for understanding on this issue substantiates the clearly unbiblical presumption that Christ saves all without exception.

So for all you know, the extent or nature of condemnation may or may not be beneficial, and with no endless suffering at all?

Taking Scripture in context would prevent you from substantiating such a claim with any part of God's Word.

What makes you think I haven't taken scripture in context? Please elaborate.

Of course I think we should be captivated but, like the rest of us, you suffer from an inconsistant reverence for God and if you were captivated by God for every second of every day you would only be doing what was appropriate. As that is the most you could do, you'd be unable to go beyond that so "too highly" is a term that doesn't apply.

You must have missed the part where I said, "as is possible for us."

Aaron

[Reformationist]

Aaron, listen, whether you "used to be a Calvinist" is of less importance to me than the fact that you have now abandoned those same biblically sound doctrines in favor of the lie of universalism. If you were truly interested in the truth rather than defending universalism I believe you would likely take advantage of the vast number of resources that adequately debunk the view you hold to be true. Universalism, while possibly having its heart in the right place, makes a mockery of Scripture.

It has been my experience that those who endorse universalism are relatively unwilling to truly consider Scripture which show it to be false.

If I may, what is it that led you to reject reformed theology in the first place?

God bless

[thelasttrumpet]

If I may, what is it that led you to reject reformed theology in the first place?

It was through study of the scriptures - particularly the epistles of Paul - that I believe God led me to ultimately abandon the reformed theology which I had come to embrace during my highschool years. It was not a quick conversion; I was somewhat reluctant to abandon the beliefs that I had become very comfortable with, and secure in.

I should also mention that, prior to my conversion to universalism, I had become more preterist in my eschatalogical views (you can thank R.C. Sproul for that!). I was also influenced by some of NT Wright's work, which further moved me down the path of "partial preterism." I began to realize that most (now I believe all) of the judgments foretold in the Bible that I believed to be yet future, were in fact historical events, and that we were now living in the "age to come" that was to follow Christ's coming in his kingdom. So, my preterist understanding of the NT certainly "paved the way" for my eventual embracing of the doctrine of universal salvation.

As I began to become more and more convinced that the Bible taught that all people would be saved, I spent a good deal of time looking into resources that I believed might show such a view to be erroneous. I read online articles on the subject by reformed authors (such as John Piper, and Matt Slick) and purchased the book, Hell Under Fire, which contains essays from several "orthodox" authors, such as Gregoray K. Beale and J.I Packer. Needless to say, everything that I read merely reinforced what were then becoming the convictions I now hold today.

Hope that helps,
Aaron

[Reformationist]

It was through study of the scriptures - particularly the epistles of Paul - that I believe God led me to ultimately abandon the reformed theology which I had come to embrace during my highschool years. It was not a quick conve