In Arminianism/Non-Calvinism, why did Jesus die for hellbound people?

[Skala]

God gave us the freedom to choose to love him. We choose to cooperate with his grace or to reject it.

No one is forced to go to heaven.

You're neglecting your own argument earlier that it is possible for someone to choose to love God even if it is not possible to hate Him (Such as those in heaven)

Thus, not "forced" into heaven, but willingly go.

So why didn't God do it this way?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

You're neglecting your own argument earlier that it is possible for someone to choose to love God even if it is not possible to hate Him (Such as those in heaven)

Thus, not "forced" into heaven, but willingly go.

So why didn't God do it this way?

I don't know.

Why didn't God make apples blue?

 

[Skala]

I don't know.

Why didn't God make apples blue?

I just think you haven't thought about your position (and resulting argument) very deeply.

You say God can do anything

If He wants all people to be saved, He could easily accomplish that, even if it means setting things up so that all people willingly love him (ie, not forced, but willingly)

If God wants all people saved, He could have done this. Heck, he could have prevented the snake from ever talking to Eve. He could have zapped the snake before it came within 50 yards of her.

He is able to prevent sin (according to the Bible), therefore that means He could prevent every single person from sinning. If nobody sins, that means everyone will be saved.

There is millions of way God could get everyone to be saved without interfering with their ability to make choices.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I just think you haven't thought about your position (and resulting argument) very deeply.

You say God can do anything

If He wants all people to be saved, He could easily accomplish that, even if it means setting things up so that all people willingly love him (ie, not forced, but willingly)

If God wants all people saved, He could have done this. Heck, he could have prevented the snake from ever talking to Eve. He could have zapped the snake before it came within 50 yards of her.

He is able to prevent sin (according to the Bible), therefore that means He could prevent every single person from sinning. If nobody sins, that means everyone will be saved.

There is millions of way God could get everyone to be saved without interfering with their ability to make choices.

God wants us to choose to cooperate with his grace.

That's what the bible tells us.

God can do anything that can be done.


Eze 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


1 Tim 2:4
who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.


Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

 

[Skala]

God wants us to choose to cooperate with his grace.

Are you not understanding my argument?

I said God could set it up so that 100% of people "choose to cooperate with his grace"

Why didn't he?

If he wants everyone saved, and we are saved by choosing to cooperate with his grace, God, being God, can make sure that happens.

Yet he doesn't.

Conclusion?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Can you explain how God knowing all things refutes the idea that God got lucky that he was able to display his justice to the angels (because some people just happened to sin and not cooperate with his salvation plan?)

Easily. The notion of God "getting lucky" brings chance into the equation. And God's omniscience removes any concept of chance.

Apparently the concept of omniscience isn't all that well known by some.

Your request for an explanation was stunning.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It doesn't matter, according to your theology. He already knows everything that will happen and cannot interact with creation, otherwise it will throw off what He knows.

Again, your depiction of my theology is off the wall and totally inaccurate.

God most certainly can and does interact with creation. That's how people get saved. They believe His promise, and He saves them.

But, please explain how His omniscience would get "thrown off" by interacting with creation. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Hammster]

Easily. The notion of God "getting lucky" brings chance into the equation. And God's omniscience removes any concept of chance.

Apparently the concept of omniscience isn't all that well known by some.

Your request for an explanation was stunning.

God's sovereignty removes removed the notion of chance, not omniscience.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I really can't understand you FG2. I'm trying hard to, but I just can't.

Yes, I know that. It's very obvious. Sorry I can't help you. I've been very clear.

You aren't being logical.

I am, but you've confessed that you can't understand.

Let's recount our argument one step at a time.

And I'll comment on several at a time.

1) You said God created mankind to display his attributes (mercy and justice) to the angels

2) I responded by saying "Oh, so God created people purposely to go to hell, so he could display his justice?"

Your error was inserting "purposely to go to hell". That is false. He created mankind knowing that many would go there. He didn't create them purposely to go to hell. That was their own choice, by rejecting His free gift. That isn't really that difficult to understand.

3) You said "No, not on purpose"

4) I said, "Oh, so on accident?"

Again, it's your lack of logic here that is the problem. Because of your RT bias, God is the cause of everything, so if people go to hell, it's because God purposed it before hand. Since you reject that man is free and able to accept or reject His free gift of eternal life, you will NOT be able to follow my logic or argument. Your RT keeps getting in the way.

5) You said "no".

6) I asked you to clarify, by asking "Did God design it so that people would go to hell, therefore enabling him to display his justice, or did it just happen that some people went to hell, (ie, He got lucky) and was able to display his justice?

7) You said "Neither"

Because neither of your "choices" are true.

8) I said "If he didn't design it, how is it that He didn't get lucky, either?"

9) You said "Because he is omniscient"[/QUTOE]
It is impossible for God to "get lucky", so your argument is bogus. Because God is omniscient, He can't "get lucky". He always knows what's going to happen.

Illustration: let's say you are omniscient and therefore know that if you went to a casino, you'd win $1M dollars. Were you 'lucky'? No. You knew you'd win. But if you didn't know that you'd win, you could say that you "got lucky".

10) I'm assuming you mean that since God is omniscient, he foreknew that people would go to hell, and was therefore able to display his justice

See. My view isn't so difficult, after all.

My question is, how is that not the same as getting lucky with how the creation turned out, so that He could display his justice?

See my illustration of the casino. That explains it.

But, if you really do not understand the meaning of omniscience, then nothing else I say will make sense to you. Sorry.

Seems to me that Calvinists think that God knows everything (omniscience) because He determined all things from His sovereignty. If that is true, then God really isn't omniscient.

Omniscience isn't knowing what you will do or determine. It's knowing what everyone else will do or determine. See the difference?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are you not understanding my argument?

I said God could set it up so that 100% of people "choose to cooperate with his grace"

Why didn't he?

If he wants everyone saved, and we are saved by choosing to cooperate with his grace, God, being God, can make sure that happens.

Yet he doesn't.

Conclusion?

Free will.

 

[Hammster]

Again, your depiction of my theology is off the wall and totally inaccurate.

God most certainly can and does interact with creation. That's how people get saved. They believe His promise, and He saves them.

But, please explain how His omniscience would get "thrown off" by interacting with creation. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

So it's not just omniscience. That's different, then.

 

[Skala]

So He creates them KNOWING that *IF* he creates them, they will reject him and go to hell.

Thanks for clarifying and saying what I've been saying all along, FG2.

Bottom line: you believe God created people to go to hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So He creates them KNOWING that *IF* he creates them, they will reject him and go to hell.

There is no "if" with God. Aren't you aware of the meaning of omniscience????

Thanks for clarifying and saying what I've been saying all along, FG2.

We've never agreed on much, and not here either.

Bottom line: you believe God created people to go to hell.

Nope. God created people that He knew would go to hell. He didn't create them TO go to hell. That's different.

What you're trying to force as my view is that God created people for hell, which isn't true. But since the meaning of omniscience isn't in your view, there is no way to explain the difference to you.

 

[Hammster]

There is no "if" with God. Aren't you aware of the meaning of omniscience????


We've never agreed on much, and not here either.


Nope. God created people that He knew would go to hell. He didn't create them TO go to hell. That's different.

What you're trying to force as my view is that God created people for hell, which isn't true. But since the meaning of omniscience isn't in your view, there is no way to explain the difference to you.

Could God NOT send people to Hell, if He so desired? Or does He have to?

 

[Hammster]

No, He created some people whe go to hell. No person was created for hell, and you have no support for your view.

You've made a distinction without a difference. You've already admitted that He could have set it up otherwise.

Your opinion. Where is your evidence?

It's an opinion, but an informed one. I think it can be proven from scripture that God is sovereign and could have set it up differently.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've made a distinction without a difference.

Except the distinction shows the difference.

You've already admitted that He could have set it up otherwise.

What's the point to either agree or disagree with a hypothetical? I admit that God can do whatever is consistent with His Nature. I also admit that God cannot do whatever is inconsistent with His Nature.

How does this relate to the discussion?

It's an opinion, but an informed one. I think it can be proven from scripture that God is sovereign and could have set it up differently.

Be my guest, then. Prove your opinion. Please.

 

[Hammster]

Except the distinction shows the difference.

It does not.

What's the point to either agree or disagree with a hypothetical? I admit that God can do whatever is consistent with His Nature. I also admit that God cannot do whatever is inconsistent with His Nature.

How does this relate to the discussion?

Easy. If God could have done other besides sending anyone to hell, and that be consistent with His nature, then He created some people for hell.

Be my guest, then. Prove your opinion. Please.

No need. You've already agreed.

"I admit that God can do whatever is consistent with His Nature. I also admit that God cannot do whatever is inconsistent with His Nature."

 

[Skala]

Where does one get the notion that God isn't obligated? Please defend your premise. I don't believe it.

It's simple. Was God obligated to create those individuals that He knew, if He brought them into existence, would end up in hell?

Yes or no?

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's simple. Was God obligated to create those individuals that He knew, if He brought them into existence, would end up in hell?

Yes or no?

God was not obligated to create either angels or human beings. But He created both. Your question is irrelevant.

The relevant question is whether God is obligated to honor His promises.

Well, is He?

 

[Jack Terrence]

The relevant question is whether God is obligated to honor His promises.

Well, is He?

If the promises were unconditional, then absolutely yes.