Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
hedrick,
I'm a little puzzled as to which theologians you know of who believe that God "takes glee in torturing people."
Could you expand on that for us?
Thanks!
Upvote
0
If God doesn't want anyone in hell...
- Thread starter Skala
- Start date
I'm a little puzzled as to which theologians you know of who believe that God "takes glee in torturing people."
Could you expand on that for us?
Thanks!
Some people think Calvin means that when he talks about people being sent to hell as being for God's glory. I trust that no actual Reformed folk think that.
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
There are certainly some who think to accuse us of that, because the goal is to paint Reformed believers as disingenuous, evil, cruel monsters, to justify their hatred of Reformed Doctrine. No Reformed believer that I know of thinks that God "gets His jollies" out of torturing people. They are not only insulting fellow believers, they are also insulting God by saying such a patently false thing. God is Love, but God is also Justice, He is also Wrath toward Sin, He is also Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Grace, Mercy, and a host of other qualities held in a perfectly balanced totality, such that to emphasize one quality, such as Love, to such an inflated view that none of His other Attributes are even visible, distorts who God is.
Upvote
0
That does not answer the simple questions I pleated with you to address.
The difference between our understanding hinges on the degree of omnipresent God has as it relates to time. I feel time was most likely created by God for man and time is totally relative as far as God goes, so God in His realm does not have a “past” or “future”.
To help me understand your understand please answer the following:
Is God outside of human time: “omnipresent” at all times (past/ present/ future) or is God limited by human time (our past/present/future)?
Experimentally over the last 100 years, science has shown, and not been able to not show, time being relative, so is time totally relative to God?
Does God in His communication with man use anthropomorphic wording to make it easier for humans to understand the message, such as statements about the future really being only man’s future?
If God is omnipresent in time than (from man’s perspective) God is existing at the same time in the past, the future, and present, so from God’s perspective: for God there is no past or future, but just the present?
Upvote
0
As soon as you say “before”, “commit”, “could not know”, “outcome”, “going”, and “become” concerning God we have a huge issue. You are limiting God to our present time only and not having omnipresence in all human times at the same time (time being totally relative to God).
There is nothing that has happened or will ever happen that God does not know from the beginning what did happen in man’s future.
To help me understand you’re understanding please answer the following:
Is God outside of human time: “omnipresent” at all times (past/ present/ future) or is God limited by human time (our past/present/future)?
Experimentally over the last 100 years, science has shown, and not been able to not show, time being relative, so is time totally relative to God?
Does God in His communication with man use anthropomorphic wording to make it easier for humans to understand the message, such as statements about the future really being only man’s future?
If God is omnipresent in time than (from man’s perspective) God is existing at the same time in the past, the future, and present, so from God’s perspective: for God there is no past or future, but just the present?
Upvote
0
EmSw
White Horse Rider
You are correct Bling; all things - past, present, and future are before God. There is no before or after with God. These are only in relation to man's viewpoint.
Correct! Since God knows everything, past, present, and future, predestination (deciding beforehand) has no place within God's omniscience. Everything has already happened before God, and always has.
If God has to predestine things, that is, to decide beforehand, then it shows He doesn't know what will happen, and has to have a plan for it to occur the way He desires.
Since no one has attempted to answer, I will.
He is outside of human time.
Time is totally within man's perspective.
Yes!
If God is omnipresent in time than (from man’s perspective) God is existing at the same time in the past, the future, and present, so from God’s perspective: for God there is no past or future, but just the present?[/QUOTE]
Correct! All things are 'present' with God.
Upvote
0
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
No - God is not outside of anything.
No - God is not limited by human time.
We don't know.
Yes - God does communicate that way with us.
It is an unwarranted leap to say that the future is only man's future.
Time exists in this physical realm where men exist (and anyone else out there in this physical universe exists as well).
Time also exists in the present Heaven where angels and other beings exist and function.
Time will exist in the new Heaven and Heavens and on the new earth as well.
We don't know that. We only know what we are told.
God speaks of His activities before this creation in which we live in time like terms.
God speaks of His activities now in time like terms.
God speaks of His activities in the future in time like terms.
The inhabitants of Heaven (in God's presence) sing - requiring time to do so.
God sings over us, His children - requiring sequential activities to do so.
Worship of God in Heaven is described as including successive actions such as casting crowns before God, falling down in worship, and approaching the throne.
Beings fly around from one place to another in Heaven.
All events in Heaven (in God's presence) occur sequentially, one after another.
The inhabitants of Heaven (in God's presence) rejoice the "moment" a sinner repents.
The saints in Heaven (in God's presence) ask how long until God will judge the earth. They are told to "wait a little longer" - indicating time in God's presence.
God is served "day and night" in His temple.
There was "silence in Heaven for about half an hour."
Bottom line, bling, is that we should not go beyond what is written concerning God and His perception of time.
The important thing for us to know is that, in so far as our world (this creation) goes - events all unfold in time. For that to happen they needed to be not only predestined to do so. Creation needed to be spoken into reality. All things and events in this creation are carried along in time by the indwelling providentially controlling Word of God - just as He intended them to be.
Upvote
0
It comes with the territory if you believe one it comes with alot more then you think other then a pretty election.
If GOD willed man to live sin free" true Calvinist or an elect to go to heaven what do you think he wills for the rest?
they go together!
Luther was the original reformation and he believed GOD gives salvation BUT Calvinism definition and Luther definitions are BLACK and WHITE!
If God is for knowing and sees all that has been, then his permissible will is in play, which is what has been, is allowed by GOD, that is every choice he has given to us to make. now since he is all knowing and sees all that has been it clearly take away free will because he willed it through permissible will/ allowing it to happen and that he know the choice we've already made?
either way we had a choice with Adam and still do today.
Luther on predestination is Gods elect is that ALL men are called.
this belief/theology has no tyrant, no bad guy forcing people to go against their own will,
it is sound and goes gracefully with the entire word of GOD.
"Salvation: They were both monergists, meaning they believed God completely accomplishes our salvation - human choice and deeds play no role. Luther taught the the will was bound until Christians are spiritually regenerated, and thus grace is resistible. Calvin believed that free will was gone permanently because God is completely sovereign, and thus His grace is irresistible. They essentially agreed on predestination, but Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity. Luther taught what is often called single predestination, which essentially means that God predestines people to heaven, but no one is predestined to damnation. Calvin on the other hand taught double predestination, that God predestines people either to heaven or hell."
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...rinal-disagreements-between-luther-and-calvin
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I'm sorry, but I really have a hard time understanding what you're saying. Please, write the way you speak to people, because if what you post is the way you speak, I'm not the only one who has trouble figuring out what you're saying. One thing comes through, though, and that is that you have a hatred for Calvinism, and that hatred is based on falsehoods and misunderstanding. I'm not saying that to accuse, I'm trying to help.
The quote you provided is inaccurate with regard to Calvinism. It's those kind of falsehoods that make it hard to have a conversation, because so many have preconceptions about Reformed theology that they bring to the conversation, and before a real conversation can even take place, the preconceptions, and falsehoods must be dealt with. Things are assumed about what Reformed Believers hold to, that aren't true. That is a stone cold fact.
Upvote
0
i gave you a clear link to everything that was Quoted " said ?, sorry its not my own ASSUMPTIONS.
and it was speaking of John Calvin Not you or your personal beliefs but it is clear some Calvinist today seem to create their own idea of Calvinism?
but now hearing your "issue" it seems today's Calvinist and john Calvin theological difference are obviously the major confusion you have/
sorry for that.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
When we are having a conversation, I don't want to hear quotes from others, i want to know what YOU think, what YOU believe. Otherwise you're just a parrot. I don't like talking to parrots.
You are very confused about Calvin. I am not confused about it at all, so I would appreciate you not accusing me of being confused.
Upvote
0
Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
lori,
I find your thoughts and expressions hard to follow.
Those sentiments have been expressed where ever you have attempted to engage with others.
I and several others in the forum have long ago given up on trying to understand where you are coming from.
I agree with NBF that it is at least clear that you hate Calvinism and that that is your main thrust - in between incoherent ramblings.
We would appreciate it if you would not attempt to engage too much here. It is very distracting to those of us who are attempting to make sense of some very difficult concepts in scripture.
I, for one, intend to not engage with you here because of what I have observed concerning your inability to communicate on other threads - and now here on this thread as well.
It isn't because of any Calvinistic disagreements that we may have that I am saying this. In fact - these kinds of sentiments have been expressed on different threads by non Calvinists and Calvinists alike.
Upvote
0
these thought you find hard to follow btw are something I agree with its not something I made up in the 1400's? if your against Martin Luther then thats OK?
but i most certainly am not personally against john calvin just the theology, which is whats being discussed.
it is clear you are personally against me for what ever reason.?
"Salvation: They were both monergists, meaning they believed God completely accomplishes our salvation - human choice and deeds play no role. Luther taught the the will was bound until Christians are spiritually regenerated, and thus grace is resistible. Calvin believed that free will was gone permanently because God is completely sovereign, and thus His grace is irresistible. They essentially agreed on predestination, but Calvin believed that Christ died only for the elect ("limited atonement"), while Luther believed that Christ died for all humanity. Luther taught what is often called single predestination, which essentially means that God predestines people to heaven, but no one is predestined to damnation. Calvin on the other hand taught double predestination, that God predestines people either to heaven or hell."
http://christianity.stackexchange.c...rinal-disagreements-between-luther-and-calvin
Upvote
0
Ive been reading A LOT about Luther and Calvin and just Love the study very much,
I hope no one feels I've said anything offensive
if so I do apologizes and am only using quotes and scriptual basses not my own assumptions
I hope no one feels I've said anything offensive
if so I do apologizes and am only using quotes and scriptual basses not my own assumptions
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Let me explain something you that will put a different light on things. I deal with RA in my hands, which makes it a challenge to type on a keyboard. I use the edit feature to correct spelling errors, and sometimes to re-word what I write TO MAKE IT MORE EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE, which is something that apparently is beneath you. You seem to think I use the edit function for some underhanded or dishonest purpose. You could not be more wrong. I don't know what your problem is, but your attitude needs some serious adjustment.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I'm fine with that. I learned a long time ago, that respect cannot be demanded, it must be earned. I also learned that if you want friends, you must be friendly. On the other side of that, no one respects a push-over. If you will not stand for what you believe, you will fall for anything. I have been walking with the Lord as a Christian since 1971. I received Christ when I was 19. I am 63 now. I have seen more than you can imagine, with what the Lord has brought me through. The more I learn of God and His Word, the more I realize that I don't know all that much, given the depths of His Word that no one has even seen. I've sat under preachers that could take one vers, and expound on it for 2 hours, digging down, deeper and deeper, and showing things I never knew were there, tying it all with other Scriptures, to show that they weren't making it up.
I have seen miracles. I've seen my wife raised from the dead. I have received healing. I have had words of wisdom, and words of knowledge. When people tell me that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased and are not for today, I laugh, because they don't know what they're talking about. I'm not a Calvinist, per se, but I am closer to their theology than any other, because it is what I find in the Word of God, after years of study, prayer, and walking with Him. So when I see Calvinism misrepresented, as I have in this forum, I cannot remain silent. There is an alarming and disturbing lack of understanding on the part of many here about it. You have made statements about Calvinism that are false, and untrue. But, as with most, correction is rejected and they keep holding on to their false notions.
You're not dealing with a novice here. Don't make the mistake of speaking to me as though I were one. That's all I ask.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I wouldn't disrespect you even if i wanted to and will continue to respect you and your views, you have my word!
thank you for understanding< you do deserve an award for your time and what you've been through but something tells me you'd give all the glory to GOD
Upvote
0
nobdysfool
The original! Accept no substitutes!
- Feb 23, 2003
- 15,018
- 1,006
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
He gets all the glory, I am just an unprofitable servant. I am blessed, not because of who I am, but because of Who He is.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hi Lori.
Actually, Calvin made statements on the atonement that people on "both sides" of the debate can use to buttress their beliefs. For example, sometimes he said things that sounded like limited atonement, other times he said things that sounded like unlimited atonement. Thus people on both sides of the debate often quote his words as ammunition against each other.
This is because of two reasons:
1) the concept of Limited Atonement wasn't really on Calvin's radar. It is a debate that started after he was dead. In fact, Calvin had no clue what "TULIP" was. He didn't invent it. TULIP is the result of the 5 points of debate at the synod of Dordt, which happened after he was dead.
2) Limited Atonement isn't so much about the number of people Jesus died for, but rather, it is about what God intended to accomplish with Christ's death.
If we speak of "intention" rather than "quantity", we get much closer to what "Limited Atonement" is trying to teach.
So what was the intention of the Triune God in the Son's death for people? What was God trying to accomplish?
Limited Atonement says that what God was trying to accomplish was the infallible, guaranteed salvation of the elect.
Unlimited Atonement says that God was trying to accomplish merely making all people savable.
So what does the Bible say?
Everywhere the Bible speaks of the atonement it speaks of actually accomplishing salvation, not merely making it a possibility.
Matthew 1:21. “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Notice, his name is not Jesus "because he will try to save all", or "because he will TRY to save ALL people from ALL OF THEIR sins", but rather, his very name means "He WILL save HIS people from THEIR sins".
John 10:11, 14-16, 26-29. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.... I am the good shepherd, and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.... But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”
Here we read Christ's own statement the following truths:
1) The Father gave Jesus his sheep
2) Jesus dies for the sheep to give them eternal life
3) Not all people are His sheep
4) A person believes because they are his sheep, not vice-versa (notice, the verse does not say "you are not my sheep because you do not beleive", but rather it says the opposite "you do not believe because you are not my sheep"
Thus again we have the Bible's affirmation that Christ's death results in salvation, not merely the potential for salvation.
Gal 3:13. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—"
Notice this verse says that Christ actually redeemed us, not potentially redeemed us or made us merely "redeemable"
John 11:51-52. "He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one"
Here we read that Christ's death will, without fail, "gather the children of God who are scattered abroad". It will not merely 'make it possible for all people to become the children of God". but it is designed specifically for the children of God.
Acts 20:28 “Shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood”
Here we read that Christ purchased the church with his own blood. It does not say that Christ tried to purchase everyone. But he successfully purchased the church.
Eph 5:25 - "love your wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her"
Christ gave himself up for his wife, the church. He did not give himself up for those that do not make up his wife.
(Rev. 5:9).You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation”
Note it says that Christ was slain and actually redeemed us by his blood. Not merely made it a possibility to be redeemed. Also it says that Christ redeemed people "out of" every tribe. It does't say he redeemed all people in each tribe.
Even our beloved John 3:16 speaks about actually securing salvation for believers, not merely making all people savable. It says "he gave his only begotten Son, so that all who believe will not perish". It doesn't say that God sent Christ "to save all people "or "to try to save all people", but rather, to actually save some people - believers.
I could go on and on but these small handful of verses makes my point. You might disagree with Limited Atonement, but please acknowledge that it is about what God was trying to accomplish by Christ's death. These verses speak to that and answer that question.
I ask that if you believe Christ's death was merely to make salvation possible for all men, that you provide bible verses that say such a thing. I don't think a single verse actually says anything even remotely close to that concept.
There are excellent articles and sermons on the doctrine and I would highly recommend them. I think the atonement is the most important doctrine in the Bible.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/limitedatonement.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/limited-atonement.html
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...true&keywordwithin=definite+atonement&x=3&y=9
http://www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com/downloads/Limited_Atonement.mp3
http://www.monergism.com/topics/definite-atonement
Of course there are some verses that raise questions such as 1 John 2:2 and I would love to discuss them with you. Maybe on another thread.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
