Trying to understand Lutheran election

[Edward65]

There is no meaning being conveyed when one says God does not lie, if God recruiting a lying spirit and sending it on a mission to lie for Him is not God lying. I understand you do not want the Bible to contradict itself. Unfortunately it does and this is an example of it.

So you believe in a lying God who can't be trusted to speak the truth? Surely not! If you regard God as untrustworthy how do you know He isn't lying when He says that believers in Christ will be saved? He could be lying to you about this couldn't he?

Also your understanding of the Micaiah passage isn't correct. God didn't recruit a lying spirit to lie for Him. He actually explained through Micaiah that he'd sent a lying spirit into the king's false prophets, and that the false prophets therefore weren't speaking on His behalf. But God knew of course that the King wouldn't believe this and would believe the lies of the false prophets rather than the words of Micaiah His true prophet. You can't legitimately accuse God of lying.

 

[Edward65]

With regards to the Church I'd just like to say that only those who are individually saved are of course members of it, and that the Church understood as the body of Christ is invisible in that no one can look into another's heart and know for sure whether that person has true faith or not. Also how one defines a true Christian naturally determines who one regards as belonging to the Church. I agree with Luther that only those who believe that salvation is purely a gift received through faith alone (Romans 3 -5 etc.) are true Christians and therefore members of the Christian Church. Faith of course isn't inactive but willingly does good to others, but works are only a product of having already been saved not a means to be saved (Eph. 2:8-10). I also agree with Luther that the teaching of God's Word in the Bible is the sole determining factor with regards to what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine (2 Tim 3:14-17 etc.), and that those who teach contrary to the teaching of the Bible aren't members of the Church and shouldn't be adhered to (Rom 16:17,18).

 

[Edward65]

By the way, I'm very uncomfortable with Calvinist views of election. I believe it is spiritually dangerous and distorts the character of God in the name of being "rational".

I'm not a Calvinist but I do believe in what the Bible teaches on predestination. The fact that God foreknows all events before they happen means that everything is predestined to happen. If we had free will then it would be logically impossible for God to have 100% accurate foreknowledge of the future since free will necessarily entails that decisions are reached freely which means they can't be predicted with any degree of accuracy. The only reason why God is omniscient is because He predestines all events to happen according to His hidden will. Yes through his revealed will He loves everyone through Christ but behind all this everything is predetermined, and only those can come to Christ who the Father grants and draws. (John 6:44,64,65)

God's Word the Bible teaches that God predestines everything that happens:

[9] remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
[10] declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
(Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV)

[3] Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases.
(Psalm 115:3 ESV)

[11] In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
(Ephesians 1:11 ESV)

Also Daniel's visions of the future (Dan 11) shows that the future is predestined to happen.

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm not a Calvinist but I do believe in what the Bible teaches on predestination.

EVERYBODY "believes what the Bible teaches on predestination." Just ask them.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think free will implies that actions cannot be predicted. Free will need not mean that actions are random or without influences or conditions behind them.

I believe God knows all our free choices that can be known, he is omniscient. Does that mean that God determines the future? I don't think so.

 

[Edward65]

EVERYBODY "believes what the Bible teaches on predestination." Just ask them.

My meaning is that the Bible teaches that God predestines everything including who's saved and who's damned and that I accept what the Bible teaches. It's true that everyone who regards the Bible as the Word of God will say that they believe what the Bible teaches on predestination, but what they believe the Bible teaches on predestination may not coincide with what the Bible actually teaches on predestination, in which case they aren't in fact believing what the Bible teaches on predestination. So there's perception and reality. I'm saying that the reality is that the Bible teaches absolute predestination and that everything that happens is unavoidable and must happen, and that therefore we have no free will, whereas you might disagree with this whilst still saying you believe what the Bible teaches on predestination. I of course wouldn't accept that in reality you did.

 

[Edward65]

I don't think free will implies that actions cannot be predicted. Free will need not mean that actions are random or without influences or conditions behind them.

I believe God knows all our free choices that can be known, he is omniscient. Does that mean that God determines the future? I don't think so.

I have to disagree, because if someone is a free agent and there are several alternatives from which to choose from, it can't be predicted with absolute certainty which one that person is going to choose. Free will and omniscience are incompatible. Logically it's impossible to foreknow with certainty, even for God, what someone with free will is going to opt for. One might be able to make a very good educated guess as to what they're likely to choose, but it would still remain a guess and not any form of certainty.

 

[Yahu]

I don't, and Luther didn't accept that predestination to heaven and hell isn't unambiguously spelt out in Scripture. It's just that Lutherans have made the unwarranted deduction that if God desires everyone's salvation through Christ as 1Tim 2 teaches, it must follow that the Holy Spirit tries to regenerate all who hear the Gospel, and that therefore those who are damned are damned because they resisted the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them. Luther on the other hand didn't make this unwarranted deduction, and held that the Holy Spirit irresistibly converts only those He wills to, and that those who are lost are predestined to reject the Gospel and so be damned.

The problem is, there is not always JUST two possibilities. There could be MANY other factors involved.

Let me give an example. If we have tares mixed in with the wheat and those tares are the actual 'seed of Satan' as Nephilim bloodlines that exist in the world today, would they have so much spiritual opposition being sent by the enemy that it would literally block out the HS? Would the HS even call those individual at all?

Now again suppose there are actual Nephilim bloodlines, how diluted would they be by this time? What if someone was only 1% Nephilim? Well even a gentile could be converted to Judaism after 10 generations. Could those individual be called but because of that 1% other have generational curses passed down due to a hatred of the ways of Yah in their ancestry?

Now another possibility is we see predestination with Yah bound in linear time as we are. What if He is timeless, and time is actual part of creation? How does that effect the concept of predestination when He sees ALL of time from beginning to end from the outside? He knows who with their will choose to follow His ways and writes there name down any point in time He wishes even at creation.

Election and predestination could be the result of His foreknowledge. Just think how powerful that makes Him if He gives us free will with dominion on earth AND He still gets His ultimate will completed just by speaking to an individual here and there to guide the course of history to His desired result. Of course being outside time, He could easily whisper future events to His prophets and alter the outcome because of it.

Too many doctrines are listed as either A or B. What about options C and D or 'all of the above'.

 

[ScottMcAliley]

I've never been able to understand why those who don't believe we have free will can't see that it's entirely possible for humans to have true free will from our perspective, and in the course of real time, while God maintains full omniscient knowledge of every move and decision we're going to make, and works those things into His ultimate will and plan. There just doesn't seem to be a conflict there, to me. Maybe one of you Calvinists (or Calvinist-like) members can enlighten me.

I've found so much solid evidence against most of the TULIP points in years past and praise God for the study He led me through at that time, but I do agree with Calvinist-like believers on one single issue: There are different levels to God's will. It can be His general will that none perish, yet He can allow all to perish who do not respond to Him in the way He requires. There's no contradiction there. So I agree with Calvinists(and those with similar thinking) that it is not God's intention to save all people. It is His will to save only those who exercise faith in Him. But where I strongly disagree with Calvinist thinking again is that I believe He endows all with the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit. This is the only way we could be held responsible for failing to express faith in our Maker. The backside of TULIP thinking that never seems to get pointed out in a logical manner is that if God created billions of people who didn't ask to be born, and requires the exercise of faith in Him in order to avoid eternal death (however you define that...most as eternal hell), yet only endows the relative few with the ability to respond in faith, then He is a maniacal god who requires the impossible. And when those not "chosen" of course fail in faith(because there's no other option for them...according to Calvinism) he then administers the ultimate penalty. Does this not seem sick and twisted to anyone else?

And the Calvinist justifies this with "Well, they're sinners who offended a Holy God with their sin, and deserve hell" ...ok...but God brought them into existence in that state. If He creates us in a state that naturally offends Him, and offers no endowment of ability to change, seems there was an oversight in the plan there. And I just can't fathom this. But that's how the TULIP plays out. I delved into the study of this issue several years ago and found great relief, through solid Spriptural answers, to all of the Calvinist points that tread on the concepts of free will and God being a God who will save any and all. I would love to share with any of you who aren't too far gone into TULIPland. I think I'll post most of this as a new thread and see if there are any on-the-fencers out there that need help overcoming the overwhelming flood of neo-Calvinism.

Scott McAliley (a newbie to this forum, but not to serious Bible study)

 

[Yahu]

I have to disagree, because if someone is a free agent and there are several alternatives from which to choose from, it can't be predicted with absolute certainty which one that person is going to choose. Free will and omniscience are incompatible. Logically it's impossible to foreknow with certainty, even for God, what someone with free will is going to opt for. One might be able to make a very good educated guess as to what they're likely to choose, but it would still remain a guess and not any form of certainty.

Sorry but you are limiting Yah to being bound in linear time as we are. What if time is part of creation and He stands outside of it? He could see the outcome of all possible choices and act when and where He pleased to get His desired outcome.

You can't limit Yah by our limited understanding.

 

[Yahu]

Does this not seem sick and twisted to anyone else?

Not if you consider why they may be doomed to begin with. Now Im no calvinsit or even Calvinist-like. I am a Morrowist which is basically dead center between Calvinism and Armenianism and it holds a few different concepts.

So what if those that can not be saved are because of being actual tares, the actual 'seed of Satan', ie of mixed angelic descent that were born out of direct disobedience to His law? What if He allows them to exist as a test for others to overcome error so we grow in glory. The greater the opposition we face yet still choose Him with our limited knowledge and understanding is an even greater accomplishment.

Now you are assuming that He created us verses gave us the ability to create our own offspring by passing off that creative power to us. Those created by angelic parentage against His will were never suppose to exist to begin with.

That is just an option to kick around. Your position assumes that all living individuals are on equal standing and Yah is being unjust. We KNOW He is a JUST god. Would that justice require Him to destroy those created against His direct commands? He didn't command angels to be fruitful and multiply.

We have to acknowledge we don't have all the facts at this point. We are dealing with limited understanding and knowledge so what right to we have to judge His actions as being unjust?

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Eze 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.


We don't have enough facts to be able to judge if that is sick and twisted or not.

 

[ScottMcAliley]

To Yahu: I agree we're working from a very incomplete perspective. I've never claimed to have every answer, but I maintain that we can logically deduce from Scripture, that God is not requiring something of humanity, that He doesn't endow us with the ability to accomplish...and then serving the ultimate penalty when the only thing that can result does result. And that, specifically, is the matter that I referred to as "sick and twisted" doctrine, and I stand by that. You may be a Morrowist, but I was speaking to the Calvinists specifically. They do not offer the other options that you believe are possibilities, but rather believe there are normal humans (not literally Satan's spawn), to whom God simply does not offer the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit. And somehow, they find no problem with (or push down somewhere to a place I don't have) the "fact" that God essentially created most of humanity for nothing more than eternal torment.

Concerning your other possibilities, I tend to believe that we are all born as enemies of God. This seems clear from new testament teaching. "Seed of Satan" is not a biblical term as I guess you already know, since you put it in quotes. Certainly Satan is moving on all of our lives, and desires to have us. And unless and until we give in to the Holy Spirit's pull on our lives then in one sense, we've chosen Satan as our father (a reference to Jesus' saying to some of the pharisees "Your father the Devil..." in John 8:44) And people who are in that state, allowing themselves to remain under the control of the Enemy rather than the Holy Spirit, are certainly in the position of being "sewn in" as tares. But I can't fathom that when Jesus reprimanded those who refused to hear Him, that they weren't normal humans who chose the traditions of man over the faithful following of the one true God, and in that sense, were remaining as children of the devil. And why reprimand them if they are truly born as Satan's spawn, and only acting in a way consistent with there making? For that matter, no Godly reprimand in Scripture to one not following truth (be it Cain who God asked "if you do right, will you not be accepted?", all the way to the pharisees Jesus condemned) has any logical grounding if these aren't people with true free will to make a choice between obeying and disobeying.

I'm not sure I can agree with you that there are people born who "weren't supposed to be born". I do believe it's entirely possible for angels to masquerade as humans (God's angels as well as angels who rebelled and are under the control of Satan), but human half-devils that were never supposed to be here in the first place? I'm just not totally tracking with you on that. I know where that perspective comes from, but there are other ways to understand those verses.

I wish we could do this all day, but I've got to get some work done.

I hope you have a blessed day!

Scott

 

[Skala]

You may be a Morrowist, but I was speaking to the Calvinists specifically. They do not offer the other options that you believe are possibilities, but rather believe there are normal humans (not literally Satan's spawn), to whom God simply does not offer the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit. And somehow, they find no problem with (or push down somewhere to a place I don't have) the "fact" that God essentially created most of humanity for nothing more than eternal torment.

This is a common swipe at Calvinism, but the truth is, such a statement or dilemma is not unique to Calvinism. Actually anyone who isn't an open theist is faced with the same dilemma (that God created people for nothing more than hell)

Even the strictest anti-Calvinists/Arminians/synergists of all stripes believe that God is omniscient. They believe that God knew from eternity past that if he created "Bob", Bob would remain in unbelief and end up in hell. Yet with this knowledge, God still went ahead and decided to create bob anyways. Why did God create someone he knows for certain will end up in hell? Since God foreknows that Bob will reject the gospel, and has always known that from eternity past, that means during Bob's life, there is no possible way that Bob can suddenly repent and turn to Jesus and be saved, because God's foreknowledge of what Bob will do cannot be wrong. In other words, what God knows to be true is binding. Before God created Bob, he knew Bob would end up in hell, yet He still decided to create him anyways, effectually sealing Bob's fate.

I don't know why you think this is exclusive truth to Calvinism. Anyone who thinks these things through to their logical conclusion and anyone who isn't an open theist (someone that denies God's omniscience) can arrive at the same dilemma.

Why didn't God create only those people he foreknew would receive and believe the gospel? That way, God would have nothing but an entire race of willing believers. Nobody would be in hell.

So please, stop using this silly argument against Calvinism. It's not a dilemma exclusive to Calvinism. It's something every single person can be accused of believing simply for adhering to the doctrine of God's omniscience.

Therefore, scott, if you believe God is omniscient and knows the future, including the fate of people he creates, then I can point the finger at you (using your own argument) and say "you believe something sick and twisted".

They do not offer the other options that you believe are possibilities, but rather believe there are normal humans (not literally Satan's spawn), to whom God simply does not offer the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit. And somehow, they find no problem with...

That being said, I find fault in your reasoning here. Since God's gifting us the ability to respond to the Spirit is 100% purely a function of grace, that means God is not obligated to give it. Grace cannot be owed or demanded. It is freely given, voluntarily, out of unowed mercy. The only way you can find fault with God not giving grace is if you believe grace is owed to begin with. In doing so, you destroy the very meaning of grace.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with God not giving grace. Grace is what God does freely because he is kind. He doesn't have to do it. He can send you to hell at a moment's notice and be perfectly justified, since you're a sinner. he didn't have to send the gospel to you, or even gift you with the ability to respond positively to it. Your arguments are hardly an objection to Calvinism, but sound more like an objection to the plain meaning of the graciousness of salvation.

Therefore, there is hardly anything wrong to accuse Calvinists of in making statements like "they believe that God doesn't give grace to some people!! How could they believe such a thing!?!?" <--statements like this imply you believe grace is owed to men, which is 100x worse, sick, and twisted, in my opinion.

 

[FireDragon76]

Skala raises a good point. Arminians also don't escape the reality that God creates people knowing they will choose to go to hell. But I think its mostly an issue if you take a rationalistic attitude towards theological truths. There are choices besides being Arminian or Calvinist. Both are rationalistic systems to one degree or another, neither admits much mystery. And mystery I think is something necessary to just be there, especially in spiritually healthy people. People don't "get saved" by being Calvinists, Arminians, or Neo-Platonists. Theology itself doesn't save people, it only helps us shape how we live out a Christian life, worship, preach, and so on. Understanding is secondary always to faith.

 

[elman]

Skala raises a good point. Arminians also don't escape the reality that God creates people knowing they will choose to go to hell. But I think its mostly an issue if you take a rationalistic attitude towards theological truths. There are choices besides being Arminian or Calvinist. Both are rationalistic systems to one degree or another, neither admits much mystery. And mystery I think is something necessary to just be there, especially in spiritually healthy people. People don't "get saved" by being Calvinists, Arminians, or Neo-Platonists. Theology itself doesn't save people, it only helps us shape how we live out a Christian life, worship, preach, and so on. Understanding is secondary always to faith.

And faith is secondary always to love. 1 Cor 13.

 

[Yahu]

To Yahu: I agree we're working from a very incomplete perspective. I've never claimed to have every answer, but I maintain that we can logically deduce from Scripture, that God is not requiring something of humanity, that He doesn't endow us with the ability to accomplish...and then serving the ultimate penalty when the only thing that can result does result. And that, specifically, is the matter that I referred to as "sick and twisted" doctrine, and I stand by that. You may be a Morrowist, but I was speaking to the Calvinists specifically. They do not offer the other options that you believe are possibilities, but rather believe there are normal humans (not literally Satan's spawn), to whom God simply does not offer the ability to respond to the Holy Spirit. And somehow, they find no problem with (or push down somewhere to a place I don't have) the "fact" that God essentially created most of humanity for nothing more than eternal torment.

Scott

Your right, it doesn't use the exact words 'seed of Satan'. It just implies it by naming 'children of the wicked one' and 'sown by the devil'.

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

Now I get what your saying about people being created by Yah just to be destroyed. But a potter that forms a clay pot that develops a fault may be tossed aside and broken because its not fit for use. Is the fault predestined or as a result of something else?

Now I see this life as a job interview for our eternal position. Some get hired, some don't, some are janitors or gardeners in the kingdom while others are fit for positions of authority.

 

[Yahu]

I'm not sure I can agree with you that there are people born who "weren't supposed to be born". I do believe it's entirely possible for angels to masquerade as humans (God's angels as well as angels who rebelled and are under the control of Satan), but human half-devils that were never supposed to be here in the first place? I'm just not totally tracking with you on that. I know where that perspective comes from, but there are other ways to understand those verses.

Scott

Well that understanding comes from personal experience. I knew a modern day high priestess of Ashtoreth. That witch knew exactly who and what her goddess was. The spirit of Ashtoreth had been appearing to her since she was 14 to raise her up as a candidate to be her next world wide high priestess. According to her, Ashtoreth was the daughter of one of the four angels bound at the Euphrates that will be turned loose in the tribulation. They were bound for the problems their children caused at Babel. They fell into the same error as the pre-flood 'ben Elohyim' of Gen 6. The pagan gods of antiquity were angels and their offspring from those four. Where do you think the giantism came from in the Canaanite line or why Yah ordered the total extermination of some groups? Even the royal line of Sidon was her direct descendants. Jezebel was of that royal line and her high priestess of that day as well as a witch.

I learned many things that only a very high level high priestess was allowed to know in that mystery religion. I wasn't expected to live long enough to reveal any of it. You don't want to know what happened to that witch for revealing it to me.

I learned a lot about that ancient paganism and spent many years researching the scriptural position to confirm or deny it. So I KNOW there are actually Nephilim descendants still today. There are many clues in scripture but I had to learn Hebrew to uncover many of them. Many are in name meanings. For example the name meanings of the cities and places in the land of Canaan are concerning pagan gods or their attributes. I have had over 20 years to research it.

You will find name meanings like 'the children of lightning' and 'the god who scatters his seed'. There are several references to pagan gods that sowed their seed and had actual children. I know exactly who and what the top 4 principalities of hell are. The Canaanites worshiped them under the names Asherah, Ashtoreth, Baal and Molech.

So lets just say, I have a unique perspective on many scriptures then the mainstream understanding as a result.

So with that knowledge of their existence, it had me wondering if they could actually be saved or not? By my research, they can be but it is far more difficult because of the spiritual forces that hinder then from doing so.

 

[ScottMcAliley]

Skala, You wrote: “Since God foreknows that Bob will reject the gospel, and has always known that from eternity past, that means during Bob's life, there is no possible way that Bob can suddenly repent and turn to Jesus and be saved, because God's foreknowledge of what Bob will do cannot be wrong. In other words, what God knows to be true is binding. Before God created Bob, he knew Bob would end up in hell, yet He still decided to create him anyways, effectually sealing Bob's fate.”


A few things. I've conversed with staunch Calvinists before and realized the futility in trying to get them to re-think their position, so I'm under no delusion that I'll convince you of anything. I'm only responding because there may be people reading this who aren't beyond help.


But first, an argument's validity isn't voided simply because it can be applied somewhere else. But I disagree with the core of your argument as well. I understand the point you're making, in that God still knew Bob's fate because of His omniscience, and by creating him anyway, in some way, he “determined his future”. But there's a monumental difference in God creating Bob and him actually having the opportunity to accept God's grace and choosing to reject it, or in Bob being able to hear the gospel, but being unable to comprehend it or respond to it because God never enabled him to do so, and unless I've misunderstood something somewhere, the latter is what some of the most outspoken and public of today's Calvinist are teaching. And I think it's a complete distortion of the nature and character of God, and I'll continue to write against it unless the Holy Spirit shows me differently. Admittedly, it's a fine line between God knowing and God determining, but I'll always believe the line is there, and that it's meaningful.


Concerning Grace, I don't think anything I wrote implied that it's not a gift freely given. I just believe it's given to all mankind.


Concerning what we “deserve”...We don't even deserve life, period. Our very existence, is an awesome gift of Grace, and we don't “deserve” it. But why do Calvinists consider non-Calvinists unreasonable when we make the point that, by the same token, just as we were nothing before we were conceived and didn't deserve life, that a person who God chooses to bring into being (but doesn't “choose”) neither deserves an eternal conscious punishment. Punishment can only be justly given if someone is in violation of something in a scenario where there was an option to never violate, or to stop violating it once made aware they're in violation.


A free will Bob who is able to believe, yet continuing in unbelief in the face of God's attempts to show Himself through creation itself and through the gospel is a violation that deserves punishment. A Bob who has no control over what he ultimately believes about God, but who God chose to bring into conscious existence anyway would obviously have a strong argument against the validity of his punishment (if he could think for himself). But Scripture maintains that all of us are without excuse. I couldn't imagine any better excuse than “You gave me a rule, and made me in such a way that I was unable to obey it. And now you're going to punish me for what I couldn't control?”. Nobody is going to be able to stand before God and say anything like that, but when you break it all down, that's the core message behind today's Calvinism, at least what I hear often from Christian FM radio (which I continue to listen to for the life-giving messages that are sprinkled in between the junk).


Calvinists alone claim that God willingly brings people (who could not possibly have asked to be born) into being as guilty violators and doesn't offer the grace they need to stop violating His standards, and when they do the obvious (keep violating), they're punished eternally. You really don't see the problem here? I know that you don't, and again, I've had these conversations with Calvinists before. They go absolutely nowhere. I'm writing for the on-the-fencers, and praying for them too, that they not be infected and confused with TULIP teaching.

 

[FireDragon76]

Concerning Grace, I don't think anything I wrote implied that it's not a gift freely given. I just believe it's given to all mankind.

Depending on ones sacramental theology, not everyone receives grace in the same manner. Yes, there is common grace but there's also the grace that Christians receive in sacramental life. Common grace may not be saving grace.

Calvinists alone claim that God willingly brings people (who could not possibly have asked to be born) into being as guilty violators and doesn't offer the grace they need to stop violating His standards, and when they do the obvious (keep violating), they're punished eternally.

I'm not a Calvinist but in fairness, I think Calvinism (as John Calvin understood it) is pretty explicit that people who ultimately go to Hell in some sense will themselves to be there. I believe this is also true of the Arminian position, and I've heard Lutheran and Roman Catholic sermons that are often along those lines too (it's like a domesticated wild duck that decides to hang out on the farm because its pleasant, but eventually he'll be roasted by the farmer). It's also possible to not interpret Hell as a punishment God likes- God doesn't necessarily get pleasure out of it and perhaps people read human emotions into it where there are none. Maybe God doesn't particularly like sending people to Hell, but considers it a necessary part of creating a world, to have some people that cannot be saved.


You do have a real point, it's important to keep the Biblical language in mind to understand God's desire for us, and to not be held captive to systematic theology. Systematic theology is a guide but nobody is going to have the perfect theology, that's impossible because of who God is.

 

[Yahu]

Skala, You wrote: “Since God foreknows that Bob will reject the gospel, and has always known that from eternity past, that means during Bob's life, there is no possible way that Bob can suddenly repent and turn to Jesus and be saved, because God's foreknowledge of what Bob will do cannot be wrong. In other words, what God knows to be true is binding. Before God created Bob, he knew Bob would end up in hell, yet He still decided to create him anyways, effectually sealing Bob's fate.”

I get your point. Calvinists put the blame on Yah for those that end up in the lake of fire whereas others (not just Armenians) think the fault lies with the individual. We are all accountable for our own actions. That is clear whether it be for blessings or curses. Why else even have scriptures telling us of His law?

It is also rooted in pride that the elect are chosen by Yah and that makes us special. The question is what makes Him chose us? Is it our willingness to listen to Him? Did He give us all equal willingness to begin with?

IMO another problem is the concepts of the 'sovereignty of God'. Many don't recognize the fact that Yah GAVE DOMINION over the earth to MAN. He no longer has full dominion here. He delegated it away otherwise He is a liar. Yes, He did set up the rules and laws as well as setting the conditions and consequences of violations but then He told us what those conditions are with His Word and His prophets to warn the people. Why even warn us if we have no say so in listening or not? Then He leaves it up to us to discern TRUTH or not. It is the ability to recognize that truth that sets us free. We all have that ability from the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

IMO too many people follow a doctrine that man lost that dominion to Satan or the Serpent or Yah took it back. Individually those in deception may be giving up their dominion to the enemy by believing his lies. We as Christians know we still have dominion over even all the forces of the enemy. Man never lost our dominion. They teach that our dominion was lost because of sin. I have no idea where they get such a belief.

I agree the Calvinistic point of view is ridiculous. They are not accountable for their own actions in salvation and the Yah is accountable for the condemned. That would make Yah a god that isn't worthy to worship.