Calvinism provides an excuse for those in hell

[Hammster]

What a ridiculous idea. Where did you get that from? I never said it, I never insinuated it. You make "conclusions" that are beyond reason.

Didn't you say that God will save someone who rejects Him after he was saved?

 

[guuila]

What a ridiculous idea. Where did you get that from? I never said it, I never insinuated it. You make "conclusions" that are beyond reason.

If Bob believes today, he is saved. Then, if Bob decides to be a God-hating atheist tomorrow, he is still saved according to you. Then, Bob dies next week as an atheist, and will be in heaven unwillingly.

You deny conclusions that are logically consistent.

 

[guuila]

Elmanists or whatever you guys call yourself. How about stop misquoting an'all

This is supposed to be a Christian forum so why are you here ?

Great example of Christian behavior right here.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The fact that you're arguing with people who promote sovereign grace is proof. Are you medicated?

Who ever said that your view of "sovereign grace" was correct? LOL

And thanks for the snark.

Great! So everyone is saved! Even unbelievers!

Wrong. Where were you when I explained all this? Christ purchased eternal life for everyone by His death, but only those who receive the free gift of eternal life are saved. Do you understand this? If I'm wrong, can you refute it?

And those who reject the gift? Why aren't they saved?

Because they didn't receive the gift. Duh.

Christ already purchased eternal life for them, remember?

So? He gives it only to believers. Duh.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Unless you are an Open Theist...God still created a mass of individuals that He foreknow would only be created and sent to hell for their sins.

Yes, God has always known who will believe and who will not.

But because Christ died for the sins of the whole world, no one goes there for sin. It was paid for. They go there because they don't possess eternal life.

How does one get eternal life? Jn 6:40 tells you.

 

[guuila]

Quickens the human spirit, so that the believer can worship God. Jn 4:24

But doesn't guarantee the believer will worship God? John 4:24 says nothing about regeneration.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Didn't you say that God will save someone who rejects Him after he was saved?

Why don't you look at the context for my comments, rather than just throw out questions that have no context to them at all.

 

[guuila]

Who ever said that your view of "sovereign grace" was correct? LOL

Me. LOL

And thanks for the snark.

Hey, just following your example boss.

Wrong. Where were you when I explained all this? Christ purchased eternal life for everyone by His death, but only those who receive the free gift of eternal life are saved. Do you understand this? If I'm wrong, can you refute it?

So Christ died for the sin of unbelief, yet unbelievers will be in hell?

 

[FreeGrace2]

If Bob believes today, he is saved. Then, if Bob decides to be a God-hating atheist tomorrow, he is still saved according to you. Then, Bob dies next week as an atheist, and will be in heaven unwillingly.

You deny conclusions that are logically consistent.

If you truly did believe in OSAS, this wouldn't be such a mystery to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

But doesn't guarantee the believer will worship God?

No, gives the believer the ability to. Free will, you know. Well, maybe you don't know.

John 4:24 says nothing about regeneration.

Did I say that it did? You need to follow a bit more closely.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So Christ died for the sin of unbelief, yet unbelievers will be in hell?

Since your comment here was in relation to my comment here:

Wrong. Where were you when I explained all this? Christ purchased eternal life for everyone by His death, but only those who receive the free gift of eternal life are saved. Do you understand this? If I'm wrong, can you refute it?

It's obvious that you do not understand this. Instead of refuting anything, you just asked another question.

 

[guuila]

If you truly did believe in OSAS, this wouldn't be such a mystery to you.

I don't believe in OSAS. I believe in Perseverance of the Saints. So, until you can offer a logical argument as to *how* exactly heaven won't contain people who hate God, your position remains incoherent. I guess you should be happy you're consistent in one area - incoherency. Good job, champ.

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

But because Christ died for the sins of the whole world, no one goes there for sin. It was paid for. They go there because they don't possess eternal life.

FreeGrace2's position:

The reprobate's sin is fully paid for. They just go to hell for their disbelief. Once they go to hell, the degree of punishment they receive... is due to their sin.

The judgment here has nothing to do with WHY they are being thrown into the lake of fire, but rather, has everything to do with the "degree of toleration" IN the lake of Fire. Just research the times Jesus noted that "it will be MORE tolerable for some cities than others "in that day", meaning the day of judgment. So we KNOW that the lake of fire has degrees of toleration. It's all about either how "good" they were or how "bad" they were. And they are judged accordingly as to the degree of toleration while there.

 

[Hammster]

Getting back to the OP,

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:14-24 ESV)

This is what Calvinism teaches. Excuse? I think not.

 

[Skala]

All people deserve hell whether or not God chose to save them.

For Freegrace2 to be consistent, he'd have to say that if God chose to save zero people (but let all humanity perish into hell for their sins), they would have an excuse: God didn't choose to save them. The fact that they deserve hell for their sins is completely missing from his argument.

But of course, that would require consistency. So it'll never happen.

 

[guuila]

But of course, that would require consistency. So it'll never happen.

 

[Walter2013]

Well, that was fun.

 

[JM]

Yes, God has always known who will believe and who will not.

That is the problem with non-Calvinistic thinking.

You accuse Calvinists of believing in a "mean, uncaring God" but you cannot escape the same conclusion if you believe God foreknows all things. Calvinists rightly believe God saves some who are damned to hell for their sin while non-Calvinists believe God owes salvation to all and if He doesn't try (but prevented from accomplishing by human freewill) to save all He isn't God.

The God of Arminianism or non-Calvinistic theologies presents a weak, unbiblical god subservient to human freewill.

jm

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

Calvinism believes that Christ died only for some, they call the "elect", and that is because God chose (elected) them for salvation. As such, all the elect receive the free gift of eternal life and will live with God for eternity.

This gives those in hell an excuse for being there; that Christ did not die for them. Calvinists say that they are there because of their sins. But that begs the question: Christ died for the sins of ONLY the elect, and therefore, go to heaven. The so-called non-elect, for whom Christ didn't die, pay for their sins by themselves.

And those who go to heaven still sinned, but Christ paid for their sins. They are in heaven BECAUSE Christ paid for their sins.

The only difference between sinner human beings in heaven and sinner human beings in hell is that Christ paid for the sins of those in heaven. Again, that provides an excuse for all in hell. No one paid for their sins.

It is possible for a Calvinist to provide a succinct explanation of how their theology of limited atonement and unconditional election does NOT provide any excuse for those in hell? Because I just don't see it.

Thanks.

This whole premise is actually incorrect. As Paul teaches in Romans 5, all humanity in Adam goes to hell for the sin of the one. If you would like to know more of the Reformed position on imputation, I suggest you read John Murray. William Shedd also has interesting views regarding Traducianism which may give you some insight.

 

[guuila]

That is the problem with non-Calvinistic thinking.

You accuse Calvinists of believing in a "mean, uncaring God" but you cannot escape the same conclusion if you believe God foreknows all things. Calvinists rightly believe God saves some who are damned to hell for their sin while non-Calvinists believe God owes salvation to all and if He doesn't try (but prevented from accomplishing by human freewill) to save all He isn't God.

The God of Arminianism or non-Calvinistic theologies presents a weak, unbiblical god subservient to human freewill.

jm

"The true evangelical evaluation of the claim that Christ died for every man, even those who perish, comes through at point after point in Owen's book. So far from magnifying the love and grace of God, this claim dishonors both it and him, for it reduces God's love to an impotent wish and turns the whole economy of 'saving' grace, so-called ('saving' is really a misnomer on this view), into a monumental divine failure. Also, so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ's death, it cheapens it, for it makes Christ die in vain. Lastly, so far from affording faith additional encouragement, it destroys the scriptural ground of assurance altogether, for it denies that the knowledge that Christ died for me (or did or does anything else for me) is a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation; my salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself." - J.I. Packer, Intro to John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"