• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

In Arminianism, God excludes some people from salvation

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Why did God send Christ to die for those He foreknew would not believe?
You are giving me your Calvinistic presuppositions with that kind of question.

I could ask you: Why did God send Christ to die only for the elect who he coerced into the kingdom by irresistible grace and damned the rest? Why did he bother to create them when he knew they would be damned eternally?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,896
199
✟39,038.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You are giving me your Calvinistic presuppositions with that kind of question.

I could ask you: Why did God send Christ to die only for the elect who he coerced into the kingdom by irresistible grace and damned the rest? Why did he bother to create them when he knew they would be damned eternally?
Why can't you just answer the question? Consistent Arminians are Open Theists. Open Theists deny that God is omniscient. Therefore, they escape the question.

But you cannot escape the question because you believe that God foreknows all things. So, if God foreknows who will not believe, then the only reason for Christ's dying for them would be to provide a basis for their judgment, not to provide an opportunity for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Why did God send Christ to die for those He foreknew would not believe?
To give them the opportunity, through unlimited atonement, prevenient grace and free will, to say yea or nay to the Gospel offer. Isn't that simple enough to understand?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Why can't you just answer the question? Consistent Arminians are Open Theists. Open Theists deny that God is omniscient. Therefore, they escape the question.

But you cannot escape the question because you believe that God foreknows all things. So, if God foreknows who will not believe, then the only reason for Christ's dying for them would be to provide a basis for their judgment, not to provide an opportunity for salvation.
Consistent Arminians are Reformed/Classical Arminians who maintain the integrity of Scripture and that includes the omniscience of God, unlimited atonement, prevenient grace and free will in relation to salvation.

You have misjudged the 'only reason for Christ's dying'. He died for them to provide the opportunity for salvation through prevenient grace and free will. God in his wisdom and omniscience knows that salvation should be offered to all and that ALL have the opportunity to say yea or nay to salvation.

That's what the Scriptures teach and that's why I maintain such a position. We have debated this over and over on CF and I don't plan to go through the verses again.

I refer you to my articles:

Oz
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Why can't they be saved after judgement? Can't God pardon them if they cry out to him for mercy?
Do you believe what the Scriptures state or not?

A few others have joined with me in telling you that the only opportunity for salvation is in this life and that after death is judgement (Heb 9:27). Don't you believe this doctrine?
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,896
199
✟39,038.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You have misjudged the 'only reason for Christ's dying'. He died for them to provide the opportunity for salvation through prevenient grace and free will. God in his wisdom and omniscience knows that salvation should be offered to all and that ALL have the opportunity to say yea or nay to salvation.
First, the scripture no where says that Christ died to give men the "opportunity" to be saved. It consistently says that He died "TO SAVE" men.

Second, your position is totally illogical. If God foreknows who will not believe, then there can be no "opportunity" for them to be saved. Christ's death is nothing more than the basis of their judgment.

I refer you to my articles
No thanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
First, the scripture no where says that Christ died to give men the "opportunity" to be saved. It consistently says that He died "TO SAVE" men.

Second, your position is totally illogical. If God foreknows who will not believe, then there can be no "opportunity" for them to be saved. Christ's dath is nothing more than the basis of their judgment.

No thanks.
Mine is the logical position for these reasons:

  1. God loved the world (Jn 3:16) and not your view of only loving the elect;
  2. God gave all human beings free will as they are part of the 'whoever believes' (Jn 3:16). To be 'whoever believes', they must have the ability to say, 'No to the offer'. The corollary this is that this is the 'opportunity' to be saved that is offered to ALL people.
  3. Jesus died for the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).
  4. To have the opportunity to receive Christ, people must hear the Gospel (Rom 10:17);
  5. The omniscient God has determined that only those who choose to believe receive eternal life (Jn 3:16).
  6. Those who choose to reject this offer are damned/they perish (Jn 3:16).
  7. The final destiny of all human beings is based on how logically God has provided such salvation as here explained.
You promote an illogical Calvinistic position where

  1. God's injustice is exposed. He does not love the whole world (contrary to John 3:16) and does not offer ALL people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel.
  2. Instead, people are coerced into the kingdom by unconditional election and irresistible grace. And for some Calvinists, the rest are actively damned by an act of God (hardly the actions of the God of love for the whole world).
I don't fall for the line that mine is the illogical position and yours is the paragon of logic.


Oz
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe what the Scriptures state or not?

A few others have joined with me in telling you that the only opportunity for salvation is in this life and that after death is judgement (Heb 9:27). Don't you believe this doctrine?

You still are not answering my question. It hard to have a conversation when you won't engage in the actual conversation.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,730
USA
✟184,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why did God send Christ to die for those He foreknew would not believe?
Easy question. To demonstrate His unlimited LOVE for His creatures.

Why is it that Calvinists just cannot accept this answer?

Another way to look at this is to ask if God is capable of loving those He knows will reject Him.

Or, is God capable of loving the entire human race?

From the kinds of responses that are seen from Calvinists, it appears that they do not view God as capable of loving those He knows will reject Him, which basically lowers God to the level of mankind.

And that they don't believe that God is capable of loving the entire human race.

Now, if there are Calvinists who will answer "yes" to both questions, then why can't they accept my answer to the question posed by the boxer?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Easy question. To demonstrate His unlimited LOVE for His creatures.

Why is it that Calvinists just cannot accept this answer?

Another way to look at this is to ask if God is capable of loving those He knows will reject Him.

Or, is God capable of loving the entire human race?

From the kinds of responses that are seen from Calvinists, it appears that they do not view God as capable of loving those He knows will reject Him, which basically lowers God to the level of mankind.

And that they don't believe that God is capable of loving the entire human race.

Now, if there are Calvinists who will answer "yes" to both questions, then why can't they accept my answer to the question posed by the boxer?

He loves those people He knows will reject Him sooooo much, that His wrath will abide on them in Hell for eternity. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You still are not answering my question. It hard to have a conversation when you won't engage in the actual conversation.
I've answered your question. You don't like my answer so you come up with this kind of non-answer.

Bye
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,896
199
✟39,038.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
God's injustice is exposed. He does not love the whole world (contrary to John 3:16) and does not offer ALL people the opportunity to respond to the Gospel.
When Jesus said this the belief was that the Jews were the "world" in view. Furthermore, God sent Jesus only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Do you have proof that the term "world" meant to the ancients what it means to you?

You have NOT escaped the problem. If God foreknew who would not believe, then the death of Christ does not provide "opportunity" for them to be saved. It provides only the basis for their condemnation.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,028.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I've answered your question. You don't like my answer so you come up with this kind of non-answer.

Bye

No, you've not. If you had, I would not keep asking. But I will give you the answer.

Those in hell wi not given a reprieve because it's God who grants repentance. So they will not seek forgiveness in hell because God will not change them. Arminian theology and it's free will-heavy emphasis has no reason for God not to forgive those in hell who seek forgiveness.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
When Jesus said this the belief was that the Jews were the "world" in view. Furthermore, God sent Jesus only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Do you have proof that the term "world" meant to the ancients what it means to you?

You have NOT escaped the problem. If God foreknew who would not believe, then the death of Christ does not provide "opportunity" for them to be saved. It provides only the basis for their condemnation.
There is not a word in the context to demonstrate that 'world' in John 3:16 meant only the Jews. This is what Calvinists like yourself do to twist Scripture to make it mean what it does not say.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Terrence

Fighting the good fight
Feb 15, 2013
2,896
199
✟39,038.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There is not a word in the context to demonstrate that 'world' in John 3:16 meant only the Jews. This is what Calvinists like yourself do to twist Scripture to make it mean what it does not say.
You're wrong. Jesus spoke those words during His Galilean ministry which was exclusively to the Jews. He said, "For God so loved the world" to Jews.

Furthermore, there is not one instance in John's gospel where the term "world" means every human being. Example: The Pharisees said, "The world has gone after Him" (John 12:19). The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, "the whole world." Yet verse 12 says that it was it was a "great multitude."

They were a great multitude of Jews, not every human being. They were identified as "the Daughter of Zion" (verse 15). They were Jews.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
You're wrong. Jesus spoke those words during His Galilean ministry which was exclusively to the Jews. He said, "For God so loved the world" to Jews.

Furthermore, there is not one instance in John's gospel where the term "world" means every human being. Example: The Pharisees said, "The world has gone after Him" (John 12:19). The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, "the whole world." Yet verse 12 says that it was it was a "great multitude."

They were a great multitude of Jews, not every human being. They were identified as "the Daughter of Zion" (verse 15). They were Jews.
Calvinist commentator, William Hendricksen, agrees with me and disagrees with you. What does 'world' mean in John 3:16? Hendriksen states:
The term world, as here used, must mean mankind which, tough sin-laden, exposed to the judgment, and in need of salvation (see verse 16b and verse 17), is still the object of his care. God's image is still, to a degree, reflected in the children of men....

By reason of the context and other passages in which a similar thought is expressed ... it is probable that also here in 3;16 the term indicates fallen mankind in its international aspect: men from every tribe and nation; not only Jews but also Gentiles. This is in harmony with the thought expressed repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel (including this very chapter) to the effect that physical ancestry has nothing to do with entrance into the kingdom of heaven: 1;12, 13; 3:6; 8:31-29 (Hendriksen 1953:140, emphasis in original).
So are you going to say that William Hendriksen, the Calvinist commentator, got it badly wrong and 'world' in John 3:16 does not refer to the world of mankind?

Why don't you reference your sources? It is obvious you obtained some of this information from other sources. Why have you not given them credit?

In Christ,
Oz

Works consulted
Hendriksen, W 1953. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to John (2 vols complete in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,553
709
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟140,373.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Easy question. To demonstrate His unlimited LOVE for His creatures.

Why is it that Calvinists just cannot accept this answer?

Another way to look at this is to ask if God is capable of loving those He knows will reject Him.

Or, is God capable of loving the entire human race?

From the kinds of responses that are seen from Calvinists, it appears that they do not view God as capable of loving those He knows will reject Him, which basically lowers God to the level of mankind.

And that they don't believe that God is capable of loving the entire human race.

Now, if there are Calvinists who will answer "yes" to both questions, then why can't they accept my answer to the question posed by the boxer?
These are excellent observations and questions. But I think we are banging our heads on a theological brick wall.
 
Upvote 0