In Arminianism, God excludes some people from salvation

[FreeGrace2]

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

Yeppers. In addition to His unlimited love, He is also perfectly just. And while faith pleases Him (Heb 11:6), unbelief incurs His wrath (Jn 3:36).

So there is no conflict here.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Yes, it all depends on what God chooses to do. Thanks for the clarity. They are in hell because of what God won't do for them. Basically what I have been saying all along, and your comment supports my thread's OP that those in hell will have an excuse for being there. You've phrased it a bit differently than I did, but the will be able to say, "God will not change me". But an excuse nonetheless. Thanks for the affirmation of my view.

Arminian theology and it's free will-heavy emphasis has no reason for God not to forgive those in hell who seek forgiveness.

I can't speak for Arminians, but Scripture is clear that man's responsibility and accountability is for this life, not the next. Their choice is now, not later.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You didn't answer FG2's questions.

Because those questions lead to a position that he doesn't like.

 

[Hammster]

You didn't answer FG2's questions.

He didn't ask me any questions.

 

[Hammster]

Yeppers. In addition to His unlimited love, He is also perfectly just. And while faith pleases Him (Heb 11:6), unbelief incurs His wrath (Jn 3:36).

So there is no conflict here.

Strange view of love.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, it all depends on what God chooses to do. Thanks for the clarity. They are in hell because of what God won't do for them. Basically what I have been saying all along, and your comment supports my thread's OP that those in hell will have an excuse for being there. You've phrased it a bit differently than I did, but the will be able to say, "God will not change me". But an excuse nonetheless. Thanks for the affirmation of my view.


I can't speak for Arminians, but Scripture is clear that man's responsibility and accountability is for this life, not the next. Their choice is now, not later.

If they wanted God to change them, that would mean they were repentant. So, still no excuse.

 

[Hammster]

Because those questions lead to a position that he doesn't like.

They weren't addressed to me.

 

[AndOne]

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.

I've never heard of Hendriksen before - now I know why.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Strange view of love.

OK, so you don't understand that God's love and perfect justice perfectly co-exist. That's unfortunate.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If they wanted God to change them, that would mean they were repentant. So, still no excuse.

Your view is that no one will seek or want God UNLESS God changes them.

So why would you ask the "iffy" question that is irrelevant and meaningless to your view?

The excuse is that God didn't change them. His choice, they have none.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Your view is that no one will seek or want God UNLESS God changes them.

So why would you ask the "iffy" question that is irrelevant and meaningless to your view?

The excuse is that God didn't change them. His choice, they have none.

So God owes everyone an equal opportunity? Nah God could just as easily allow everyone to perish and He would be perfectly just to save nobody, as surely as nobody deserves the innocent blood of the spotless Lamb of God sprinkled on them. But it seems you disagree, each person should have the opportunity to choose or reject the Gospel...what say you to the millions upon millions that never heard the Gospel? Hey maybe abortion isn't so bad afterall, it's a free "go to Heaven" card for infants...they're doing a great thing sending babies to Heaven...but what choice do the infants have anyway? Isn't it odd, if God wanted everyone to have an opportunity, if He wanted everyone to be saved, you would think He would have chosen the greatest and mightiest nation on earth to begin with, not the smallest and weakest nation on the planet to deliver His message, to spread the Gospel. God only knows how much time passed before any scrap of the Gospel reached the American Indians before white man came and nearly wiped the Indians off the planet.

 

[OzSpen]

He didn't ask me any questions.

He most certainly asked you questions at #376. In case you have forgotten them, here they are again from FG2:

Is that what is happening when you "answer" a question with questions of your own???

 

[Hammster]

OK, so you don't understand that God's love and perfect justice perfectly co-exist. That's unfortunate.

I understand that. I just don't understand how God could be so petty as to send people He supposedly loves SO MUCH to Hell just because they don't do what He wants.

 

[Hammster]

Your view is that no one will seek or want God UNLESS God changes them.

So why would you ask the "iffy" question that is irrelevant and meaningless to your view?

The excuse is that God didn't change them. His choice, they have none.

It would only be an excuse if they wanted to change and He didn't allow them to.

 

[Hammster]

He most certainly asked you questions at #376. In case you have forgotten them, here they are again from FG2:

I responded to that.

 

[OzSpen]

I understand that. I just don't understand how God could be so petty as to send people He supposedly loves SO MUCH to Hell just because they don't do what He wants.

But you can understand how God unjustly doesn't love all people and decides to damn much of humanity to hell forever and ever without even a dent in his righteousness???

 

[Hammster]

But you can understand how God unjustly doesn't love all people and decides to damn much of humanity to hell forever and ever without even a dent in his righteousness???

It's not unjust for God to not love everyone. It would only be unjust if He was obligated to do so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So God owes everyone an equal opportunity?

No, I never said that. It isn't what God owes, that is the issue. So bringing up "owing" is just a red herring, a deflection of the real issue. Which is, what has God PROMISED?

When God makes a promise based on a condition, and someone fulfills that condition, is God OBLIGATED OR NOT to keep His promise? Please answer.

Nah God could just as easily allow everyone to perish and He would be perfectly just to save nobody, as surely as nobody deserves the innocent blood of the spotless Lamb of God sprinkled on them. But it seems you disagree, each person should have the opportunity to choose or reject the Gospel...what say you to the millions upon millions that never heard the Gospel?

A very tired question. Simple answer; God has revealed Himself to everyone (Rom 1:19-21) so that no one has any excuse for not being thankful to Him. Further, God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27), and Heb 11:6 says that He rewards those who do seek Him. So clearly there are those who do seek Him, since He already revealed Himself to everyone.

So, what about the millions who never heard the gospel? It should be obvious that they never sought God, even though He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:27).

Those who seek, will find. Deut 4:29, Prov 8:17, Jer 29:13, Matt 7:7.

No excuse for those who didn't seek.

Isn't it odd, if God wanted everyone to have an opportunity, if He wanted everyone to be saved, you would think He would have chosen the greatest and mightiest nation on earth to begin with, not the smallest and weakest nation on the planet to deliver His message, to spread the Gospel.

Why did God reveal Himself to everyone and have Paul write "so no one has any excuse"?

God only knows how much time passed before any scrap of the Gospel reached the American Indians before white man came and nearly wiped the Indians off the planet.

Irrelevant. The known world was evangelized in the first Century. When cultures reject the truth, there is darkness. Yet, Rom 1:19-21 still rings true.

Everyone who recognizes that God is Creator has NO EXCUSE for not being thankful to Him and to seek Him out. No one.

I find your argument rather dismal. It is the Calvinist view that God simply chose most people for hell and a few lucky ones for heaven. All without conditions. That cannot be found in Scripture. I am amazed that anyone would accept such teaching.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I understand that. I just don't understand how God could be so petty as to send people He supposedly loves SO MUCH to Hell just because they don't do what He wants.

Your "choice" fo words reveals your failure to understand God's character.

If you did understand His perfect justice, you wouldn't have used such inflammatory words, like "so petty" and "supposedly loves".

And your argument falls flat on its face. It is Calvinism that claims that God doesn't love most of His creation and chose to condemn them unilaterally.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It would only be an excuse if they wanted to change and He didn't allow them to.

Non sequitur. In the Calvinist view, no one CAN change unless God causes them to. So your "defense" here is hollow.