Do you feel badly for the non-elect?

[twin1954]

But from the text we don't read where the rich man shook his fist and told Abraham that he should leave him be. No....

We see where the rich man had much regret...much. Also we see that Abraham explained to him that there was " a great gulf between them". The rich man accepted his fate. He had been judged. He knew it. While he knew he couldn't gain repentance, he desired that his brothers would. So there is a desire for repentance in the rich man. It's in the text. If you don't see it you're kidding yourself. His desire wasn't for his own repentance, as he knew his fate was sealed. It was for his brothers' repentance. So yes, we do see repentance in him.

That's what it says. That's handling it rightly. What isn't handling it rightly is producing the argument that the rich man had no regret , and no desire for others who were still unbelievers to repent. That's not so, and that's disingenuous.

Once again you read into the text what is not there. The rich man desired that his brothers not receive the same torment that he was receiving but that isn't repentance.

And once again you disregard the actual teaching of the parable. The teaching of the parable isn't the possible repentance of the rich man but the fact that men will not repent even though one who rose from the dead should tell them of the torments of Hell and the escape.

The truth is that even though God Himself should appear among them they will not repent and believe but will crucify Him. That is what man's free will will always do to God if they could.

Now if you can show me one Calvinist that believes that men in He'll would rather be there I would appreciate it.

What you have done is twist the truth of Calvinism into something you can argue against. You have built a straw man in order to tear him down. In fact Calvinists believe that man is so sold unto his sinful nature that he will reject God in Christ for his entire life until he ends up in everlasting torment and even then will seek to put the blame for his judgment on God.

 

[Philipito]

Wrong sir. Man's sin belongs to man and in typical Calvinist fashion you stretch the argument of free will into a smirch against God's sovereignty.

It has been said here and many other places that if the doors of hell were opened to let out the non elect , they would slam shut and stay inside. That's not so.

You are partly correct in the fact that the rich man didn't repent. But why ? He was already judged. This is what happens at death. Judgement. And It's final. So It's a moot point you're making.

Show me in scripture where those who have been judged show no remorse, and no regret?

You bear any burden of proof scripturally for your stance that is at least as clear as this scripture is for mine.

And yes, it's clear that the rich man did not want his brothers there. HE DESIRED FOR THEM TO REPENT BECAUSE THEY COULD. HE COULDN'T.

Will you deny the very words of scripture? They had a choice to listen to the words of Moses and the prophets...and these words were enough.

But they had a choice.

 

[JM]

"When the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed...it will be no occasion of grief...but of rejoicing."

Those who love God would find no reason to be disturbed when God's enemies receive His wrath because we would see those who receive His wrath for who they are, God haters for, "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known..." Romans 3

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Philipito]

With an attitude like this toward the lost, there's no way you share the Gospel with power. If at all.

Do you realize that you were once condemned and except for mercy would still be condemned? Do you understand that Jesus didn't come for the righteous, but for sinners? Do you understand that God is not a respector of persons?

 

[twin1954]

With an attitude like this toward the lost, there's no way you share the Gospel with power. If at all.

Do you realize that you were once condemned and except for mercy would still be condemned? Do you understand that Jesus didn't come for the righteous, but for sinners? Do you understand that God is not a respector of persons?

This only shows your utter ignorance of what Calvinists believe and what they preach. I have preached the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus with power more than I can count.

Certainly if you actually knew anything of the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and unconditional electing love you wouldn't have asked such ignorant questions.


As to your last question I suggest that look up the context of those words in the Scriptures. You will find that in every instance they refer to God not placing the rich and powerful above the beggar. But I seriously doubt that you will because it would destroy one of your favorite "truths" you think are in the Scriptures.

That is the problem with freewillers, they pick out statements and sayings from the Scriptures without regard to their context and throw them around as though they support your false view. They grab a verse her and a verse there and use them as if the whole of the Scriptures teach their error. I doubt that you would last five minutes if we sat down together with the Scriptures. All I would need do is point out the context of all the passages you point to and let the Scriptures speak for themself.

 

[hedrick]

"When the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed...it will be no occasion of grief...but of rejoicing."

This is from Jonathan Edwards, not Scripture.

I think there's good reason to rejoice that evil is removed. But I would say that's separate from rejoicing that people are lost. Hence you need to be careful in assessing places that say the judgement is good.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Mat 23:37)

Say to them, As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezek 33:11)

I'm not aware of places that state the contrary, in the sense of saying that God rejoices over people's damnation. There are certainly places talking about the triumph of justice and the defeat of evil.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, I looked at how Calvin treats Ezek 33:11. It’s an interesting issue. When dealing with the many statements saying that God wants everyone to be saved, he distinguishes between God’s secret and public wills.

Some kind of distinction seems inevitable. As long as we assume that God is omnipotent and can see the future, he must in some sense approve of everything that is going to happen. So in at least some sense he wills the damnation of the reprobate.

However Ezek 33:11 goes beyond that. It speaks of God taking pleasure or not. While I agree that omniscience implies at least some level of acceptance or approval of everything that happens, it doesn’t require that God take pleasure in seeing people damned. Since Scripture says he doesn’t, I think Calvin’s argument is hard to justify.

I have a feeling I know what Calvin would say: he would say that God takes pleasure in everything he does, and to speak of someone omnipotent doing something with regret makes no sense.

However I’m concerned with pushing too far in the direction of God secretly having a will that’s opposed to what we see of him in Scripture. At a certain point I’d rather accept some limitations on what God can or at least allows himself to do than to accept a God whose secret character differs from what he is revealed to be like.

-------

I find myself somewhat sympathetic with Luther. Luther is sometimes characterized as holding “single predestination,” where God wills the salvation of the elect but not the damnation of the reprobate. As I read the later Luther, that’s not quite right.

It seems to me that he acknowledges that there must be a secret counsel of God behind damnation. However he doesn’t believe enough is revealed about it that we can safely talk about it. Doing so risks producing a picture of God that is demonic. I think this may actually be the best approach.

 

[Philipito]

This only shows your utter ignorance of what Calvinists believe and what they preach. I have preached the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus with power more than I can count.

Certainly if you actually knew anything of the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity and unconditional electing love you wouldn't have asked such ignorant questions.


As to your last question I suggest that look up the context of those words in the Scriptures. You will find that in every instance they refer to God not placing the rich and powerful above the beggar. But I seriously doubt that you will because it would destroy one of your favorite "truths" you think are in the Scriptures.

That is the problem with freewillers, they pick out statements and sayings from the Scriptures without regard to their context and throw them around as though they support your false view. They grab a verse her and a verse there and use them as if the whole of the Scriptures teach their error. I doubt that you would last five minutes if we sat down together with the Scriptures. All I would need do is point out the context of all the passages you point to and let the Scriptures speak for themself.

I'm ignorant of many things friend, but not what you claim me to be ignorant of.

I know Calvinism. I know the doctrines behind it.

I also know preaching the Gospel to many , many people over several years. Also, to assume You would take me to school scripturally in 5 minutes is more assumption, and truthfully , prideful.

This discussion with you is not edifying so I will bow out.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Why should you pity those God does not pity?

 

[Philipito]

Why should you pity those God does not pity?

Because God told you to love your enemies. That's why. Now , this totally flies in the face of Calvinism. If God asks us to love our enemies, but yet He doesn't , does that mean God is asking you to be more pious than He ? The answer is no.

 

[hedrick]

The following essay is interesting: How Does a Sovereign God Love? | Desiring God. It's from John Piper, who is a fairly hard-line Calvinist. He maintains that we are called by Jesus to love everyone, including the non-elect, and that God loves them in some sense as well, though not with electing love.

Further, he appears to take "I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God; so turn, and live" in its obvious sense.

 

[twin1954]

The following essay is interesting: How Does a Sovereign God Love? | Desiring God. It's from John Piper, who is a fairly hard-line Calvinist. He maintains that we are called by Jesus to love everyone, including the non-elect, and that God loves them in some sense as well, though not with electing love.

Further, he appears to take "I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God; so turn, and live" in its obvious sense.

When God says that He has no pleasure in the death of anyone it simply means that He is not a sociopath. He doesn't get a thrill when they are punished. There is no satisfaction derived from it.

 

[twin1954]

I'm ignorant of many things friend, but not what you claim me to be ignorant of.

I know Calvinism. I know the doctrines behind it.

I also know preaching the Gospel to many , many people over several years. Also, to assume You would take me to school scripturally in 5 minutes is more assumption, and truthfully , prideful.

This discussion with you is not edifying so I will bow out.

You might call me arrogant and prideful but truth is still truth. I wouldn't take you to school I would simply let the Spirit speak through the Scriptures. I rest my everlasting soul on those truths revealed in the Scriptures. These things are not revealed by flesh and blood but by God the Spirit who makes the glory of God shine in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Don Maurer]

I'm typing and attempting to edit on my phone...yes the rich man is the person I'm speaking of.

Calvinists say if those in he'll hard the chance to repent and come out of hell they would share their fists and slam the door shut with them in it. This is obviously not so. We can see regret with the rich man in hell. We can also see that his desire was that no one else go there. So no, it does not prove his point it disproves his point. How can you not see this? If you'll take off your calvinistic lenses it's in plain sight

twin1954 already responded to this, and I noticed him calling this statement a "straw man," which of course is true. Yet, it makes me wonder, why are straw men so acceptable in the minds of non-reformed people?

 

[hedrick]

twin1954 already responded to this, and I noticed him calling this statement a "straw man," which of course is true. Yet, it makes me wonder, why are straw men so acceptable in the minds of non-reformed people?

Because generally non-Reformed people don't think compatibilism makes any sense. If you remove that, Calvinism becomes something hard to accept.

 

[Don Maurer]

Because generally non-Reformed people don't think compatibilism makes any sense. If you remove that, Calvinism becomes something hard to accept.

So because Non-Reformed do not agree with compatibilism they think they are allowed to just make anything up about reformed theology including straw man statements?

 

[hedrick]

So because Non-Reformed do not agree with compatibilism they think they are allowed to just make anything up about reformed theology including straw man statements?

Non-Reformed don't generally make things up. If you don't believe in compatibilism, then election becomes compulsion, and all kinds of nasty consequences follow.

 

[Don Maurer]

Non-Reformed don't generally make things up. If you don't believe in compatibilism, then election becomes compulsion, and all kinds of nasty consequences follow.

hidrick, when Phillipito said ..

I'm typing and attempting to edit on my phone...yes the rich man is the person I'm speaking of.

Calvinists say if those in he'll hard the chance to repent and come out of hell they would share their fists and slam the door shut with them in it. This is obviously not so. We can see regret with the rich man in hell."

You will have to show me at least one place where some Calvinist said "if those in Hell had the chance to repent and come put of Hell they would shake their fist and slam the door shut with them in it." Now you say that "Non-Reformed don't generally make things up." Someone Non-Reformed just got finished making a straw man argument, or as you say, "make something up."

I am guessing you circulate in some Non-Reformed circles where people might not think like Phillipito. I guess that's nice, but the world is a bigger place and there are plenty more like Phillipito.

 

[hedrick]

hidrick, when Phillipito said ..

You will have to show me at least one place where some Calvinist said "if those in Hell had the chance to repent and come put of Hell they would shake their fist and slam the door shut with them in it." Now you say that "Non-Reformed don't generally make things up." Someone Non-Reformed just got finished making a straw man argument, or as you say, "make something up."

That's actually a good example. Suppose you don't believe in compatibilism. Then God choosing who is saved and who isn't compatible with people making responsible decisions. In that case the reprobate don't actually choose to reject him, and Phillipito's objection makes sense.

 

[twin1954]

That's actually a good example. Suppose you don't believe in compatibilism. Then God choosing who is saved and who isn't compatible with people making responsible decisions. In that case the reprobate don't actually choose to reject him, and Phillipito's objection makes sense.

Not if you know who God is.