God creates some for hell

[Johnnz]

It's interesting you would use 9:6, have you considered what that is teaching? I think you may want to reconsider?

I'm happy to reconsider, but I don't know the point you want me to reconsider. Can you kindly clarify?

John
NZ

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

I really don't think the bible teaches that God chooses anybody for hell. Because of original sin we are all born sinners and God sent Christ to save us from hell. Yes God does elect the believer so it can be confusing but He does not choose to send anyone to Hell.

 

[Leasaithe]

I really don't think the bible teaches that God chooses anybody for hell. Because of original sin we are all born sinners and God sent Christ to save us from hell. Yes God does elect the believer so it can be confusing but He does not choose to send anyone to Hell.

I think at best you have a misunderstanding of election. Your thoughts are very similar to Brunner's, or at least how you have presented it here. If God has predestined some (Eph. 1:4)but not all to election, does it not follow by what Luther called a "resistless logic" that some are not predestined to election? (Rom. 9:20-22)

 

[dhh712]

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

I understand the problem and have considered it to be a problem I can't comprehend in my mind, yet it does not make me distrustful of God or not want to worship Him. Also, I am quite new to the faith and in time such things may become more clear for me. The "problem" if you will, is one of rather immediate significance to me since I alone of my family and old friends am the only one with this particular God-centered faith. I feel very alone and sad sometimes to think that those I have known for all my life do not know God.

Nevertheless, I love Him and trust Him. I feel the "problem" is that my mind simply cannot comprehend His ways. Our ways are not His. I trust that He is just, merciful and compassionate. I cannot demand Him to become something rational to my mind in order for me to believe upon Him; He has already established a relationship which I pray I will not turn from.

 

[Skala]

I really don't think the bible teaches that God chooses anybody for hell. Because of original sin we are all born sinners and God sent Christ to save us from hell. Yes God does elect the believer so it can be confusing but He does not choose to send anyone to Hell.

Even after the final judgement, God doesn't choose to throw anyone into hell?

 

[Skala]

Firstly, you are not identified as a Calvinist. Therefore your observation, that which is Calvinist, shouldn't worry you because you are not Calvinist.

Secondly, what may assist to ease your mind about TULIP, is that Calvin was an attorney first. He later self-identified as one who could decree the laws of God.

Hope that helps you to find peace.

Do you think Calvin invented TULIP or something?

 

[Skala]

Firstly, you are not identified as a Calvinist. Therefore your observation, that which is Calvinist, shouldn't worry you because you are not Calvinist.

Secondly, what may assist to ease your mind about TULIP, is that Calvin was an attorney first. He later self-identified as one who could decree the laws of God.

Hope that helps you to find peace.

Do you think Calvin invented TULIP or something?

The truth is, TULIP was formulated not as a positive affirmation of doctrine, but as a negative response to the Arminian controversy. A "new system of belief" was stirring controversy, called Arminianism. A synod was convened (called the Synod of Dordt, google it) to examine those beliefs in light of scripture. The Arminians put forth 5 points of doctrine. The synod, one by one, issued a response (and rejection of) each of those five points.

T to refute the Arminian's first objection.
U to refute the second..
L to refute the third..
etc..

TULIP came about as a negative refutation and response to Arminianism. This synod happened long after John Calvin's death.

So it's not as if John Calvin sat down one day and said "hey! I think I'll invent some new doctrine and call it "TULIP" and "Calvinism!" Such a notion is absurd. It not only demosntrates extreme ignorance of actual history, but is absurd on the face of it. John Calvin a "Reformer", lived amonst the other Reformers, who's job was, you guessed it, to reform the church back to it's original roots. Their job was not to "create new doctrine", but rather, re-establish "old doctrine". If they encountered "new doctrine", they automatically dismissed it as erroneous. So it's not as if anyone "invented" TULIP or Calvinism, because then it would have been "new doctrine", and the Reformers would have rejected it.

The reformers were trying to reform (not revolutionize) doctrine. If you trace church history backwards through time, you can see Christians as early as 529 AD affirming some of the same truths that the Calvinists in the 1600's did, such as predestination and monergistic regeneration. (do yourself a favor and google the Council of Orange 529 AD)

Calvinism is simply a re-estaliblishment of very old Christian doctrine that had been corrupted and lost in the dark ages of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Johnnz]

True BUT....

From the 4th century, especially subsequent to the teachings of Augustine, Greek philosophy, both in form and concepts, increasingly overrode many biblical concepts. The Patristic era began scholasticism, and logically based systematising and formulating Christian 'doctrines'. Those influences and scholarly sources form the framework of Calvin's thinking.

Only into the earlier 20th century, and especially from the mid 20th Century have those influences begun to be exposed and unraveled.

John
NZ

 

[Skala]

True BUT....

From the 4th century, especially subsequent to the teachings of Augustine, Greek philosophy, both in form and concepts, increasingly overrode many biblical concepts. The Patristic era began scholasticism, and logically based systematising and formulating Christian 'doctrines'. Those influences and scholarly sources form the framework of Calvin's thinking.

Only into the earlier 20th century, and especially from the mid 20th Century have those influences begun to be exposed and unraveled.

John
NZ

None of that matters if the Bible teaches what those 4th century people believed and taught.

I'm convinced it does. So the onus is on others to do the exegetical work to show how their understanding of the Bible's teaching is somehow off or incorrect.

(this, of course, never, ever happens)

 

[Johnnz]

None of that matters if the Bible teaches what those 4th century people believed and taught.

I'm convinced it does. So the onus is on others to do the exegetical work to show how their understanding of the Bible's teaching is somehow off or incorrect.

(this, of course, never, ever happens)

So, your understanding i.e. interpretation is THE correct one?

As for exegesis - Try Gordon Fee or Rikk Watts and use their resources to access further materials. Both have downloadable lectures for purchase at Regent College RegentAudio.com <regentaudio@regent-college.edu>

Just a general comment - systematic theology itself derives from Greek ideals as a method for analysis and formulations of principles, whereas Scripture is revelatory within history, a very different starting point. Reason says 'prove' 'deduce'. Jesus says 'Follow Me' and then you will know. Foolishness to the Greeks as Paul noted.

John
NZ
John
NZ

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

I appreciate your thoughts.
I think if you return to my post you will see that I made no such assertions as that to which you address your rebuttal.

I also appreciate your PM that alerted me of this reply you made to my remarks and the link. I have been away visiting my wife while she was on work break after holiday. So no, I did not forget about this post. I have just returned so as to catch up on all of this.

God Be With You,
David

Do you think Calvin invented TULIP or something?

The truth is, TULIP was formulated not as a positive affirmation of doctrine, but as a negative response to the Arminian controversy. A "new system of belief" was stirring controversy, called Arminianism. A synod was convened (called the Synod of Dordt, google it) to examine those beliefs in light of scripture. The Arminians put forth 5 points of doctrine. The synod, one by one, issued a response (and rejection of) each of those five points.

T to refute the Arminian's first objection.
U to refute the second..
L to refute the third..
etc..

TULIP came about as a negative refutation and response to Arminianism. This synod happened long after John Calvin's death.

So it's not as if John Calvin sat down one day and said "hey! I think I'll invent some new doctrine and call it "TULIP" and "Calvinism!" Such a notion is absurd. It not only demosntrates extreme ignorance of actual history, but is absurd on the face of it. John Calvin a "Reformer", lived amonst the other Reformers, who's job was, you guessed it, to reform the church back to it's original roots. Their job was not to "create new doctrine", but rather, re-establish "old doctrine". If they encountered "new doctrine", they automatically dismissed it as erroneous. So it's not as if anyone "invented" TULIP or Calvinism, because then it would have been "new doctrine", and the Reformers would have rejected it.

The reformers were trying to reform (not revolutionize) doctrine. If you trace church history backwards through time, you can see Christians as early as 529 AD affirming some of the same truths that the Calvinists in the 1600's did, such as predestination and monergistic regeneration. (do yourself a favor and google the Council of Orange 529 AD)

Calvinism is simply a re-estaliblishment of very old Christian doctrine that had been corrupted and lost in the dark ages of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Skala]

I appreciate your thoughts.
I think if you return to my post you will see that I made no such assertions as that to which you address your rebuttal.

I also appreciate your PM that alerted me of this reply you made to my remarks and the link. I have been away visiting my wife while she was on work break after holiday. So no, I did not forget about this post. I have just returned so as to catch up on all of this.

God Be With You,
David

Hi, welcome back

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. For that I apologize. But your words confuse me, because it seemed like you linked Calvin with TULIP, when you said:

Secondly, what may assist to ease your mind about TULIP, is that Calvin was an attorney first.

If you made no assertions that my rebuttal dealt with, what on earth, then, does Calvin have to do with TULIP, and why would anyone's mind (regarding TULIP) be eased or affected in any way by considering some stuff about Calvin?

Hopefully you can see why my response contained the content that it did.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

The doctrine of election is misunderstood often. If you are really this depressed I suggest this book. It actually opened my eyes to understand it in a different light and its an easy read, while written by a theologian it is not over our heads. Very easy to read, believe me. Its only 10 dollars and can be obtained at most book stores but here is a link to it on ChristianBook.com.

Christianbook.com: Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Revised and Updated Edition: Michael Horton: 9780801014215

 

[sdowney717]

Creates some for hell, hmm.

Every single person born into this lost and dying world is hell bound unless God shows mercy towards them to know the truth and be saved.
Does God create them knowing they will never become a believer?
Yes He does.
In fact the lost are without hope.

Ephesians 2

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—

12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Christ Our Peace

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

Christ made us both one Jew and gentile. 'Made us', do you think Christ is a machine like believer-ism force or is He personal?

If personal then He, Jesus gets personally involved in individually saving people. And then He is the author and finisher of your faith. If so then what about unbelievers? Since all are without hope and without God in this world unless Jesus saves them, you should affirm that those who do not believe are not elect, chosen of God to know the truth and be saved. Unless you disagree with the sound words of Jesus.

That the elect are chosen, Jesus says is true.

Mark 13

20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days.

21 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, He is there!’ do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 But take heed; see, I have told you all things beforehand.

The Coming of the Son of Man

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

 

[mercyfollowsme]

this topic is about the act of creation by God, and that calvinists believe that God choses to elect only some, fully knowing that the rest will be helplessly and unavoidably tortured for eternity, regardless of their sin-bound intent for redemption.

this is not a slight on God, but rather a slight on the notion of calvinism. most of you will deny the logical conclusion ive drawn out, but it is inescapable once you lay down the tenets of total depravity and limited atonement. just join the dots.

its ok to be upset about that idea, it is monstrous.

 

[spiritandtruth2]

This has been bothering me lately. If God chose to save me, but chose to create others for eternal hell, can I happily worship God while he creates others for hell? It is very depressing for me if this is the case. How can I be happy while he creates others for hell? I simply got lucky that he chose me.

I think this problem is unavoidable even if one believes in free will, because God creates a free will being knowing the being will choose hell.

This makes me distrustful of God, and quite depressed, and does not make me want to worship him.

Anyone else feeling this problem?

What a load of rubbish, if you Children were naughty would you put there hand in the fire to punish them, I'm sure you wouldn't.

What makes you think a God of Love would?

(1 John 4:7, 8) 7 Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been born from God and gains the knowledge of God. 8 He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love.

(1 John 4:16) God is love, and he that remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him.

Hell/Sheol/Hades is the common man's grave not a place of fiery torment.

Some Bibles say Jesus Christ went to Hell.

Did he?

 

[Viren]

Good Day,

They do not understand necause they can not hear:


John 8

Why do you not understand fwhat I am saying?
Itis because you cannot hear My word.



they are not enabled, they can not like or dislike that which they do not hear, they can not care about that which they do not hear, beacause they do not understand...

They are unable to understand because they are cannot hear....

In the same manner that men cannot grow wings and fly like a bird.
Grow gills and swim like a fish.

In Him,

Bill

Yep, those that can hear are new creations.

 

[sdowney717]

Yep, those that can hear are new creations.

Absolutely correct.
Those who do not hear are not of God.
They are of the devil, those who can not hear, having no ears to hear in a spiritual understanding, the truth. They do not believe because they can not know the things of God as they are spiritually discerned.

Many people just do not agree with what Jesus plainly says because it does not go along with their 'world view'. Who they think God is.

John 8

42 Jesus said to them, &#8220;If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.

43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father&#8217;s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don&#8217;t you believe me?

47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.&#8221;

1 Cor 2

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man&#8217;s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

MANY people refuse to believe what is written in the scriptures. And they distort the message in an attempt to deceive, to draw away from truth, to create others like themselves as Paul warned the ephesian elders.

 

[Skala]

this topic is about the act of creation by God, and that calvinists believe that God choses to elect only some, fully knowing that the rest will be helplessly and unavoidably tortured for eternity, regardless of their sin-bound intent for redemption.

this is not a slight on God, but rather a slight on the notion of calvinism. most of you will deny the logical conclusion ive drawn out, but it is inescapable once you lay down the tenets of total depravity and limited atonement. just join the dots.

its ok to be upset about that idea, it is monstrous.

So do you deny that God creates people that He knows will end up in hell?

The only way for you to escape this dilemma is to embrace open theism, or else you are guilty of the very same thing you accuse Calvinists of in your first paragraph above.

You said:

calvinists believe that God choses to elect only some, fully knowing that the rest will be helplessly and unavoidably tortured for eternity, regardless of their sin-bound intent for redemption.

Are you saying in your own soteriological view, God doesn't elect only some (Conditional Election - Arminianism), fully knowing that the rest will be helpless and unavoidably tortured for eternity? Are you saying in your own view, God elects everyone?

Are you a universalist?

Do you deny election altogether?

Do you embrace Open Theism (Ie, God doesn't know the future?)

If you answer "no" to these questions, then your argument works equally against your own soteriological view.

But this is the sort of double standard I've grown to expect from synergists/anti-Calvinists.

PS. Also, I can't help but notice your disdain for the doctrine of hell, period, based on the kind of pejorative language you used to describe it. So, that sparks another question:

Do you deny hell?

It's funny when you start asking these questions, you show that the person doesn't have a problem with Calvinism per se, but just plain old regular, orthodox Christian doctrine. They just use Calvinism as a scapegoat to vent all their frustrations with the parts of the Bible they hate.

 

[Johnnz]

I probably am amongst the open Theists. Firstly, we have no direct analogy of how God, being outside of time, knows anything. We basically assume our kind of experience of linear time from a space/time perspective. That most probably does not apply to God that directly, if at all.

Secondly, the Scriptures from which Calvinism are derived can be understood very differently from How Calvin exegeted them, and consequently the doctrine is just not necessary. But that requires trying to understand some scriptures without pre-formed concepts, and we all find that hard to do. Nevertheless, Reformed doctrines themselves were part of an historical process and I expect they too will continue to undergo challenge and revision over time as newer insights gain greater traction within the Christian community rather than the initial resistance we are seeing now.

John
NZ