Good news for the damned

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Since this line of argument was not thoroughly fleshed out in the Corinthians thread, I figure it's best to create a new thread for discussion of the argument that the Reformed articulation of the gospel does not constitute good news for all men because the death of Christ did not save unbelievers.

Problematically, unless you are a universalist, you too believe that there will be people in hell. And unless you are an open theist, you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact. Thus I would challenge any Arminian who isn't a universalist or open theist to explain how it is that a general or potential atonement provides better good news than particular redemption.

One may say that under generalism, Christ modified all men such that, if they just believe, those who will never believe will be saved. It needs to be noted here that this good news is of a counterfactual nature. It could be true in an alternate version of reality, but will not be in this one. If that is the case, particularists are also entitled to justify the goodness of their gospel using counterfactuals. Counterfactually, if an unbeliever whom Christ did not particularly redeem were to have been a believer, he would have been a believer whom Christ particularly redeemed, because under particularism Christ redeemed all believers. This is true universally. No distinction of Jew or Gentile or man or woman or young or old or rich or poor or any other distinction can withhold a man from salvation; salvation is for all if only they believe. Some won't believe, and Christ did not die so as to efficaciously redeem them, so they will go to hell, but isn't that just as true of any non-universalist position?

It has also often been said that under particularism those who are damned were foreordained unto damnation, whereas under generalism they are not, but this is a very confused error. Arminians are conflating particular redemption and unconditional election. Particularism merely states that Christ, in his death, saved all the saved and did not save all the unsaved. The reason why a man believes unto salvation or disbelieves unto damnation is not relevant to particularism.

If there are any other reasons out there why the fact that there will be damned people means that particularism is insufficiently good compared to generalism, reasons which don't hinge on counterfactuals or conflations of independent doctrines, this is your chance to present them.
 

janxharris

Veteran
Jun 10, 2010
7,562
55
Essex, UK
Visit site
✟36,397.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Since this line of argument was not thoroughly fleshed out in the Corinthians thread, I figure it's best to create a new thread for discussion of the argument that the Reformed articulation of the gospel does not constitute good news for all men because the death of Christ did not save unbelievers.

Problematically, unless you are a universalist, you too believe that there will be people in hell. And unless you are an open theist, you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact. Thus I would challenge any Arminian who isn't a universalist or open theist to explain how it is that a general or potential atonement provides better good news than particular redemption.

If it is the case that Christ died for all men without exception, and that each and every man has the wherewithal (synergistically) to have faith in Him, then that is good news. That any entity might have knowledge of what each man opted for has no bearing on the actual choices made. Speaking personally, it bothers me not one jot if knowledge of what I will choose to do is known by God (by the way, it IS known by God). As long as I know that I was not predetermined to be what I am, and can make genuine choices, then the news remains very good.

If, however, Christ did not die for all men, then some men have zero access to salvation. That is bad news, not only from an eternal perspective, but is also bad news from the human perspective because we (if that is indeed what scripture teaches) would be aware of it.

One may say that under generalism, Christ modified all men such that, if they just believe, those who will never believe will be saved. It needs to be noted here that this good news is of a counterfactual nature. It could be true in an alternate version of reality, but will not be in this one. If that is the case, particularists are also entitled to justify the goodness of their gospel using counterfactuals. Counterfactually, if an unbeliever whom Christ did not particularly redeem were to have been a believer, he would have been a believer whom Christ particularly redeemed, because under particularism Christ redeemed all believers. This is true universally. No distinction of Jew or Gentile or man or woman or young or old or rich or poor or any other distinction can withhold a man from salvation; salvation is for all if only they believe. Some won't believe, and Christ did not die so as to efficaciously redeem them, so they will go to hell, but isn't that just as true of any non-universalist position?

You are, understandably, uncomfortable with the implications of the doctrines you espouse. To try to taint Arminianism with the same brush can never work. I have already addressed this above.

It has also often been said that under particularism those who are damned were foreordained unto damnation, whereas under generalism they are not, but this is a very confused error. Arminians are conflating particular redemption and unconditional election. Particularism merely states that Christ, in his death, saved all the saved and did not save all the unsaved. The reason why a man believes unto salvation or disbelieves unto damnation is not relevant to particularism.

Why does it really matter? The two doctrines are very much linked. God predetermines to eternally save and damn, arbitrarily divides mankind into two groups and provides the means of salvation to only one group.

What we do know is that you drag God's name inexorable through the mud and seem unable to understand the extent of the damage you do. The picture of atheists gleefully rubbing their hands together is unavoidable. This is probably their favourite quote:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are pre-ordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.​
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So you respond to a request for explanations which don't hinge upon counterfactuals or the conflation of independent doctrines by denying the reformed equal opportunity to deploy counterfactuals:

If, however, Christ did not die for all men, then some men have zero access to salvation.


and conflating independent doctrines:
The two doctrines are very much linked.


How you have conflated independent doctrines should be sufficiently obvious from the above. As for counterfactuals, let me elaborate here upon exactly what you're doing in making the "no access" argument.

An individual who is not going to heaven, even within a libertarian belief system, cannot have "access" to salvation within the future which will actually be realized. In the future which will be realized, this individual will be damned by his own libertarian free will, with absolute certainty. If he were, by free will, to believe and be saved, it never would have been the case that this individual could have been foreknown by God to not go to heaven. Salvation only exists for him within a different future, other than the one which his free will will cause to exist.

Thus, within foreknowledge, even a foreknowledge of libertarian free will, the one who will be damned could only have access to salvation in a purely counterfactual sense: If he were to believe (which is something he is not going to do), salvation would exist for him in an alternate hypothetical future.

Calvinists, therefore, are equally entitled to say that all men have access to salvation if, within Calvinism, all men can be saved within alternate, hypothetical, counterfactual futures. And, as it happens, this is the case. Counterfactually, if a reprobated man were to believe, he would have been saved by the efficacious substitution of Christ for him, because, counterfactually, he would also not have been a reprobate.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Since this line of argument was not thoroughly fleshed out in the Corinthians thread, I figure it's best to create a new thread for discussion of the argument that the Reformed articulation of the gospel does not constitute good news for all men because the death of Christ did not save unbelievers.

Problematically, unless you are a universalist, you too believe that there will be people in hell. And unless you are an open theist, you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact. Thus I would challenge any Arminian who isn't a universalist or open theist to explain how it is that a general or potential atonement provides better good news than particular redemption.

One may say that under generalism, Christ modified all men such that, if they just believe, those who will never believe will be saved. It needs to be noted here that this good news is of a counterfactual nature. It could be true in an alternate version of reality, but will not be in this one. If that is the case, particularists are also entitled to justify the goodness of their gospel using counterfactuals. Counterfactually, if an unbeliever whom Christ did not particularly redeem were to have been a believer, he would have been a believer whom Christ particularly redeemed, because under particularism Christ redeemed all believers. This is true universally. No distinction of Jew or Gentile or man or woman or young or old or rich or poor or any other distinction can withhold a man from salvation; salvation is for all if only they believe. Some won't believe, and Christ did not die so as to efficaciously redeem them, so they will go to hell, but isn't that just as true of any non-universalist position?

It has also often been said that under particularism those who are damned were foreordained unto damnation, whereas under generalism they are not, but this is a very confused error. Arminians are conflating particular redemption and unconditional election. Particularism merely states that Christ, in his death, saved all the saved and did not save all the unsaved. The reason why a man believes unto salvation or disbelieves unto damnation is not relevant to particularism.

If there are any other reasons out there why the fact that there will be damned people means that particularism is insufficiently good compared to generalism, reasons which don't hinge on counterfactuals or conflations of independent doctrines, this is your chance to present them.
Your big problem is forcing God to be limited to our time frame with this statement: “…you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact”. How does God of our past “know” our free will choices of “our” future? You know the free will choices you made yesterday and they are history unchangeable “determined” and the God of our future can know all those past historical choices as unchangeable, but the God of our future is also the same God from the beginning that can communicate through our time (God is not limited by time) to Himself at any time. The “fact” of our final restring place is determined by us, but is known by God at any “time”.
 
Upvote 0