HELL

[bling]

God created hell. And He isn't obligated to save Satan snd Satan's minions.

Satan of his own free will rebelled against God after already being in heaven, it was satan's choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
According to your structure, their accepting of that forgiveness makes the difference as to their eternal condition, no? Do I misunderstand and you are a universalist?

God is forgiving everyone (He is doing His part the best it can be done), but man has to accept the invitation (this huge act of Love/forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity to complete the transaction and this is done for purely sinful (selfish) reasons which Deity cannot be involved in (being selfish/sinful is not something God can be involved in).
How is that "universalism", if most are refusing?

I didn't say it was universalism. I said either you are a universalist, in which case they (according to universalism) don't need to do anything in order to be saved, or your structure amounts to their eternal condition hinging on their choice, and not God's choosing them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Satan of his own free will rebelled against God after already being in heaven, it was satan's choice.

Satan of his own will rebelled against God; it was Satan's choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would have a hard time living with survivor remorse if I thought it was God not helping my family which caused them to be lost.

Why would you think that? Anybody that goes to hell does so by their willed enmity against God. It is not because "God doesn't help them" be saved. They are already condemned because they don't believe (John 3:18). They are, in fact, unable to believe because they always choose at enmity with God. Not because God doesn't help them. He owes nobody anything.

But the redeemed are saved not because they chose anything, but because God chose them for his particular love, showing mercy to those who deserve none. Changing them from death to life, enmity to love. Grace.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God and Christ are "One", where in scripture are you getting this idea of a transaction between them?
the transaction we have is in accepting the offered invitation, which is not a "work".

God and the Son are indeed one God, but two persons. Do you know where the royal "we" comes from? ("Let us make man in our image").
Redemption, and "God with us", "They His people, and He, their God" of Rev 21 has been the covenant from the beginning, between the Father and Son; the transaction is redemption. Christ paid our sin, and his righteousness imputed to us.

"For God has bound up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all." (Romans 11:32)
"So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." (Romans 9:16)

Do a search: "Federal Transactions Between the Father and the Son" unless you don't want to know.

Do you suppose that the Lamb that appeared slain from the foundation of the world, was not the plan all along, to appease God's wrath, and whose righteousness was applied to them whom the Father gave him, while their sin was applied to him? What was this—plan B? Just in case plan A didn't work out? This is not a patch to correct a mistake. It is the Glory of God.

If it is a transaction between God and ourselves "in accepting the offered invitation" then you are saying that we bought the right to become the children of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

this verse comes from Romans 9.
Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9:14, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all Paul’s and Psalms diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand how Paul, uses diatribes and think, since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

Think further about this: The Jews (thinking the gentiles were dogs) would support their distant for the Gentiles by pointing out to them how God: loved Jacob, a Jew, and hated Esau, a gentile, plus Jacob and Ishmael, Moses and Pharoah and with other OT true stories. Those true stories would thus be formular to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, showing the Jews were special and the Gentiles were just common.

If God treaded you as privileged and special, would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common, while others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles)which would be “one of you”.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Romans. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction, since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah 18 uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two finished pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?



Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

If you had made it a longer explanation, it still, like the above condensed version does nothing for your thesis. In fact, the true things you said above enhance the truth of God's sovereign choice, and the inability of man. You have yet to explain away several statements, throughout Romans, and in Romans 9. In the very context you show, God still says, through Paul, "So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." —Romans 9:16

 

[bling]

In this verse to draw means to drag, impel, lead. The person that draws is God not man. This is not an invitation to be considered throughout time but an immediate action. You are using draw to mean to “get closer” but that is not the meaning of the word here as you can see.

Strong’s Definitions
†ἑλκύω helkýō, hel-koo'-o; probably akin to G138; to drag (literally or figuratively):—draw. Compare G1667.

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

In John 6:44 the usage is number 2 above.

2. metaphorically, to draw by inward power, lead, impel: John 6:44 (so in Greek also; as ἐπιθυμίας... ἑλκουσης ἐπὶἡδονάς, Plato, Phaedr., p. 238 a.; ὑπὸ τῆςἡδονῆς ἑλκόμενοι, Aelian h. a. 6, 31; likewise 4 Macc. 14:13; 15:8 (4 Macc 15:11). trahit sua quemque voluptas, Vergil, ecl. 2, 65); πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, I by my moral, my spiritual, influence will win over to myself the hearts of all, John 12:32. Cf. Meyer on John 6:44; [Trench, § 21, Compare:ἐξέλκω.]

You bring up a good point, but it shows the English word for “draw” (Greek being ἕλκω) has several means extending from being dragged kicking and screaming to being persuaded by the Gospel message, so what is John trying to convey to us?

We have a parallel usage shortly later by John in John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

John helps us here by giving us the motive for Jesus saying this, His death on the cross.

Jesus’ death on the cross does not drag “all people” kicking and screaming to Him, but it does “draw” some willing people from every nation to Christ, because this is the strongest act of Love that any being could do for other humans. “All” in this instance does not mean every breathing person.

Now looking at John 6: 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Would that mean, God drags people to Christ kicking and screaming, virtually kidnapping them away from where they want to be? The desire to turn to Christ is the result of our conscience being burdened by the wrong we have done in the past and finding no relieve from that painful burden from drug, alcohol, work, sex, other gods, and so-on. God is drawing us by the pain we are suffering without Christ in our life, at least until we harden our hearts beyond repair.

It is not always a gentle draw, because the burden is great and His burden is lite.

 

[bling]

God and the Son are indeed one God, but two persons. Do you know where the royal "we" comes from? ("Let us make man in our image").
Redemption, and "God with us", "They His people, and He, their God" of Rev 21 has been the covenant from the beginning, between the Father and Son; the transaction is redemption. Christ paid our sin, and his righteousness imputed to us.

"For God has bound up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all." (Romans 11:32)
"So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." (Romans 9:16)

Do a search: "Federal Transactions Between the Father and the Son" unless you don't want to know.

Do you suppose that the Lamb that appeared slain from the foundation of the world, was not the plan all along, to appease God's wrath, and whose righteousness was applied to them whom the Father gave him, while their sin was applied to him? What was this—plan B? Just in case plan A didn't work out? This is not a patch to correct a mistake. It is the Glory of God.

If it is a transaction between God and ourselves "in accepting the offered invitation" then you are saying that we bought the right to become the children of God.

This brings up the huge topic of atonement, which I even started to write a book on, since I do not agree with any popular theory.
You're trying to explain the unexplainable trinity and how to separate the Three, does not relate to anything we have around us.
A federal transaction between God and Christ seems made up and has little if any Biblical support.
There is only one plan.
Accepting God charity as charity, buys us nothing, since we totally do not deserve anything.

 

[bling]

If you had made it a longer explanation, it still, like the above condensed version does nothing for your thesis. In fact, the true things you said above enhance the truth of God's sovereign choice, and the inability of man. You have yet to explain away several statements, throughout Romans, and in Romans 9. In the very context you show, God still says, through Paul, "So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." —Romans 9:16

God's mercy is what saves us and it is offered to all mature adults, we just have to accept God mercy (Love/forgiveness/charity) as pure undeserved charity.

 

[bling]

Mark Quayle said:
According to your structure, their accepting of that forgiveness makes the difference as to their eternal condition, no? Do I misunderstand and you are a universalist?

I didn't say it was universalism. I said either you are a universalist, in which case they (according to universalism) don't need to do anything in order to be saved, or your structure amounts to their eternal condition hinging on their choice, and not God's choosing them.

God chose to put every person here on this earth who were, are or ever will be here on earth. When they become a mature adult, they can accept or reject God's help to relieve their painful burden of sin at least for a while.

 

[bling]

Satan of his own will rebelled against God; it was Satan's choice.

Are we in agreement?

 

[bling]

Why would you think that? Anybody that goes to hell does so by their willed enmity against God. It is not because "God doesn't help them" be saved. They are already condemned because they don't believe (John 3:18). They are, in fact, unable to believe because they always choose at enmity with God. Not because God doesn't help them. He owes nobody anything.

But the redeemed are saved not because they chose anything, but because God chose them for his particular love, showing mercy to those who deserve none. Changing them from death to life, enmity to love. Grace.

How is that not a contradiction: "It is not because "God doesn't help them" be saved." with "the redeemed are saved not because they chose anything, but because God chose them for his particular love"?
If the saved or the unsaved person are exactly alike, how can you not have some survival remorse for those that are not saved while you are saved?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This brings up the huge topic of atonement, which I even started to write a book on, since I do not agree with any popular theory.
You're trying to explain the unexplainable trinity and how to separate the Three, does not relate to anything we have around us.
A federal transaction between God and Christ seems made up and has little if any Biblical support.
There is only one plan.
Accepting God charity as charity, buys us nothing, since we totally do not deserve anything.

Words sometimes push us around. We think we've overcome a mental contradiction, but all we've done is to put some words together. This is how you came up with your version of the Gospel, that has less than "little if any Biblical support."

I am not the one who posited the notion of a transaction. You did. I'm saying that if there is a transaction, it is between the Father and Son—not an arrangement by which we can purchase—er, "gain"— salvation.

But, as you've been shown repeatedly, we are unable to accept God's offer, because we ALWAYS WILL NOT, just as Romans 8 shows, until he regenerates us. We are dead, spiritually speaking, just as Ephesians 2 says. The spiritually dead are unable to do anything spiritual. You pretend they can.

In addition, the thing you pretend they can do, ("to simply, humbly, accept as charity"), requires understanding what it is that they are accepting. Until God regenerates them, they are clueless, spiritually speaking. "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned." 1 Cor 2:14 Furthermore, as the conversion requires, he cannot have salvific faith, he has no repentance, he has no love for God, he has no power of commitment, he has no standing, until God regenerates him, whose faith is not of his own making. All those things that are required in your so-called 'transaction', though you will deny it, are by the Spirit of God Himself having 'taken up residence' in the person, God who alone has those things in full measure.

God has decided to save those he chose for that purpose, without requiring the extra step of our synergistic cooperation. We can do NOTHING to add to his work. His work is complete; it does not need us to agree to it, to accept it (which is quite a different thing from receiving it), nor does he even consult us on the matter. Our eternal safety does not hinge on our ignorant, foolish, self-interest. We cannot humbly accept something we perceive as charity, when we don't even understand how free it really is. Nor is it required by the terms of the Gospel.

If there is something WE have to do, in order to be saved, we are all doomed. That is not Grace. You pretend to bridge that gap by your own construction.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God chose to put every person here on this earth who were, are or ever will be here on earth. When they become a mature adult, they can accept or reject God's help to relieve their painful burden of sin at least for a while.

And so your version of the gospel says. So the bible does not say.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How is that not a contradiction: "It is not because "God doesn't help them" be saved." with "the redeemed are saved not because they chose anything, but because God chose them for his particular love"?
If the saved or the unsaved person are exactly alike, how can you not have some survival remorse for those that are not saved while you are saved?

I'm demonstrating there your complete mis-taking (false grasp) of the facts—your complete mis-representation of the way of things. WE are not the center of anything. GOD is the center of everything. Grace requires nothing of its recipients. In fact, God has bound us all over to disobedience for the purpose of Grace. (Romans 11:32) GOD is doing this work. NOT us. (When we do what we do in that vein, it is by and in response to what has already been done in us—i.e. regeneration.)

You are looking at it backwards. You claim that our notion of God has the reprobate going to hell because "God doesn't help them". No. That we are saved by the Grace alone of God alone does not translate to the rest going to hell because he did not help them. They go to hell because of their sin, just as we would have, but for God's Grace. It would not take a gospel, nor redemption, if they had not sinned. You demand a contract? There it is. Live sinless, you go to heaven. But none but Christ ever did. God didn't fail to do anything he hadn't set out to do from the beginning.

But you want to make utter Grace to depend on man. You want God's decision to depend on man's decision. You try to make man in charge.

You ask: "If the saved or the unsaved person are exactly alike, how can you not have some survival remorse for those that are not saved while you are saved?" They are not exactly alike, except BEFORE being regenerated. Thank God for his generosity toward you, and quit crying about fairness. It is not because the objects of his mercy humbly accept his charity that God shows mercy to them. It is because HE chose them.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are we in agreement?

In agreement about what? That we might consider the same sentence as true doesn't mean we agree. "I say the same thing you do" does not mean that "I think what you do about it".

 

[Mark Quayle]

You bring up a good point, but it shows the English word for “draw” (Greek being ἕλκω) has several means extending from being dragged kicking and screaming to being persuaded by the Gospel message, so what is John trying to convey to us?

If being persuaded by the Gospel message is the meaning here, explain how it is possible to accept it for those who are spiritually dead? Or would it be nicer to call them 'spiritually clueless'? "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)

We have a parallel usage shortly later by John in John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

John helps us here by giving us the motive for Jesus saying this, His death on the cross.

Jesus’ death on the cross does not drag “all people” kicking and screaming to Him, but it does “draw” some willing people from every nation to Christ, because this is the strongest act of Love that any being could do for other humans. “All” in this instance does not mean every breathing person.

Now looking at John 6: 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Would that mean, God drags people to Christ kicking and screaming, virtually kidnapping them away from where they want to be? The desire to turn to Christ is the result of our conscience being burdened by the wrong we have done in the past and finding no relieve from that painful burden from drug, alcohol, work, sex, other gods, and so-on. God is drawing us by the pain we are suffering without Christ in our life, at least until we harden our hearts beyond repair.

It is not always a gentle draw, because the burden is great and His burden is lite.

Whether they kick and scream is irrelevant. They have no say in being regenerated. They are not consulted, and are not even aware of it, until they realize the change has occurred. Your mindset has it that their experience IS the change. It is not. That, at best, is the realization of the fellowship of Christ. The conversion is not the realization of it, nor their decision about it. It is the work of God. Born Again. Grace.

 

[Rescued One]

God's mercy is what saves us and it is offered to all mature adults, we just have to accept God mercy (Love/forgiveness/charity) as pure undeserved charity.

Chapter and verse?

 

[bling]

Words sometimes push us around. We think we've overcome a mental contradiction, but all we've done is to put some words together. This is how you came up with your version of the Gospel, that has less than "little if any Biblical support."

I am not the one who posited the notion of a transaction. You did. I'm saying that if there is a transaction, it is between the Father and Son—not an arrangement by which we can purchase—er, "gain"— salvation.

You are throwing up a strawman, since I never suggested nonbelieving sinners are purchasing or even seeking salvation. They are seeking, at least for a while, relieve of the burden in their conscience for things they have done which hurt others. They have nothing to offer which could pay for this relieve, but they can humbly accept undeserved charity (forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity, that is the transaction we are addressing.

But, as you've been shown repeatedly, we are unable to accept God's offer, because we ALWAYS WILL NOT, just as Romans 8 shows, until he regenerates us. We are dead, spiritually speaking, just as Ephesians 2 says. The spiritually dead are unable to do anything spiritual. You pretend they can.

Romans 8 is addressing Christians who have thus already accepted God’s help for selfish reasons (sinful reasons) and thus have been showered with all kinds of gifts including Love, the indwelling Holy Spirit, salvation, faithfulness, heaven, fellowship and more.

In addition, the thing you pretend they can do, ("to simply, humbly, accept as charity"), requires understanding what it is that they are accepting. Until God regenerates them, they are clueless, spiritually speaking. "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because spiritually they are discerned." 1 Cor 2:14 Furthermore, as the conversion requires, he cannot have salvific faith, he has no repentance, he has no love for God, he has no power of commitment, he has no standing, until God regenerates him, whose faith is not of his own making. All those things that are required in your so-called 'transaction', though you will deny it, are by the Spirit of God Himself having 'taken up residence' in the person, God who alone has those things in full measure.

No! You do not have to, “understanding what it is that they are accepting” to be surprisingly showered with unbelievable wonderful gifts. The prodigal son returned to his father just wanting and hoping for some kind of undeserved livable job and surprisingly was showered with wonderful gift.

God has decided to save those he chose for that purpose, without requiring the extra step of our synergistic cooperation. We can do NOTHING to add to his work. His work is complete; it does not need us to agree to it, to accept it (which is quite a different thing from receiving it), nor does he even consult us on the matter. Our eternal safety does not hinge on our ignorant, foolish, self-interest. We cannot humbly accept something we perceive as charity, when we don't even understand how free it really is. Nor is it required by the terms of the Gospel.

You can accept or reject the invitation to the banquet, not knowing what goes on at the banquet, except to know it is better than what you are doing right then. God is not kidnapping you to go to the banquet since it is still your choice.

If there is something WE have to do, in order to be saved, we are all doomed. That is not Grace. You pretend to bridge that gap by your own construction.

Not wanting to starve to death in the pigsty of life (like where the prodigal son was at) is not “doing” anything worthy of anything.

 

[bling]

And so your version of the gospel says. So the bible does not say.

The Gospel follows along the lines of the prodigal son, we spiral down to the pigsty of life, with God allowing us to do this, and along the way our tragic life forces us to come to our senses on occasion, so we can chose to be macho hang in there an accept the life we deserve (starving to death in a pigsty) or give-up and surrender to the enemy we hate, trusting somehow our enemy might just extend to us undeserved mercy (Love/forgiveness).