Is the Calvinist God too small?

[aisling7]

Hello,

Here is a oversimplification of the five points with the premise for all five added at the top.

God is unfailing.

1.Man is flawed-dead in sin.

2.Because man is dead in sin, he cannot choose to receive his salvation.

3.If some perish and God does not fail, then his work on the cross must only be for a few.

4.If God does not fail, he will be successful with those he calls.

5.Because man does not choose his salvation, he cannot unchoose it. Because God does not fail, those that are in his hand remain there.

Now for my question:

The premise of Calvinist or Reformed thought is that God is sovereign, unfailing, etc.

If God does not fail, does limited atonement exist? Is "Total Victory" too big for our God!?

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=case%2Bagainst%2Bhell

1 Cor 15:22-You could argue that only the elect are "in Christ", but are not all in Adam? How can Adam's fall be more significant (affect more people) than Christ's victory?!

Jackie

 

[bradfordl]

"Many are called but few are chosen"

The article you linked is not so much an argument against the concept of an eternal hell, but a defense of the heresy of universalism.

Total victory is not too big for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is impossible for Him to acheive anything else. That in His plan for that victory He has ordained, as stated in Rom. ch. 9, some as vessels of dishonor fit for destruction, while others as vessels of honor to show His mercy, is scripturally evident, and thus His plan for that victory includes the principle of limited atonement. Therefore universalism is evidently incompatable with scripture.

As for the scriptural basis for an eternal hell of punishment for the unregenerate, I have heard more convincing arguments for it than against. There are some men whom I have great respect for, and whom are otherwise scripturally sound with respect to the absolute sovereignty of God, that have made the case for anihilism, but I am not convined of it.

Please be careful not to fall for man's idea of what is fair or what constitutes victory or failure by the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of all existence that is in contradiction of His Word such as universalist "theology". Pardon my bluntness, but it is a blatant and illogical heresy. As Paul said on Mars Hill, men are without excuse, but I find that they struggle to find one that will give them justification for avoiding acknowledging Him as Sovereign. Universalism is just another of those feeble attempts.

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Aisling7,

1.Man is flawed-dead in sin.

The main immediate verse that this perhaps is understood as coming from is Ephesians 2:1

". . . you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins. . ."


As written here in the NKJV this passage is quickly visible as useful material to the idea that man is so depraved, so totally disabled that only if God brings fresh life in will the dead be raised. This is therefore a very popular 'proof text' to say that total depravity is a truth of scripture.

However in this popular 'proof text' [for indeed it is] there is clear inherent ability alluded to. In English it reads ". . . you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins. . ." This is read as saying that God made alive dead people: Folk with no life to respond to God with. Whereas actually the "in" here is only valid from the Greek original if understood 'whilst in'. This is because the Greek for "in" is en, but it is not found in this Verse. It can be found in the next Verse, but not this one. The reason it is used in English is that the words "the trespasses and the sins" are in a grammatical form known as the Dative. The use of the Dative here is to indicate the means by which they were "dead". This is known as the instrumental use of the Dative. So the Greek tells us, it is whilst active in trespasses and sins that they "were dead". It is thereby clearly implying an ability to not be active in sin.

Therefore not only can this passage NOT be used as a proof text to show total depravity or, total inability, but it is useable as a proof text to show the opposite when correctly translated and understood.

Regards,

Jac

Unless otherwise stated Bible quotes are from the New King James Version.
© copyright Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979,1980,1982.

 

[UMP]

Dear Aisling7,
It is thereby clearly implying an ability to not be active in sin.

What does that prove other than failure and guilt on the part of the entire human race ?

Romans 3:
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

[frumanchu]

Hello,

Here is a oversimplification of the five points with the premise for all five added at the top.

God is unfailing.

1.Man is flawed-dead in sin.

2.Because man is dead in sin, he cannot choose to receive his salvation.

3.If some perish and God does not fail, then his work on the cross must only be for a few.

4.If God does not fail, he will be successful with those he calls.

5.Because man does not choose his salvation, he cannot unchoose it. Because God does not fail, those that are in his hand remain there.

Now for my question:

The premise of Calvinist or Reformed thought is that God is sovereign, unfailing, etc.

If God does not fail, does limited atonement exist? Is "Total Victory" too big for our God!?

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=case%2Bagainst%2Bhell

1 Cor 15:22-You could argue that only the elect are "in Christ", but are not all in Adam? How can Adam's fall be more significant (affect more people) than Christ's victory?!

Jackie

The premise of your post appears to be that God's choice not to accomplish the salvation of all men without exception somehow implies either His inability to do so or His being satisfied with a "lesser glory" than what would be available to Him should He do so. The former is wholly inconsistent with the Calvinist soteriological view, and the latter is based on the subjective opinion of what constitutes the "greater glory."

 

[aisling7]

Jacquo, I believe this forum is "Ask a Calvinist." While I do appreciate your participation, my question is posed to those who believe that God chooses some so that they will examine the possibility that God chooses all to be regenerated. It is not the purpose of the post to debate whether God chooses or man chooses. The concept of total depravity is well defended by the scripture. If you have questions about the idea, there are many here who can answer you with scripture.

Jackie

 

[aisling7]

frumanchu, obviously you understand the question and its implications. What is the objective case for an eternal hell as part of the "greater glory"?

Jackie

 

[UMP]

Hello,

Here is a oversimplification of the five points with the premise for all five added at the top.

God is unfailing.

1.Man is flawed-dead in sin.

2.Because man is dead in sin, he cannot choose to receive his salvation.

3.If some perish and God does not fail, then his work on the cross must only be for a few.

4.If God does not fail, he will be successful with those he calls.

5.Because man does not choose his salvation, he cannot unchoose it. Because God does not fail, those that are in his hand remain there.

Now for my question:

The premise of Calvinist or Reformed thought is that God is sovereign, unfailing, etc.

If God does not fail, does limited atonement exist? Is "Total Victory" too big for our God!?

Take a look at this article and tell me what you think.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=case%2Bagainst%2Bhell

1 Cor 15:22-You could argue that only the elect are "in Christ", but are not all in Adam? How can Adam's fall be more significant (affect more people) than Christ's victory?!

Jackie

This may help answer your question:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html

 

[Rick Otto]

"How can Adam's fall be more significant (affect more people) than Christ's victory?!"

Significance = #of people affected?
That much is arguable.
Significant to whom? Greater significance becomes the argument, ie. significant to people or to God.
Still, the question as is, can be answered different ways:
>Because Adam was first.

>Because many are called but few are chosen.

>Because Mercy triumphs over Justice, but not by eliminating justice completely. Mercy doesn't exist until Justice does.

 

[frumanchu]

frumanchu, obviously you understand the question and its implications. What is the objective case for an eternal hell as part of the "greater glory"?

Jackie

Well, the underlying assumption I see in most posts that pose this same question is that God would be "more glorified" in saving all men than He is in saving some and condemning the rest. I have yet to see an objective case made from Scripture or plain reason supporting the notion of lesser and greater glory as it relates to God's elective purposes.

It is sufficient to understand the fact that God is glorified both in the exercise of His divine mercy and grace in the salvation of some and the exercise of His divine justice and wrath in the condemnation of others without approaching the degree of such glorification in relation to supposed alternative hypothetical outcomes.

 

[aisling7]

"How can Adam's fall be more significant (affect more people) than Christ's victory?!"

Significance = #of people affected?
That much is arguable.
Significant to whom? Greater significance becomes the argument, ie. significant to people or to God.
Still, the question as is, can be answered different ways:
>Because Adam was first.

>Because many are called but few are chosen.

>Because Mercy triumphs over Justice, but not by eliminating justice completely. Mercy doesn't exist until Justice does.

Because Adam was first?

In what way? Did he sin before Christ existed or planned to redeem? Certainly Not!

Romans 5:17,18,19 suggests that "all men" are affected by the fall, and "all men" are justified. "Many" were made sinners, and "many" shall be made righteous.

v. 17 This passage suggests that Christ's sacrifice has greater (it is more difficult to bring life than destruction) capacity. v. 18, 19 Suggest that Christ's sacrifice affects the same number of men as Adam's sin.

Because many are called but few are chosen? Are you refering to Matthew 22, the wedding parable? If so, there are many not-so-Calvinist themes there. Is the darkness spoken of a permanent one? How does this answer 1 Cor 15:26?

Because mercy doesn't eliminate justice:

No less semantics than an argument suggesting that Adam affecting more people makes him more significant

 

[aisling7]

Well, the underlying assumption I see in most posts that pose this same question is that God would be "more glorified" in saving all men than He is in saving some and condemning the rest.
Perhaps he wouldn't! Can you support this idea of eternal damnation with scripture?

I have yet to see an objective case made from Scripture or plain reason supporting the notion of lesser and greater glory as it relates to God's elective purposes.

"Greater glory" was your phrase that I borrowed to make a point. Where does it say that God condemns men to eternal suffering? If this is not part of his plan, then it is not part of his glory, greater or otherwise. I don't believe in a "greater glory"; it sounds like you don't either.

It is sufficient to understand the fact that God is glorified both in the exercise of His divine mercy and grace in the salvation of some and the exercise of His divine justice and wrath in the condemnation of others without approaching the degree of such glorification in relation to supposed alternative hypothetical outcomes.

You have not shown how salvation of all is only hypothetical. Instead you have argued that if God will, it is justified that he destroy members of the human race for eternity. I agree with you! Who am I to question the why of the will of God? If that is his plan, then so be it. If, however, it isn't God's plan, how foolish are we to believe it!

I am not asking for a justification of the 5 points. I believe our election is unconditional. If an eternal hell exists then certainly God is justified in sending man there. Because he doesn't fail, for man to go to hell, his work on the cross would have to be a limited atonement.

Jackie

 

[frumanchu]

Perhaps he wouldn't! Can you support this idea of eternal damnation with scripture?

Matt 3:12, Matt 25:41, Matt 25:46, Jude 7 for starters.

"Greater glory" was your phrase that I borrowed to make a point. Where does it say that God condemns men to eternal suffering? If this is not part of his plan, then it is not part of his glory greater or otherwise.

See above.

You have not shown how salvation of all is only hypothetical. Instead you have argued that if God will, it is justified that he destroy members of the human race for eternity. I agree with you! Who am I to question the why of the will of God? If that is his plan, then so be it. If, however, it isn't God's plan, how foolish are we to believe it!

Scripture says that it IS in fact His plan, and if it says so, how foolish are we indeed NOT to believe it!

I am not asking for a justification of the 5 points. I believe our election is unconditional. If an eternal hell exists then certainly God is justified in sending man there. Because he doesn't fail, his work on the cross would have to be a limited atonement.

Jackie

Your original question was ostensibly couched within the framework of whether or not the doctrine of Limited Atonement was consistent with the notion that God is unfailing, presumably to attempt to argue for a logical disconnect between the two. However, you seem to be more interested in arguing against any notion of a limited atonement, to the extent that all men are ultimately saved regardless.

Scripture is quite clear on the fact that not all men will be saved, and the forum rules are quite clear on the issue of promoting Universalism in the Christian Only areas. If you have questions about certain aspects of Calvinist theology, I will be happy to answer to the best of my ability. If you wish to debate Calvinist theology, I will do likewise in the Soteriology forum. If you wish to offer Universalism as a valid doctrinal position, you may do so in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines forum.

I'm not presuming your intentions, just being clear on mine

 

[aisling7]

Matt 3:12, Matt 25:41, Matt 25:46, Jude 7 for starters.



See above.



Scripture says that it IS in fact His plan, and if it says so, how foolish are we indeed NOT to believe it!



Your original question was ostensibly couched within the framework of whether or not the doctrine of Limited Atonement was consistent with the notion that God is unfailing, presumably to attempt to argue for a logical disconnect between the two. However, you seem to be more interested in arguing against any notion of a limited atonement, to the extent that all men are ultimately saved regardless.

Scripture is quite clear on the fact that not all men will be saved, and the forum rules are quite clear on the issue of promoting Universalism in the Christian Only areas. If you have questions about certain aspects of Calvinist theology, I will be happy to answer to the best of my ability. If you wish to debate Calvinist theology, I will do likewise in the Soteriology forum. If you wish to offer Universalism as a valid doctrinal position, you may do so in the Unorthodox Theological Doctrines forum.

I'm not presuming your intentions, just being clear on mine

In case you didn't notice, It is not my intention to argue against limited atonement. I have recently heard arguments that hell is not eternal. If hell is not eternal, then certainly there would be a universal atonement. If however, there is an eternal hell, then certainley there is limited atonement, for Christ cannot fail, and it is not up to us to succeed! I am looking at an argument that seems to make a lot of sense. I am trying to check it against my Calvinist beliefs. Obviously, Calvinism supports limited atonement. Calvinists and most Christians believe in the concept of eternal hell. What if we are wrong, as some scholars suggest, about the translation of the the greek word in the verses that we think say eternal. When these words are interpreted, shouldn't they be interpreted in the light of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15? The parallel grammer of Romans 5:19 should be enough to give you pause.

Jackie

 

[UMP]

Calvinists and most Christians believe in the concept of eternal hell. What if we are wrong, as some scholars suggest, about the translation of the the greek word in the verses that we think say eternal.

If the following does not describe an eternal hell, than I cannot read English, which may indeed be the case, nor am I a Greek language scholar. However, whatever it is describing, I don't want to be there and it would be an eternal "hell" to me if I were there.

2 Thessalonians
[7] And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
[8] In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

This item from A.W. Pink entitled "Everlasting Punishment" may be a good read for you, if you're interested.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Eternal_Punishment/epunishment.htm

 

[frumanchu]

My apologies if I offended you, Jackie. It was not my intention to do so. The course of the discussion to this point made it difficult to gauge what exactly you were seeking to have answered, but this last post made it clear.

So are you questioning whether or not hell is a temporary place from which all men therein are eventually saved?

 

[bradfordl]

I have heard solidly reformed folks argue in favor of a concept of hell that is not eternal in a physical sense, but eternal in effect, which is essentially annihilism. This is not a denial of the existence of hell, nor a case for universalism, but I still do not see it fitting with scriptures such as the one quoted above, or that at the end of Isaiah:

Isaiah 66:24 - "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrance to all flesh." (ESV)

People are looking at them, so it seems in some sense physical, and their bodies are dead, which seems as though they are not consciously present, but then the worm not dying and fire not being quenched sounds eternal, and in some sense (their worm) they are aware. Whatever it is, I agree with UMP, I don't want to be there.

For specks of dust like us to theorize as to what circumstances bring greater or lesser glory to God is a fool's errand. God has determined how He will be glorified, and whether we think it could be improved is pointless. He is omniscient. I have to assume then that He knows best how to bring glory to Himself. The way that seems right to us is irrelavent, and usually erroneous.

 

[aisling7]

frumanchu, no offense taken! Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. I asked it here because I have little interest in discussing it with people who say they know that God is the finisher of our faith, but take issue with him being the author! If one can't understand and accept predestination, they can't approach this question from the right place. The idea here is that God could be so sovereign as to save all in due time. If one cannot accept his sovereignty, then one cannot understand the question. If universalism is possible, then it is because we are all predestined, not because we will all eventually choose him or because he won't care if we get it wrong. I hope this makes sense.

Jackie

 

[Imblessed]

Jackie,

you ask some good questions, and ones I've even wondered about myself. Before I "became" calvinist(i should say before I understood finally what calvinism was about) I had seriously considered the idea of an eventual universal salvation--which is what I "think" you are talking about. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

One problem I have with this is exactly why God would predestine some to heaven and let others go to hell, only to eventually predestine them back out, so to speak.

If in fact, we are all guilty of hell, why then would some of us get out of it now, if eventually everyone will? It would seem to imply that we are somehow better. Does that make sense? I'm not nearly as well spoken as most on this board! LOL Sometimes I read back what I've written and wonder how anyone understands me!

I've still got my own issues with and eternal hell, but that's for another post and another topic----however, I've come to the solid conclusion that as much as we'd (we humans) would like some sort of universal salvation, it's just not supported in any way by the bible.

 

[aisling7]

eventual universal salvation--which is what I "think" you are talking about.

That is exactly what I am talking about.

One problem I have with this is exactly why God would predestine some to heaven and let others go to hell, only to eventually predestine them back out, so to speak.

For his own glory? Same answer to the limited atonment argument.

If in fact, we are all guilty of hell, why then would some of us get out of it now, if eventually everyone will? It would seem to imply that we are somehow better.

The same objection applies to limited atonement. What makes the elect "better"? We must go back to "For his own glory!"


Does that make sense? I'm not nearly as well spoken as most on this board! LOL Sometimes I read back what I've written and wonder how anyone understands me!

I think I understand what you are saying. When I began considering this question, I thought what would be the purpose of hell then. Would it be corrective? Theologically that isn't necessary. God can zap us all saved if he so desires! Is it punitive (as most are taught), and if so is the punishment eternal? If the punishment is eternal why does the verse in Corinthians 15 say that the last thing Christ will conquer is death?

See my earlier argument "Romans 5:17,18,19 suggests that "all men" are affected by the fall, and "all men" are justified. "Many" were made sinners, and "many" shall be made righteous." If this refers to the elect why does it say "the many"? Since when are the elect referred to as "the many"?


I've still got my own issues with and eternal hell, but that's for another post and another topic----however, I've come to the solid conclusion that as much as we'd (we humans) would like some sort of universal salvation, it's just not supported in any way by the bible

See above. I honestly think you can make an argument for both from scripture. I do wish I could find a scholar/preacher to explain the passages in 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5 to me. Before you say it, I don't want to ask my own pastor.

Jackie