One horrendous doctrine

[Reformationist]

You don't get it because you don't want to get it.

I'm sure he wants to get it, but not at the cost of his own self-esteem. Most people want to follow God, no matter where the truth of God leads them. It's just that they are reticent to go down any road that forces them to acknowledge their depravity and their helplessness apart from God's transforming grace.

God bless

 

[pippa]

it is in the bible. and it is a horrendous doctrine by humane standards. maybe God is not nice according to humane standards. i wonder why he expects us to be nice.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

I'm sure he wants to get it, but not at the cost of his own self-esteem. Most people want to follow God, no matter where the truth of God leads them. It's just that they are reticent to go down any road that forces them to acknowledge their depravity and their helplessness apart from God's transforming grace.

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

Well...when it leads you to believe untrue things about Him and what He has told us in His Word...

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Because I've seen several others demonstrate it to you in pretty simple and straightforward terms. You don't get it because you don't want to get it.

I could say the same of you and those with whom I'm in discussion; maybe it's you who doesn't "get it because you don't want to get it." But such blanket assertions are pointless; they never get us anywhere. I don't know your true motives, and you don't know mine. Only God knows our hearts. Let's keep the discussion centered around what we believe scripture teaches.

 

[Reformationist]

it is in the bible. and it is a horrendous doctrine by humane standards. maybe God is not nice according to humane standards. i wonder why he expects us to be nice.

If you're truly asking this question, I think it's pertinent to address the issue of "nice" as it is a word that is open to much interpretation. It would seem, and I admit to making an assumption here, that "nice" in this context refers to either "that which is pleasing or agreeable" or "that which is polite or kind." If that is correct, it is important that we not lose sight of some pivotal facts. The implication in both of the previous definitions is relative to you. That is, it is what you find "pleasing or agreeable" or what you find "polite or kind." Additionally, both of these definitions likewise revolve around your perception of propriety, i.e., your contention of what is pleasing/agreeable/polite/kind stems directly from what you feel is appropriate. Part of the problem with analyzing these types of things this way is that many Christians, possibly yourself, start out with preconceived notions that demand that they perceive as unbiblical any view that purports that God's actions do not ultimately have as their goal someone's salvation. This is, of course, rather anthropocentric and easily defeated by a myriad of Scripture. Not to mention that bold pronouncements of "God IS Love" as we've seen in this thread make the grave error of presumption in that they see any action by God that does not have as its intent the salvation of all without exception as unloving, as if God's love demands that He intend to save all without exception. This, like the previous presumption, stems from esteeming the creation rather than the Creator.

The way I try to approach the issue of salvation is by first acknowledging that salvation is, first and foremost, undeserved. When we acknowledge that man, by his sin, has merited only condemnation then we will not fall prey to interpreting other Scripture based on the inaccurate foundation God is being unkind or unfair or impolite or unloving if He doesn't intend to save someone.

So, I would say that the reason God expects us to be "nice" is because He has given us life and the opportunity to serve Him. That we choose to reject His Son does not vindicate us from wrongdoing when we are ungodly. It simply magnifies it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

You speak as if you think I'm a Pelagian, or a humanistic "unitarian-universalist." I assure you, I am not (which means you're attacking a strawman). I am a firm believer in the universal moral depravity of humanity and our utter helplessness apart from God's sovereign and transforming grace.

So if I'm guilty of anything, it's for thinking too highly of God, not for thinking too highly of man. But is it even possible to think too highly of God?

You seem awfully defensive. You needn't be. I make no assumptions about your views. I comment on what I see in what you actually say. Part of where I think you err is that you keep referring to man being in the image of God. Man's ability to reflect the glory of God has been impugned by sin. Also, despite your self-righteous indignation and posturing, you are the one making unsubstantiated presumptions about others' views. I am not aware that I have stated that "endless suffering" was either biblical or a "just punishment." Maybe you were just referring to such claims in a general sense so, if so, maybe you could be more clear about that.

With that said, it seems that, based on your ever so judicious input thus far, you leave us with having to choose between the two options that you define if we wish to continue this discussion. We can either believe that "multitudes of God's image-bearers will never reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him" or "all of God's image-bearers will reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him."

Or was there another option that you feel represents your view?

Two things before I leave it to you: First, I greatly appreciate the prayers as God knows I need all the help I can get. And second, you needn't maintain the facade of mock offense. Like the rest of us, you could never honor God even to the extent that He deserves, much less "too highly" so it is rather arrogant to even submit the possibility of doing so.

God bless

 

[thelasttrumpet]

You seem awfully defensive. You needn't be. I make no assumptions about your views. I comment on what I see in what you actually say.

I certainly didn’t intend to come off as defensive (especially “awfully” so), and I’m not sure how what I said gave you that impression. I regret that what I said led you to think that I thought highly of myself, and that I read the scriptures through the lens of a man-centered philosophy.

Part of where I think you err is that you keep referring to man being in the image of God. Man's ability to reflect the glory of God has been impugned by sin.

The fact that man in his sinfulness doesn’t reflect the glory of God doesn’t mean he ceases to be a creature made in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, I believe humanity was created to reflect the glory of God, and as long as we remain his image bearers, I believe we can never lose the potential and capacity to do so.

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, despite your self-righteous indignation and posturing, you are the one making unsubstantiated presumptions about others' views. I am not aware that I have stated that "endless suffering" was either biblical or a "just punishment." Maybe you were just referring to such claims in a general sense so, if so, maybe you could be more clear about that.

What leads you to believe that my "indignation" and "posturing" is self-righteous?

As far as my unsubstantiated presumptions, do you not believe that the post-mortem experience of the non-elect will be one of endless suffering? (If not, then we are more in agreement than I thought!)

With that said, it seems that, based on your ever so judicious input thus far, you leave us with having to choose between the two options that you define if we wish to continue this discussion. We can either believe that "multitudes of God's image-bearers will never reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him" or "all of God's image-bearers will reflect back His glory in being most satisfied in Him."

Or was there another option that you feel represents your view?

My understanding of what scripture teaches about the destiny of mankind is that all who were made sinners in consequence of Adam’s act of disobedience will be made just in consequence of Christ’s act of righteousness (Rom 5:19), that all who die in Adam will be being made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22), to bear the image of the man of heaven, just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (1 Cor 15:48-49), and that God will be “all in all” when all people become subjected to Christ, just as Christ will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

It makes no difference to me whether one believes that multitudes of people made in God’s image will be punished without end, or just a solitary individual; I do not see how anything less than the final salvation of all people can be substantiated from scripture.

Two things before I leave it to you: First, I greatly appreciate the prayers as God knows I need all the help I can get.

I believe God knows that all people need all the help they can get. What would you think and feel if God were to actually give all people all the help that they need? And what is it that you think slams the door on this ever being realized?

And second, you needn't maintain the facade of mock offense. Like the rest of us, you could never honor God even to the extent that He deserves, much less "too highly" so it is rather arrogant to even submit the possibility of doing so.

When I said “think too highly of God” I was thinking along the lines of being captivated by the most exalted sense of God as is possible for us. I believe that some ideas of God are more worthy of our thoughts, and of His true character and nature, than others. What do you think?

 

[Reformationist]

The fact that man in his sinfulness doesn’t reflect the glory of God doesn’t mean he ceases to be a creature made in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, I believe humanity was created to reflect the glory of God, and as long as we remain his image bearers, I believe we can never lose the potential and capacity to do so.

What are your thoughts on this?

It seems that you just stated that man, being the image bearer of God, can never lose the potential and capacity to reflect the glory of God.

Couple that with the following quote:

My understanding of what scripture teaches about the destiny of mankind is that all who were made sinners in consequence of Adam’s act of disobedience will be made just in consequence of Christ’s act of righteousness (Rom 5:19), that all who die in Adam will be being made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15:22), to bear the image of the man of heaven, just as we have borne the image of the man of dust (1 Cor 15:48-49), and that God will be “all in all” when all people become subjected to Christ, just as Christ will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

and you have identified you as a universalist. There is manifold biblical evidence that many die in unbelief and will not inherit the blessings of God in salvation. Until these inconsistancies are reconciled, I do not feel it wise to spend much more time debating doctrine with someone who has so gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. You seem to have come to the conclusion that biblical differentiations between those who will experience condemnation and those who will not by the grace of God are mere wasteful lip service to a concept that doesn't actually apply to mankind.

As far as my unsubstantiated presumptions, do you not believe that the post-mortem experience of the non-elect will be one of endless suffering? (If not, then we are more in agreement than I thought!)

First, you clearly started off with the presumption that I do believe that very thing without having ever asked so asking now is rather tardy. Secondly, I do not know the extent or nature of condemnation but I do not presume that my finite capacity for understanding on this issue substantiates the clearly unbiblical presumption that Christ saves all without exception.

I do not see how anything less than the final salvation of all people can be substantiated from scripture.

Taking Scripture in context would prevent you from substantiating such a claim with any part of God's Word.

When I said “think too highly of God” I was thinking along the lines of being captivated by the most exalted sense of God as is possible for us. I believe that some ideas of God are more worthy of our thoughts, and of His true character and nature, than others. What do you think?

Of course I think we should be captivated but, like the rest of us, you suffer from an inconsistant reverence for God and if you were captivated by God for every second of every day you would only be doing what was appropriate. As that is the most you could do, you'd be unable to go beyond that so "too highly" is a term that doesn't apply.

God bless

 

[thelasttrumpet]

There is manifold biblical evidence that many die in unbelief and will not inherit the blessings of God in salvation.

I agree that there is "manifold evidence" that many die in unbelief. There is also evidence that many do not, and will not, experience the blessings of God in salvation in this life. However, there is not a shred of biblical evidence that these facts exclude them from salvation after they die. Nor is there a shred of biblical evidence that the present distinction between "elect" and "non-elect" continues beyond this mortal life.

Until these inconsistancies are reconciled, I do not feel it wise to spend much more time debating doctrine with someone who has so gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. You seem to have come to the conclusion that biblical differentiations between those who will experience condemnation and those who will not by the grace of God are mere wasteful lip service to a concept that doesn't actually apply to mankind.

With all due respect (again, I used to be a Calvinist myself), I believe it is you who have gravely misinterpreted a foundational aspect of the atoning work of Christ. And regarding condemnation, you will be searching in vain to find a verse in the Bible that extends it beyond this mortal existence.

Also, you never gave me your thoughts on what I said about mankind being God's image-bearers.

Secondly, I do not know the extent or nature of condemnation but I do not presume that my finite capacity for understanding on this issue substantiates the clearly unbiblical presumption that Christ saves all without exception.

So for all you know, the extent or nature of condemnation may or may not be beneficial, and with no endless suffering at all?

Taking Scripture in context would prevent you from substantiating such a claim with any part of God's Word.

What makes you think I haven't taken scripture in context? Please elaborate.

Of course I think we should be captivated but, like the rest of us, you suffer from an inconsistant reverence for God and if you were captivated by God for every second of every day you would only be doing what was appropriate. As that is the most you could do, you'd be unable to go beyond that so "too highly" is a term that doesn't apply.

You must have missed the part where I said, "as is possible for us."

Aaron

 

[Reformationist]

Aaron, listen, whether you "used to be a Calvinist" is of less importance to me than the fact that you have now abandoned those same biblically sound doctrines in favor of the lie of universalism. If you were truly interested in the truth rather than defending universalism I believe you would likely take advantage of the vast number of resources that adequately debunk the view you hold to be true. Universalism, while possibly having its heart in the right place, makes a mockery of Scripture.

It has been my experience that those who endorse universalism are relatively unwilling to truly consider Scripture which show it to be false.

If I may, what is it that led you to reject reformed theology in the first place?

God bless

 

[thelasttrumpet]

If I may, what is it that led you to reject reformed theology in the first place?

It was through study of the scriptures - particularly the epistles of Paul - that I believe God led me to ultimately abandon the reformed theology which I had come to embrace during my highschool years. It was not a quick conversion; I was somewhat reluctant to abandon the beliefs that I had become very comfortable with, and secure in.

I should also mention that, prior to my conversion to universalism, I had become more preterist in my eschatalogical views (you can thank R.C. Sproul for that!). I was also influenced by some of NT Wright's work, which further moved me down the path of "partial preterism." I began to realize that most (now I believe all) of the judgments foretold in the Bible that I believed to be yet future, were in fact historical events, and that we were now living in the "age to come" that was to follow Christ's coming in his kingdom. So, my preterist understanding of the NT certainly "paved the way" for my eventual embracing of the doctrine of universal salvation.

As I began to become more and more convinced that the Bible taught that all people would be saved, I spent a good deal of time looking into resources that I believed might show such a view to be erroneous. I read online articles on the subject by reformed authors (such as John Piper, and Matt Slick) and purchased the book, Hell Under Fire, which contains essays from several "orthodox" authors, such as Gregoray K. Beale and J.I Packer. Needless to say, everything that I read merely reinforced what were then becoming the convictions I now hold today.

Hope that helps,
Aaron

 

[Reformationist]

It was through study of the scriptures - particularly the epistles of Paul - that I believe God led me to ultimately abandon the reformed theology which I had come to embrace during my highschool years. It was not a quick conversion; I was somewhat reluctant to abandon the beliefs that I had become very comfortable with, and secure in.

I should also mention that, prior to my conversion to universalism, I had become more preterist in my eschatalogical views (you can thank R.C. Sproul for that!). I was also influenced by some of NT Wright's work, which further moved me down the path of "partial preterism." I began to realize that most (now I believe all) of the judgments foretold in the Bible that I believed to be yet future, were in fact historical events, and that we were now living in the "age to come" that was to follow Christ's coming in his kingdom. So, my preterist understanding of the NT certainly "paved the way" for my eventual embracing of the doctrine of universal salvation.

As I began to become more and more convinced that the Bible taught that all people would be saved, I spent a good deal of time looking into resources that I believed might show such a view to be erroneous. I read online articles on the subject by reformed authors (such as John Piper, and Matt Slick) and purchased the book, Hell Under Fire, which contains essays from several "orthodox" authors, such as Gregoray K. Beale and J.I Packer. Needless to say, everything that I read merely reinforced what were then becoming the convictions I now hold today.

Hope that helps,
Aaron

Matthew 25:41-46
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This passage seems to simultaneously repudiate your contention of universal salvation and substantiate the view of eternal punishment.

Can you comment on this passage?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Matthew 25:41-46
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This passage seems to simultaneously repudiate your contention of universal salvation and substantiate the view of eternal punishment.

Can you comment on this passage?

Thanks,
God bless

I'd be glad to. But I'm going to do so under the thread I started (universalism debate), so as not to continue to hijack this one. Hope that's ok.

 

[Reformationist]

I'd be glad to. But I'm going to do so under the thread I started (universalism debate), so as not to continue to hijack this one. Hope that's ok.

Sounds great. I'll take a look at it.

God bless

 

[oworm]

Um.........Oh..........HMMM........ Lets see now........ How many pearls are in my purse? ............Hmmm! ....... Not enough to throw around this thread.

 

[TraderJack]

One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family.

False premise based on a misunderstanding of Election, the Atonement and Love.

The son's of Adam who reject God, hate God and are perfectly obstinate to the point of being at war with God, indeeed have no desire whatsoever to be in God's Kingdom.

Therefore, the Loving thing is to give them what they desire, which is to be kept out of God's Kingdom, which would be hell for them.

But what about all that "burning" and "torment" stuff?

Well, since they will be resurrected into a real body, it is also one that still is infected with the sin nature confirmed and radified for all eternity by their own desires to be apart from God's Kingdom, they will have the torment of desiring to sin, but without any way to actualize it.

Imagine Adolf Hitler burning with the desire to kill Jews, but cannot, and has that burning desire for all eternity.

And some say there is no burning in hell.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniels
One of the worst faces of Reformed doctrine is its insistence that God has set his love on a small fraction of the human family.

False premise based on a misunderstanding of Election, the Atonement and Love.

The son's of Adam who reject God, hate God and are perfectly obstinate to the point of being at war with God, indeeed have no desire whatsoever to be in God's Kingdom.

Therefore, the Loving thing is to give them what they desire, which is to be kept out of God's Kingdom, which would be hell for them.

But what about all that "burning" and "torment" stuff?

Well, since they will be resurrected into a real body, it is also one that still is infected with the sin nature confirmed and radified for all eternity by their own desires to be apart from God's Kingdom, they will have the torment of desiring to sin, but without any way to actualize it.

Imagine Adolf Hitler burning with the desire to kill Jews, but cannot, and has that burning desire for all eternity.

And some say there is no burning in hell.

Sounds like someone has been reading too much C.S. Lewis (I'm thinking The Great Divorce in particular).

How would it be loving for God to give sinful people what they want when what they want is not what they were created for? I don't see anything "loving" about that. Nor is there anything just about that, since it would simply cause evil to be perpetuated endlessly (a "burning desire" to kill others is evil). Scripture seems to describe divine justice as that which makes right all that is wrong; thus, the just thing for God to do would be to change their desires so that they no longer delight in evil, but in good. And this is the loving thing for God to do as well, since their existence consequently becomes a blessing to them, and not a curse.

 

[-Z-]

False premise based on a misunderstanding of Election, the Atonement and Love.

The son's of Adam who reject God, hate God and are perfectly obstinate to the point of being at war with God, indeeed have no desire whatsoever to be in God's Kingdom.

Therefore, the Loving thing is to give them what they desire, which is to be kept out of God's Kingdom, which would be hell for them.

But what about all that "burning" and "torment" stuff?

Well, since they will be resurrected into a real body, it is also one that still is infected with the sin nature confirmed and radified for all eternity by their own desires to be apart from God's Kingdom, they will have the torment of desiring to sin, but without any way to actualize it.

Imagine Adolf Hitler burning with the desire to kill Jews, but cannot, and has that burning desire for all eternity.

And some say there is no burning in hell.

Completely aside from my overall disagreement with the dogmatic assertation of the 5 points of Calvinism, this is a beautiful....wow can I say that... description of hell.

I have beleived for sometime now that hell is torment not torture, meaning that the pain is not inflicted by another but by the individual themselves. But I think that the torment is manisfest in the reality of God and knowing that you may never know Him. You know? But the idea of retaining the sin nature without the ability to execute it's devices is DEFINATELY thought provoking. Bravo my friend, and thank you.