One horrendous doctrine

[justsurfing]

In my biblical opinion, a clear reading of the scriptures is undeniable in revealing that God is sovereign and holds the destinies of all mankind in His hand. I saw the doctrine of election and reprobation (first head of doctrine - canons of dort, btw, to a person who said the canons of dort does not teach it)... without benefit of reading the canons of dort.

Yes, it's horrific. Yes, it's horrendous. But the scriptures also state that God cannot be charged with wrongdoing and, "who are you, oh man to reply to God?"

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.

Horrific. But biblical (or so I thought)...

That's what happens when a person doesn't study from the original language, I guess. It didn't take me but a weekend to study the original Greek/Hebrew, do another review of the scriptures and see that when God said it, He really meant it... and there is no "exclusion" to the "reprobate":


1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[heymikey80]

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Then -- in the original Greek -- how might you have missed the obvious point of this passage? Greek doesn't have a word-order distinction in meaning between "in Adam all" and "all in Adam". Clearly the equivalent meaning of this slim prooftext is:

For as all in Adam die, so all in Christ will be made alive.
​

The verse is no comfort in its original Greek to those who are not in Christ.

Oh -- that's right. You've only had a weekend to study Greek. I assume that was on your own? It'd only take a few months of training from someone who knows New Testament Greek.

 

[UMP]

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.

You make it sound like God will be an unjust judge.
Mans inability is not necessarily a physical problem but a heart problem. In other words, man has all the faculties to worship God, he has the natural ability to call on God but not the moral ability. Even with all the evidence that God exists, so much so that everyone is "without excuse", man refuses to worship God.
As an example, if you showed up to court to go on trial for murder and your defence was "I could not help but kill the man, I hated him with every part of my being. I was born a killer, my parents trained me to be a killer and if given the same opportunity, I could not help but do it again". What would the judge rule? Guilty. The mans problem was not that he could not physically stop from killing this man, the problem was in his heart. When God judges the goats, He will judge righteously. Man is not guilty by design, he is guilty on his own. God does not force man to sin. Man sins, because he wants and loves sin rather than God.

I paraphrase from this:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of the sinner's inability, we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner's inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a depraved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, "But Ahijah could not see;for his eyes were set by reason of his age" (1 Kings 14:4); and again, "The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not:for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them" (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words "could not" refer to natural inability. But when we read, "And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him" (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural ability to "speak peaceably unto him" for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they "could not speak peaceably unto him"? The answer is given in the same verse: it was because "they hated him." Again; in 2 Peter 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men "cannot cease from sin"? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Romans 8:8-"They that are in the flesh cannot please God": here is spiritual inability. Why is it that the natural man "cannot please God"? Because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse-"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" (Matt. 12:34). "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him" (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is "drawn"? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]We trust we have made it clear that the Scriptures distinguish sharply between natural ability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimaeus, who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were closed "lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted" (Matt. 13:15). But should it be said, "The natural man could come to Christ if he wished to do so," we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the whole matter. The inability of the sinner consists of the want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually perform.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner's natural Ability, and his moral and spiritual Inability rests his Responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man's accountability to God; so far from this being the case the very moral inability of the sinner only serves to increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the Scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph's brethren "could not speak peaceably unto him," and why? It was because they "hated" him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, "They cannot cease from sin" (2 Peter 2:14), and why? Because "their eyes were full of adultery," but that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them-it only made their sin the greater.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability He in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might pity me but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper and then sought to extenuate myself on the ground of having inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou wicked servant" surely applies here! What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him and who later argued in defense, "I cannot help being a thief, that is my nature"? Surely the reply would be, Then the penitentiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help following the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake of Fire is where such an one must go. Did ever a murderer plead that he hated his victim so much that he could not go near him without slaying him. Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of the one who loves sin so much that he is at "enmity against God"![/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]The fact of man's responsibility is almost universally acknowledged. It is inherent in man's moral nature. It is not only taught in Scripture but witnessed to by the natural conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. What is implied by this general term "ability" must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an abstract argument.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No; I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability.*[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]Now, in like manner, the sinner while altogether lacking in moral and spiritual ability does, nevertheless, possess natural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable unto God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to believe with as to disbelieve, and it is their failure to love and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an infant is not personally responsible to God, because lacking in natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]*The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew Fuller.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who is able to weigh eternal issues IS a responsible being, and it is because he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to "give an account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:12).[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]We say again that the above distinction between the natural ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are two men guilty of theft: the first is an idiot, the second perfectly sane but the offspring of criminal parents. No just judge would sentence the former; but every right-minded judge would the latter. Even though the second of these thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from criminal parents that would not excuse him, providing he was a normal rational being. Here then is the ground of human accountability-thepossession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; because he does not use his natural powers for God's glory, constitutes his guilt.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman]How can it remain consistent with His mercy that God should require the debt of obedience from him that is not able to pay? In addition to what has been said above it should be pointed out that God has not lost His right, even though man has lost his power. The creature's impotence does not cancel his obligation. A drunken servant is a servant still, and it is contrary to all sound reasoning to argue that his master loses his rights through his servant's default. Moreover, it is of first importance that we should ever bear in mind that God contracted with us in Adam, who was our federal head and representative, and in him God gave us a power which we lost through our first parent's fall; but though our power is gone, nevertheless, God may justly demand His due of obedience and of service.[/FONT]

A.W. Pink
http://www.freegrace.net/library/Pink/sovereignty/pink_sov_08.html
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]

 

[justsurfing]

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.


Then -- in the original Greek -- how might you have missed the obvious point of this passage? Greek doesn't have a word-order distinction in meaning between "in Adam all" and "all in Adam". Clearly the equivalent meaning of this slim prooftext is:

For as all in Adam die, so all in Christ will be made alive.​

The verse is no comfort in its original Greek to those who are not in Christ.

Oh -- that's right. You've only had a weekend to study Greek. I assume that was on your own? It'd only take a few months of training from someone who knows New Testament Greek.

The weight of evidence was incredible.

God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.

I knew they were 100% powerless to be saved (total inability). 100% powerless to choose to be born.

How could the same God who died on the cross for the sins of all the world... the Savior of all men... who revealed such Perfect Love... just not "care"... that people with no choice but to be sinners... were suffering? Eternally?

Does He have no care for His creation?

It never made true sense... God's character did not align with creating people with the full intention to send them to hell to torture them forever.

All I needed to see was that "eternal" was not really eternal... not in English meaning from the original Greek.... nor was "for ever and ever".

I believe I know Jesus a little too well to fail to believe He is truly the Savior of all men...the moment the smallest crack in the foundation of "eternal torment in hell" was made manifest.

Then, I really saw it. My doctrinal position wasn't founded fully on Jesus Christ... if my foundation was half on hell.

My foundation, as a truly "Jesus Christ alone"... reformed believer... must be wholly on Jesus Christ alone... to be sound.

Hell had to go! Hell is NOT eternal!!! Jesus Christ is... Jesus Christ... alone. And all things are in God in Christ for all eternity. Numerous scriptures say so.

Many, many reasons why once a crack in the foundation of "eternal hell"... showed up... that foundation was shaken.

My foundation is on Jesus Christ alone.



​

 

[justsurfing]

You make it sound like God will be an unjust judge.

God will be merciful. God will not be angry forever.... but will turn and have mercy on those undeserving in death as in life.

Mans inability is not necessarily a physical problem but a heart problem.

It is a profound spiritual problem. A heart problem, agreed.

In other words, man has all the faculties to worship God, he has the natural ability to call on God but not the moral ability.

Having eyes, he sees not. Having ears, he hears not. He cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God with a natural spirit.

Even with all the evidence that God exists, so much so that everyone is "without excuse", man refuses to worship God.

Amen.

As an example, if you showed up to court to go on trial for murder and your defence was "I could not help but kill the man, I hated him with every part of my being. I was born a killer, my parents trained me to be a killer and if given the same opportunity, I could not help but do it again". What would the judge rule? Guilty. The mans problem was not that he could not physically stop from killing this man, the problem was in his heart. When God judges the goats, He will judge righteously. Man is not guilty by design, he is guilty on his own. God does not force man to sin. Man sins, because he wants and loves sin rather than God.

All very true.

God has bound all men over to disobedience that He may have mercy on all. That we deserve to be judged is not in question. Yet the weight of the cross is greater in declaring God's grace. The horror of God saving some and not all (in the final summation - not just including the 1000 year reign of Christ but beyond that) - is what is objectionable.

Jesus paid the full penalty for all sin. Since Jesus paid the full penalty for all sin... how many sinners were atoned for? If all their sins were atoned for... how can any say that they themselves, as sinners, were not atoned for?

Romans 11:32
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(The same "all" means the same "all" in this scripture... as in the other.... no matter how any tries to "switch around" the words. All in Adam = the same # all in Christ. This scripture is clear that all men in disobedience are the "all" on whom He will have mercy.)

God bless,

js

 

[UMP]

Romans 11:32
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

(The same "all" means the same "all" in this scripture... as in the other.... no matter how any tries to "switch around" the words. All in Adam = the same # all in Christ. This scripture is clear that all men in disobedience are the "all" on whom He will have mercy.)

God bless,

js

Universalists may be divided, broadly, into two classes: those who teach the ultimate salvation of every member of Adam’s race, and those who affirm the ultimate salvation of all creatures, including the Devil, the fallen angels, and the demons. The class of passages to which both appeal are verses where the words "all," "all men," "all things," "the world" are to be found. The simplest way to refute their contentions on these passages is to show that such terms are restricted usually modified by what is said in the immediate context.

The issue raised by Universalists narrows itself down to the question of whether "all men" and "all things" are employed, in passages which speak of salvation, in a limited or unlimited sense. Let us, then, point to a number of passages where these general terms occur, but where it is impossible to give them an absolute force or meaning:

"And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5). "And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not" (Luke 3:15). "And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, and all come to Him" (John 3:26). "And early in the morning He came again into the temple," and "all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them" (John 8:2). "For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard (Acts 22:15). "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men" (2 Cor. 3:2).

In none of the above passages has "all," "all men," "all the people" an unlimited scope. In each of those passages these general terms have only a relative meaning. In Scripture "all" is used in two ways: meaning "all without exception" (occurring infrequently), and "all without distinction" (its general significance), that is, all classes and kinds—old and young, men and women, rich and poor, educated and illiterate, and in many in-stances Jews and Gentiles, men of all nations. Very frequently the "all" has reference to all believers, all in Christ.

What we have just said concerning the relative use and restricted meaning of the terms "all" and "all men" applies with equal force to "all things." In Scripture this is another expression which often has a very limited meaning. We give a few examples of this: "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (Rom. 14:2). "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure" (Rom. 14.20). "I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22). "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient" (1 Cor. 10:23). "Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things" (Eph. 6:2 1). I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4:13). In each of these passages "all things" has a restricted force.

Another class of passages appealed to by Universalists are verses where "the world" is mentioned. But a careful examination of every passage where this term occurs in the New Testament will show that we are not obliged to understand it as referring to the entire human race, because in a number of instances it means far less. Take the following examples. "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world" (John 6:33). Mark that here it is not a matter of proffering "life" to the world, but of giving "life." Does Christ "give life"—spiritual and eternal life, for that is what is in view—to every member of the human family? "If thou do these things, show Thyself to the world" (John 7.4). Here it is plain that "the world" is an indefinite expression—show Thyself in public, to men in general, is its obvious meaning here. "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how we prevail nothing? Behold, the world is gone after Him" (John 12:19). Did the Pharisees mean that the entire human race had "gone after" Christ? Surely not. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8). Must this mean that the faith of the Roman saints was known and spoken of by all the race of mankind? Did all men everywhere "speak" of it? Did one man out of every ten thousand in the Roman Empire know anything about it? "The word of the truth of the Gospel, which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5, 6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all men everywhere heard the Gospel? Surely the meaning of this verse is, that the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea and the lost sheep of the house of Israel, had gone forth abroad without restraint, into many places. "And all the world wondered after the beast" (Rev. 13:3). That the reference here cannot be to all men without exception we know from other scriptures.

It will be seen, then, from the passages cited above that there is nothing in the words themselves which compel us to give an unlimited meaning to "all men," "all things," "the world." Therefore when we insist that "the world" which is saved, and the "all men" who are redeemed, are the world of believers and the all men who receive Christ as their personal Saviour, instead of interpreting the Scriptures to suit ourselves we are explaining them in strict harmony with other passages. On the other hand, to give to these terms unlimited scope and to make them mean all without exception is to interpret them in a way which manifestly clashes with the many passages which plainly teach there are those who will be finally lost.

One other remark may be made upon Universalism before turning to our next sub-division, and that is, the very fact that Universalism is so popular with the wicked, is proof irresistible, that it is not the system taught in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." That the natural man does receive the teaching that every one will ultimately be saved, is a sure sign it does not belong to "the things of the Spirit of God." The wicked hate the light, but love the darkness; hence, while they deem as "foolishness" the truth of God and reject it, they esteem as reasonable the Devil’s lies, and greedily devour them.

A.W. Pink

 

[justsurfing]

Hi UMP, ,

I'm would love to respond in further detail.

One thing I find objectionable is trying to paint with a broadbrush a biblical doctrine saying "the wicked like it".

I hear this same errant objection to salvation wholly by God's grace and unconditional election to the elect.

Critics state, with no biblical basis, that such grace would cause the elect to be very lax towards their salvation... because they would have no fear of hell... believing they were saved wholly by grace... and they have eternal security.

Surely, the critics say, this would lead to wantonness and license!

That is entirely a false conclusion. The grace of God wholly... wholly draws the elect close to the heart of God in filial love.

The response, therefore, of sinners to hearing and knowing of God's grace is not the same response that the redeemed have towards God's grace in relationship with God in Christ... drawn to God's very heart by the firm assurance of His imoveable grace and love towards the elect effectually through the Lord Jesus Christ. Our security in Christ draws us ever truer and nearer and dearer to God's heart in love and much comfort in the Holy Spirit.

That those who are carnal, worldly, and reprobate twist the Word of God to make license for sin is to be expected: they are sinful and carnal and worldly and at enmity towards God.

The effect, however, of the teaching of God's grace to all.. is of precious comfort to the elect in knowing that God's grace is truly without limit and in keeping with the heart of Jesus Christ on the cross.

To know and understand that God's grace in the final judgment is fully released to all is a blessed hope and comfort to God's chosen people who interpret this in the love and grace of God in sure conviction of the Holy Spirit.

The response of sinful men to the gospel of Jesus Christ is no measure of the veracity of the truth of the gospel of the cross of Jesus Christ... but rather a measure of the desperate wickedness of their own sinful hearts for which they are accountable to God.

This doctrine of universalism, it's merits and it's fruit, cannot, likewise, be known or evaluated on the basis of how worldly men corrupt the Word to their own advantage in sinful lust and greed.

God's Word stands true... and bears true fruit in those in whom the Spirit dwells and who are convinced by the Spirit of it's truth unchanging.

The doctrine of ultimate reconciliation is testified of, it's fruit and love and grace and comfort, by those born-again Christians who are convinced of it by the Holy Spirit... and it deserves, as all other doctrine, to be studied solely on the basis of it's truthful revelation in the Word of God.

Does it reveal Jesus Christ? Truthfully? Accurately?

My answer: yes. Jesus is the Savior of all men. And that scripture clearly refers to all men whether in the church or in the world.

Blessings,

js

 

[heymikey80]

The weight of evidence was incredible.

God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.

I knew they were 100% powerless to be saved (total inability). 100% powerless to choose to be born.

How could the same God who died on the cross for the sins of all the world... the Savior of all men... who revealed such Perfect Love... just not "care"... that people with no choice but to be sinners... were suffering? Eternally?

Does He have no care for His creation?

It never made true sense... God's character did not align with creating people with the full intention to send them to hell to torture them forever.

All I needed to see was that "eternal" was not really eternal... not in English meaning from the original Greek.... nor was "for ever and ever".

I believe I know Jesus a little too well to fail to believe He is truly the Savior of all men...the moment the smallest crack in the foundation of "eternal torment in hell" was made manifest.

Then, I really saw it. My doctrinal position wasn't founded fully on Jesus Christ... if my foundation was half on hell.

My foundation, as a truly "Jesus Christ alone"... reformed believer... must be wholly on Jesus Christ alone... to be sound.

Hell had to go! Hell is NOT eternal!!! Jesus Christ is... Jesus Christ... alone. And all things are in God in Christ for all eternity. Numerous scriptures say so.

Many, many reasons why once a crack in the foundation of "eternal hell"... showed up... that foundation was shaken.

My foundation is on Jesus Christ alone.​

Mkay. This is not an argument from Greek.

The Second Death is eternal. Sin has to be utterly destroyed and fully atoned. Those who don't rely on Christ Jesus -- they are bound for eternal punishment, where "the fire is not put out."

Eternal life is compared directly with eternal punishment. The connection being made is unmistakable. Of course there are reasons of decorum not to describe the eternality of punishment. But the point is clear. Numerous illustrations in Scripture point to the inaccessibility of eternal life for those who miss it at the time it is offered.

God certainly cares about this creation (the whole thing, not simply humans). But it's not all about us. It's not God putting us on a pedestal, it's God putting His Son on a pedestal as Exhibit A in defense of His people. 'Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.' He 10:28-31

The grace of God doesn't keep Him from condemning supernatural beings to eternal punishment. Why would it keep lesser beings from this punishment?

Tossing eternal punishment when Christ and the Apostles didn't -- it's just sophistry trying to undermine Scripture. To base an entire theology on silence is futile at best. But Scripture's not silent.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Mt 25:46

 

[kj7gs]

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.

I'll partially agree with this. I'm also incredulous that God would set his love on a fraction of mankind. Especially since ALL have sinned and NOBODY deserves salvation anyway. That He would pay any attention to a creation that lost fellowship with Him from the start, is beyond my understanding.

 

[pippa]

So I figured... it must be beyond my understanding how a God of love intentionally created people who would be born into sin... none of this of their own choice... then, in a state of total inability to even hear the call of Jesus with their hearts... having no power to choose to respond to Him in love... would be consigned to eternal torture on the basis of the fact that they sinned by nature. They had zero chance, effectually, to be saved.

Horrific. But biblical (or so I thought)...


1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

i'm so glad i found this forum. these issues have been bothering me for some time. i'm in the process of losing my faith. i havent been to my calvinistic church for 4 weeks now.

anyway, without even going into too complex a debate about free will and predestination, this is a simpler question. even if the person DOES have the free will to choose, and doesnt choose to obey God, for whatever reason, its still not kind and loving of God to have created us in the first place, knowing that the majority would not choose him EVEN IF ITS THEIR OWN CHOICE/FAULT/FOOLISHNESS/WICKEDNESS. he knew this would happen and billions would be eternally tortured and he went ahead and created us anyway. THAT WAS NOT A KIND AND LOVING ACT. how can you say its kind?? will any christian admit God is actually cruel? he says it himself in isaiah 13.9, so i dont think its blasphemy to agree.
pippa

 

[cygnusx1]

i'm so glad i found this forum. these issues have been bothering me for some time. i'm in the process of losing my faith. i havent been to my calvinistic church for 4 weeks now.

anyway, without even going into too complex a debate about free will and predestination, this is a simpler question. even if the person DOES have the free will to choose, and doesnt choose to obey God, for whatever reason, its still not kind and loving of God to have created us in the first place, knowing that the majority would not choose him EVEN IF ITS THEIR OWN CHOICE/FAULT/FOOLISHNESS/WICKEDNESS. he knew this would happen and billions would be eternally tortured and he went ahead and created us anyway. THAT WAS NOT A KIND AND LOVING ACT. how can you say its kind?? will any christian admit God is actually cruel? he says it himself in isaiah 13.9, so i dont think its blasphemy to agree.
pippa

Hi Pippa

Keep your chin up , your redemption is coming with Christ .

If all God is is love and nothing more then we couldn't make sense of this world , yet Romans 11 does call on us to take notice of the kindness and severity of God , by which I mean , events described in your post do not as you have said (even under the Arminian accounts) amount to love ...... I look upon these events as coming from the wisdom of God , God permitted man to fall for a good reason .


Don't be down hearted , the Lord will direct your feet sister.

 

[pippa]

I'll partially agree with this. I'm also incredulous that God would set his love on a fraction of mankind. Especially since ALL have sinned and NOBODY deserves salvation anyway. That He would pay any attention to a creation that lost fellowship with Him from the start, is beyond my understanding.

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa

 

[mlqurgw]

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa

pippa; If you would like I would be willing to have a one on one conversation with you by PM on these things. My reason for doing it by PM is not that I have anything to hide but in order that you and I can focus on the subject without others confusing you and me with all sorts of comments. It is difficult to get any real understanding when you have so many who give you conflicting views. I have no particular axe to grind nor do I wish to defend Calvinism. I simply want to help you with your questions. Perhaps we could start with a study of the attributes of God. Normally if I were to do this in a more conventional setting such as Sunday School or a series of sermons I would start with the supremacy and sovereignty of God. But you seem to be having some difficulty with grasping the love and mercy of God. We can start there if you would like. And you are free to post anything I might say to you by PM in a public forum for others to comment on if you wish. I want to help you without having to answer every question that others can come up with. I am not interested in a debate but with doing what I can to help you. PM me if this is something you think you might be interested in.

 

[justsurfing]

Hi everyone,

I'm back after a brief respite... saying hi to all.

God IS Love!!! Jesus Christ is the express image of God the Father. We've seen all we need to see when we see Jesus on the cross.

Do you think Jesus was on the cross thinking, "Forgive a few of them, Father... and ETERNALLY TORMENT THE REST!!! (Most of them)"

Ummmmm.... that's not Jesus.

That's not God.

God really IS Love. His wrath last for but a moment. But His mercy endureth forever.
Mercy triumphs over judgment. Never think judgment is "the end".

JESUS is the beginning and the end.

God will draw all men to Jesus... and wills for all to be saved... and has power as our Sovereign Creator God... to save all.

Everyone God loves God will save. God IS Love. That should tell us how many are saved.

A few? A fraction? Just some - the smaller percentage? Or all?

Come on, people... it's not that hard to see. See Jesus on the cross. There's your answer.

Merry Christmas all...

for unto is a Child is born... unto us a Son is given... and this shall be GOOD NEWS... to ALL people!!! (not just some... and is it really "good news" to hear God hates people and created them because He really just wanted to so He could torture them forever and ever... in hell... like a bigger dictator/torturer than Stalin/Mussolini/& Hitler all rolled into One??? Come on, people!!!! Think about it. Think about Jesus.... it's SO OBVIOUS!!!! Quit being religious... think about Jesus... and let freedom ring!!! Jesus is God's grace revealed... to all people. Think about Jesus... and be set free of the lies of Satan - like he won and is going to hold most of the world's people in hell for eternity. What superstitious nonsense!!! The truth sets free. Jesus is the truth).

God is not a SUPER-ETERNAL TORMENT IN HELL-GRINCH!!!

Merry Christmas... all.

 

[AudioArtist]

A-trolling we shall, a-trolling we shall go, hi ho arminio, a-trolling we shall go!

Repent of your blasphemous pride. God needs nothing from you to carry out His will, and anything you could offer is corrupted filth. He will save for Himself the exact number He determined before creation to glorify Himself in mercy, and He will send to hell the exact number He determined at the same time to glorify Himself in justice. Your bleating that any of that is "unfair" only exposes the arrogant opinion you have of yourself. You deserve nothing from God but the flames of eternal hell, and you have deserved that from the moment you were born.

How pleasant.

 

[heymikey80]

that being the case, it's beyond my understanding that he created us at all! i wish he hadnt.
pippa

But ... doesn't that (1) put your limited wishes above the wishes of an unlimited Creator, Who can see beyond your limits? Doesn't it also (2) place you in the position of wishing to be independent of God and at the same time approved by God? Where might that have led? It might well lead to a creation where nobody is treated as a human being, because everybody is self-sufficient.

With interdependence comes insufficiency.

 

[UMP]

Hi everyone,

I'm back after a brief respite... saying hi to all.

God IS Love!!! Jesus Christ is the express image of God the Father. We've seen all we need to see when we see Jesus on the cross.

Do you think Jesus was on the cross thinking, "Forgive a few of them, Father... and ETERNALLY TORMENT THE REST!!! (Most of them)"

Ummmmm.... that's not Jesus.

That's not God.

God really IS Love. His wrath last for but a moment. But His mercy endureth forever.
Mercy triumphs over judgment. Never think judgment is "the end".

JESUS is the beginning and the end.

God will draw all men to Jesus... and wills for all to be saved... and has power as our Sovereign Creator God... to save all.

Everyone God loves God will save. God IS Love. That should tell us how many are saved.

A few? A fraction? Just some - the smaller percentage? Or all?

Come on, people... it's not that hard to see. See Jesus on the cross. There's your answer.

Merry Christmas all...

for unto is a Child is born... unto us a Son is given... and this shall be GOOD NEWS... to ALL people!!! (not just some... and is it really "good news" to hear God hates people and created them because He really just wanted to so He could torture them forever and ever... in hell... like a bigger dictator/torturer than Stalin/Mussolini/& Hitler all rolled into One??? Come on, people!!!! Think about it. Think about Jesus.... it's SO OBVIOUS!!!! Quit being religious... think about Jesus... and let freedom ring!!! Jesus is God's grace revealed... to all people. Think about Jesus... and be set free of the lies of Satan - like he won and is going to hold most of the world's people in hell for eternity. What superstitious nonsense!!! The truth sets free. Jesus is the truth).

God is not a SUPER-ETERNAL TORMENT IN HELL-GRINCH!!!

Merry Christmas... all.

If universalism is true, what's to stop me from committing suicide when things get painful, oh and yes, things can and do get VERY painful. Sounds like suicide would become an attractive option for many. After all, no punishment, no problem. Let's just end the misery.
Let's see, daily misery versus eternal bliss. Mmmm which to choose??

 

[ReformedChapin]

If universalism is true, what's to stop me from committing suicide when things get painful, oh and yes, things can and do get VERY painful. Sounds like suicide would become an attractive option for many. After all, no punishment, no problem. Let's just end the misery.
Let's see, daily misery versus eternal bliss. Mmmm which to choose??

Well nothing in scripture explicitely states that suicides causes someone to lose their salvation or any work for that matter.

 

[UMP]

Well nothing in scripture explicitely states that suicides causes someone to lose their salvation or any work for that matter.

No elect child of God will lose his salvation, of that I am certain. Will an elect child of God commit suicide? Not sure on that.
Regardless, I'm discussing this with a universalist, not you.
I'll take it for granted that you're not condoning suicide on ANY grounds, or at least I hope so.
However, for convenience sake I'll change my wording to "suicide would become a MORE attractive option for many"
No angry God, and certainly no eternal punishment for any reason, at all.
</IMG>

 

[heymikey80]

The weight of evidence was incredible.

God is 100% sovereign. The scripture plainly states that it is God's will that all men be saved. As a former 5 point Calvinist... (person who sees God is 100% sovereign... then lines up all doctrine from there)... there has always been an inherent contradiction in scripture. Something was wrong. Something was missing.

Furthermore, it's just absolutely contrary to the character of God revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ... particularly on the cross... such Perfect Love... that God would create people to torment them eternally in hell.

This is that Jesus who said there are some things that'll never be forgiven, right?

This is that Jesus who said -- minutes away from the Cross --

"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.' For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" Lk 23:28-31
​

The fact is, this is projecting out beyond the character of God into a desire to keep man in convenience and care -- and that above what he deserves by his thoughts, will and actions.

God is indeed willing to shed grace -- but not comprehensively, and not equally. A basic view of this creation says as much -- but so does a basic review of Christ's teaching.

"... in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."Mt 18:34-35

"But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last." Mt 20:13-16
​

These observations from Scripture grate against the view of God as a supernatural vending machine, and with good reason. He's not.

I think the knot was untied for me on seeing something drastically different than what you've seen. For me, I've seen God's redemptive activity as a character trait -- He picks a remnant that He delivers, He draws, He acclaims, and He glorifies. Look around: it's not a comprehensive change that He makes. It's a remnant, again & again.

Paul proposed in Romans 9:20ff that this itself has a purpose, and there are clearly possible answers -- but that we don't have the standing to ask Him what that purpose is. And likely there's a redemptive purpose in singling out people for special favor. There's certainly aspects of this isolated favor throughout creation, in the way we treat our young, the way we treat our spouses (itself an illustration of the grace and love of Christ). That's why we constantly encounter a special term for it in human dealings: "grace" or "agapao", or "mercy".

Modern philosophy has only sought to generalize on its principles in the past century, and to me that weakness has produced profound error in many cases with respect to ethics. Some things can't be generalized. This is one.