Questions about Predestination

[pippa]

And I think it's ironic that many people who have made this world more cruel than Hell think God is unkind and unloving.

no, this world is not more cruel than hell. hell is for eternity, so of course hell is worse..

As to why God would introduce any cruelty, I can only say there can be good, though speculative, reasons why. Resistance requires conflict. Redemption requires conflict. Salvation requires the inability of another. If these things are critically important, more critically important than our convenience or our ease, then God has done good by introducing limitations into the world -- and thus indirectly bringing about sin.

no, that doesnt work either. the original world had no pain or suffering. neither will heaven. so that shows suffering is not in fact necessary to achieve Gods purpose.

i dont think anyone can give me a reason to think God is not cruel and horrible, because i can see it all written their in the bible. God even calls it cruel himself in isaish 13 verse 9.

 

[heymikey80]

but that idea doesnt work. there isnt an end to cruelty if the hell of eternal torment is real.

That idea does work. There is knowledge and certainty in Hell, as well as justice. Do the cruel deserve punishment? If they've offended the Infinite, what's the level of punishment? How much does it matter that their offense is neglect instead of intentional defiance (grant at least that all finite offenses of the Infinite are not fully knowledgeable)?

Define your terms for cruelty. Then we'll see the exact point why these arguments elevate convenience, pleasure and ease above truth and justice.

and the 'evil' people of the world who are going to hell according to the bible are not necessarily people who have inflcted cruelty on anyone else. we're talking about ordinary, harmless people of all nations, going about their everyday lives, eking out a living, bringing up their families, maybe never even having heard about the gospel. think of people you know, your grandmother maybe.

First off, what you're saying is that you can judge people for their good or evil. That grandmotherly types haven't a wicked bone in their body. And that's not true.

Second, the idea that this sinfulness can get away with not inflicting cruelty on someone else -- that's nieve. Consider the ways in which words you think are innocuous have put severe damage in your own relationship with the Only Good God. It's got so bad that you've expressed, unless you find the god of your ease and convenience in God's place, you feel no obligation to Him, no love for Him.

That's not cruel? You see, even neglect of information can be cruel to those who don't have the information to fix it.

I often credit my grandmother with advancing my knowledge of this. At one point when she was preschool my grandmother had no idea that people thought in intentionally malevolent ways. But she was deprived of this innocent notion early in her life. And she woke up later to the fact that her own ego was doing the same sinful thing within her as well.

What's more, "going about our lives" without seeking the God for Whom it all exists, is an offense against God. You say you can't tolerate a God Who has no tolerance for cruelty inflicted against Him -- yet your very reason for rejecting such a God is that you have no tolerance for what you perceive as His cruelty. Why this inconsistency?

i think of the people i saw in india lying on the footpaths. the lovely people i meet in everyday situations, doing no harm to anyone, just ignorant of the gospel. these are the evil wicked people deserving of hell, according to the bible and the people on this forum, it seems.

I think of the Spirit of God moved with compassion, asking why these people haven't heard of the Christian God from a Christian walking that same road.

2 months ago i was a righteous person myself, now i'm one of those evil wicked ones. just through thinking something. i have gone from everlasting life to eternal damnation.

Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. There is an ultimate question here -- what you think reality is based on. If it's based on your desire for a nice God, for Christianity and water, then no you haven't tackled the basic object of faith in the first place.

If it were really recognizing that God's God and you're not, then you're not jumping back & forth between Heaven and Hell. The rules have changed.

And in neither case can a debate tease this out of you. That's really something you yourself need to sit down and think through.

If you'd like a book on the subject, there are a couple by CS Lewis focused directly on this problem: "Mere Christianity" and "The Abolition of Man". "MC" is the simple answer. "TAM" says how our culture got to the accusations you're proffering.

And ... you do realize this generation is famous for offering this particular accusation against God? It's not new. In fact, even though cultural conditions have made it popular, the accusation's not even modern. It's ancient.

the cruel punishment of God 'on himself', he could have avoided by not creating the world the way he did. and that punishment lasted something like3 or 6 hours i forget which. whereas hell is excruciating torture for eternity. nothing is more cruel than that.

As I said there's quite a bit more cruel than that.

And again, you're gauging the rightness or wrongness of cruelty by the level of pain. Not by justice or injustice.

In essence, pain is equivalent to injustice throughout your argument.

like i said, whatever speculative ideas anyone can come up about God being just etc. dont address the issue i'm raising which is the horrendously cruel punishment of hell.

When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. ... All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts-to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion. C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity"
​

no, that doesnt work either. the original world had no pain or suffering. neither will heaven. so that shows suffering is not in fact necessary to achieve Gods purpose.

That's a leap. You're saying God had no intent in achieving any purpose between the world as-created and the eternal state?

Well how 'bout this: He did. And it is necessary. If you don't believe me, tell me how a redemptive God shows His redemptiveness in the original creation and the eternal state.

i dont think anyone can give me a reason to think God is not cruel and horrible, because i can see it all written their in the bible. God even calls it cruel himself in isaish 13 verse 9.

"In essence, pain is equivalent to injustice throughout your argument."

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Rom 2:6-11
​

 

[pippa]

That idea does work. There is knowledge and certainty in Hell, as well as justice. Do the cruel deserve punishment? If they've offended the Infinite, what's the level of punishment? How much does it matter that their offense is neglect instead of intentional defiance (grant at least that all finite offenses of the Infinite are not fully knowledgeable)?

Define your terms for cruelty. Then we'll see the exact point why these arguments elevate convenience, pleasure and ease about truth and justice.

First off, what you're saying is that you can judge people for their good or evil. That grandmotherly types haven't a wicked bone in their body. And that's not true.

Second, the idea that this sinfulness can get away with not inflicting cruelty on someone else -- that's nieve. Consider the ways in which words you think are innocuous have put severe damage in your own relationship with the Only Good God. It's got so bad that you've expressed, unless you find the god of your ease and convenience in God's place, you feel no obligation to Him, no love for Him.

That's not cruel? You see, even neglect of information can be cruel to those who don't have the information to fix it.

I often credit my grandmother with advancing my knowledge of this. At one point when she was preschool my grandmother had no idea that people thought in intentionally malevolent ways. But she was deprived of this innocent notion early in her life. And she woke up later to the fact that her own ego was doing the same sinful thing within her as well.

What's more, "going about our lives" without seeking the God for Whom it all exists, is an offense against God. You say you can't tolerate a God Who has no tolerance for cruelty inflicted against Him -- yet your very reason for rejecting such a God is that you have no tolerance for what you perceive as His cruelty. Why this inconsistency?

I think of the Spirit of God moved with compassion, asking why these people haven't heard of the Christian God from a Christian walking that same road.

Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way. There is an ultimate question here -- what you think reality is based on. If it's based on your desire for a nice God, for Christianity and water, then no you haven't tackled the basic object of faith in the first place.

If it were really recognizing that God's God and you're not, then you're not jumping back & forth between Heaven and Hell. The rules have changed.

And in neither case can a debate tease this out of you. That's really something you yourself need to sit down and think through.

If you'd like a book on the subject, there are a couple by CS Lewis focused directly on this problem: "Mere Christianity" and "The Abolition of Man". "MC" is the simple answer. "TAM" says how our culture got to the accusations you're proffering.

And ... you do realize this generation is famous for offering this particular accusation against God? It's not new. In fact, even though cultural conditions have made it popular, the accusation's not even modern. It's ancient.

As I said there's quite a bit more cruel than that.

And again, you're gauging the rightness or wrongness of cruelty by the level of pain. Not by justice or injustice.


In essence, pain is equivalent to injustice throughout your argument.

​

That's a leap. You're saying God had no intent in achieving any purpose between the world as-created and the eternal state (I assume)?

Well how 'bout this: He did. And it is necessary. If you don't believe me, tell me how a redemptive God shows His redemptiveness in the original creation and the eternal state.

"In essence, pain is equivalent to injustice throughout your argument."

its hard to discuss this meaningfully with people who dont think consigning someone to be burned for eternity, without a drop of water to quench their thirst, is not a cruel punishment. if you dont think thats cruel, what can i say? a five year old could see that its cruel.

i didnt quite understand all your points, but i have studied the bible for 20 years, done a bible college course, read extensively etc. so i'm not ignorant of christian doctrine at all.

were you saying that God planned the world to have evil and suffering? if so, then its not the people's fault who sin against him. some dont know, some dont understand. some dont believe it (i.e. the bible). how is it kind to put temptation in their way then punish them for it? what about starving children? how are they cruel? how is anything their fault? what about the indian destitute people? they've probably never heard about Jesus.

long philosophical discussions only cloud the simple issues. ok by cruel i mean, inflicting painful tortuous punishment. thats simple. how is that kind? thats all i want to know. you have to go a long way off track to try to explain that. you wouldnt do it to your children, i guess? oh yes, i know that our little finite minds cant understand God's ways. but how can little finite minds then understand why God does such cruel and horrible things? how can you assume you know God's reasons?

no. theres no way anyone will convince me that its kind to send people to a lake of fire where they'll be tormented day and night forever. thats a very twisted concept of kindness.

pippa

pippa

 

[heymikey80]

its hard to discuss this meaningfully with people who dont think consigning someone to be burned for eternity, without a drop of water to quench their thirst, is not a cruel punishment. if you dont think thats cruel, what can i say? a five year old could see that its cruel.

Ah, so now you're saying you shouldn't be debating people who don't accept your position?

Who else would argue with you?

 

[pippa]

Ah, so now you're saying you shouldn't be debating people who don't accept your position?

Who else would argue with you?

i was hoping there'b be another christian who doesnt feel the need of rationalizing the problem away, but facing it objectively.

 

[heymikey80]

i didnt quite understand all your points, but i have studied the bible for 20 years, done a bible college course, read extensively etc. so i'm not ignorant of christian doctrine at all.

Oh, gee. I guess I should step aside then, having been through the conflict around the dinner table since I was 3 years of age.

So you've read Mere Christianity's address to your issue? Why aren't your arguments answering with Lewis' arguments already in mind?

In fact your first statement is answered directly by Lewis.

if you dont think thats cruel, what can i say? a five year old could see that its cruel.

I will tell you another view that is also too simple. It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys' philosophies.

It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. The table I am sitting at looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of-all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain-and, of course, you find that what we call "seeing a table" lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not-and the modern world usually is not-if you want to go on and ask what is really happening- then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the something more is not simple.
​

were you saying that God planned the world to have evil and suffering? if so, then its not the people's fault who sin against him. some dont know, some dont understand. some dont believe it (i.e. the bible). how is it kind to put temptation in their way then punish them for it? what about starving children? how are they cruel? how is anything their fault? what about the indian destitute people? they've probably never heard about Jesus.

To which I've already answered. They know. The very fact that people know the difference between right and wrong, and know that they do wrong, is testament to this fact.

They know. Knowing isn't the problem. It's what people do with what they know that's the problem.

long philosophical discussions only cloud the simple issues. ok by cruel i mean, inflicting painful tortuous punishment. thats simple. how is that kind? thats all i want to know.

As you've defined it, kindness is not always right. So a righteous God is not always kind as you've defined kindness.

But to me, kindness is not always being indulgent, gentle and pleasant. Sometimes the ultimate kindness is performed with severity -- when you're doing something that's painful to someone to prevent something worse from occurring.

Hell isn't simply like that. Hell is that. It's intentionally marking off evil with punishment.

you have to go a long way off track to try to explain that. you wouldnt do it to your children, i guess? oh yes, i know that our little finite minds cant understand God's ways. but how can little finite minds then understand why God does such cruel and horrible things? how can you assume you know God's reasons?

I don't. I assume God knows God's reasons.

no. theres no way anyone will convince me that its kind to send people to a lake of fire where they'll be tormented day and night forever. thats a very twisted concept of kindness.

Ease and convenience are not the ultimate good.

 

[heymikey80]

i was hoping there'b be another christian who doesnt feel the need of rationalizing the problem away, but facing it objectively.

You express a dislike for rational response. In debate?

Objectively, there is no conflict here. Because the words you're using are subjective.

I've pointed out these facts:

• The assumption being made is that "how I feel" defines right & wrong.
• The assumption being made is that good can't be in charge, when cruelty [really, pain] is imposed for good reasons.

Neither of these is realistic. Neither is objective. I've objected to both. I've tried the rational approach. Yet you accuse me of ... rationalizing! Another subjective accusation!

This comes down to irrationality. Do you think God will satisfy everyone's irrational sentiment? I don't.

 

[pippa]

You express a dislike for rational response. In debate?

Objectively, there is no conflict here. Because the words you're using are subjective.

I've pointed out these facts:

• The assumption being made is that "how I feel" defines right & wrong.
• The assumption being made is that good can't be in charge, when cruelty [really, pain] is imposed for good reasons.

Neither of these is realistic. Neither is objective. I've objected to both. I've tried the rational approach. Yet you accuse me of ... rationalizing! Another subjective accusation!

This comes down to irrationality. Do you think God will satisfy everyone's irrational sentiment? I don't.

how is hell kind then?
was sadam hussein kind?
pippa

 

[kj7gs]

If I throw two puppies into the fire before they have the choice to jump into the fire themselves, and then I take one puppy out and save her and "pass over" the other puppy, that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for that puppy's death OR that I'm not responsible for throwing both puppies into the fire in the first place.

Puppies, how cute. Have they merited your favor and earned a spot on your couch by having qualities that obligate you to them? Is tossing the puppies into the fire, indicative of a mean and evil God? Then why start a fire in the first place? So now when you toss them in, you are sad in doing so. This is schizophrenia, and this is Arminianism.

Calvinistic Predestinarianism is insane logic,

- Touché.

and obviously so, when God sent His Son to sacrifice His life for ours.

Ours? Meaning all of mankind? Then we have another problem with a once and for all forgiveness of all sins, forever, with innocent people in hell -- unless of course Jesus gives those sins back at the end of our days, which makes him a liar.

According to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of the puppies jumping in the fire by their own accord, and me jumping in and smothering the whole fire with my body, thereby receiving burns everywhere. But all I care about is saving the puppies.

Then with the fire extinguished, there is no hell, and we are too far removed from Scripture at this point to discuss the issue further.

That's how Christ's love for us is.

No, it's not.

He didn't cause our sin in the first place and then come to save us from it. Or did God not predestine everything, including sin?

Correct, he did not cause our sin. But he can leave us in our sins.

I'm talking about the hypostatic ability to choose between various alternatives as a hypostatic faculty inherent in the hypostasized will of each hypostasis. This is what all the Church Fathers believed, that man, in order to have freedom in the image of God, is able to choose between alternatives (varying possibilities of good or even evil). At any rate, how did Satan sin? Did God predestine it?

This would involve supralapsarianism and the purposeful creation of Adam as a weak being that simply toppled at the first temptation, no strength whatsoever to resist the devil. I don't buy that. For that matter, Satan also had the full capability to have and maintain full fellowship with God, and he lost that ability himself.

It wasn't sufficiently discussed above. If, according to Reformed Theology, natures produce actions (because every Reformed Theologian identifies nature with person), then why did Adam's perfect nature produce sinful actions?

Again, Adam had the ability to maintain his Fellowship with God. He chose not to. Whether this was ultimately part of God's decrees from before the beginning of time, or whether God reacted not knowing how Adam would behave, Adam was not created evil. He was created good.

You're not dealing with the Reformed understanding of nature and person. By identifying nature and person, you have subsequently moved to assume nature back into person. Why is Adam responsible for his sin if it is the product of an inanimate nature? To give an example, I am not morally responsible for my hunger because it is a natural desire. I am responsible if I use that natural desire to do something unnatural, such as eat the fruit of a tree of which I wasn't supposed to eat.

How did Adam have the ability to sin when he had a perfect nature? How did Adam have the ability to not sin when God predestined him to sin? If Adam had the ability to sin with a perfect nature, how are we not able to choose righteousness with a sinful nature? I'm not actually saying that we have the ability to be righteous with a sinful nature (our nature is not sinful in the Calvinistic sense).

A "perfect nature" does not imply that Adam was equal to God. Neither does ability to sin imply ability to seek out God in our sin. I believe this amounts to affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.

So, God doesn't predestine whatsoever comes to pass?

We do have free agency, but in our total depravity, none of our decisions leads to God. Neither are we "cute enough" to merit heaven on our own, and this is the basic Protestant position. Arminianism pushes this right back into a Roman Catholic avoidance of hell though, with babies not being held accountable for their federal representation under Adam as deserving of hell.

I'm sorry, I didn't state my question very well. I'll rephrase it in different terms. If God predestines all things, and he gets glory for predestining the salvation of some and, in fact, gets glory for their righteousness because it is his righteousness by the Holy Spirit in the elect, then why doesn't God take responsibility for the predestination of the sinners' lives? More simply, If God, who predestines everything, takes responsibility for goodness, then why doesn't he take responsibility for evil?

If by "responsibility" you mean the punishment of evil, I believe he has taken care of that aspect of righteousness.

This goes all the way back to my first question. You say that we all deserve hell, and that no one deserves heaven. Did God predestine everything? How does everyone deserve hell when God predestined them to hell (either directly according to supralapsarian double-predestination or indirectly according to infralapsarianism)? According to Calvinism, sin happens in time after God's predestination outside or before time. How does everyone deserve hell before they were even created?

I think we are back to double predestination again with God predestining people to hell as if he creates people exclusively for that purpose. This does have some scriptural backing with vessels made for destruction, but I think hyper Calvinism is carried a little too far with this idea since there is a "what if" that this idea is prepositioned upon. "Everyone deserving hell before they were even created" was contingent upon Adam, not God, which of course lends itself to infralapsarianism, but I can also see how the reprobate glorify God in their destruction where you cannot.

This necessitates that God's choice of some over others is arbitrary, and that he actually doesn't will the salvation of all men. If he willed the salvation of all men, and predestines everything, then all men would be saved. It's incoherent to say that he wills the salvation of all and, despite that he predestines men's lives, still wills that some men die in their sins, either through His predestination of their damnation or, as you propose, His neglect of their salvation despite his supposed will for them to be saved.
Your explanation of Israel as opposed to the Gentile nations is exactly on target. This is what St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is all about (including chapter 9).
Unfortunately, you go back to making God's mercy a completely arbitrary thing when you say that it would have glorified him just as much to let all people go to hell. Salvation, particularly Christ's suffering and death, is quite a light matter when we maintain that God is equally glorified either way. One must ask, "what's the point?" The biblical witness to God's eros toward Israel and the world is an obvious repudiation of this idea.

God's mercy being "arbitrary" certainly made a difference to me! But if no one merits heaven, which again is the Protestant position, is God unjust by loving Jacob and hating Esau? Does man have anything to say for himself? I don't think I need to repeat Romans 9:15-16 here.

Okay, how about since God predestined everything, as the Reformed would have it, why is he not responsible for somehow "passing over" people that would later "deserve" hell because of his predestination? He would know very well what the consequence would be.

You are alluding once again to supralapsarianism and God's "causing evil" by allowing Adam to sin, versus the infralapsarianism of God's reaction to that sin. Yes, these are Calvinistic conundrums, but I would think Arminians would have just as much of a problem with this. Not to introduce a red herring, but creation of those who will end up in hell in spite of God's foreknowledge of their own decision, produces the same kind of conundrum.

This is only possible to maintain if God doesn't predestine everything in the first place. We don't deserve annihilation before we are created.

... And therefore we can avoid hell? Welcome to Catholicism, Masses at 8:00 and 11:00 a.m.

This, again, is assuming the Reformed conception of predestination.

Could you explain how this answers my objection? How does God predestine everything and then put the responsibility of his choices onto objects when they are unresistant and, in infancy and before creation, unconscious manifestations of his will?
Thank you for your response.

Well, once again, predestination has to do with the salvation of the believers whom the Father has loved before the foundations of the world, bringing us unto himself by grace in spite of ourselves, salvation from eternity to eternity, not through the perceived abilities of mankind "earning" salvation on his own, by being below an age of reason, or restricted to "fairness" rules we provide for him to follow. The Bible denies God's "requirement" to be fair to Job, it denies God's "requirement" to be fair to the entire world with the flood of Genesis, firstborn sons being killed, etc. Predestination can be taken at face value, it does not have to be watered down to fit Arminian belief.

 

[BenjaminRandall]

While I'm not a Calvinist, I do hold to the position that any sin against an infinite and eternal God deserves (justly) deserves an infinite and eternal punishment. Otherwise, there is no justice in this world.

But on the other hand, I do think that Calvinists have a difficult time explaining how the God of the Bible could have determined to create a world, decree the fall, and then choose (apparently arbitrarily) to determine some to salvation but not others.

When Calvinists are asked, "Why did God choose some but not others," they can't give a rational explanation. They resort to their most common theological copout: the glory of God and the inscrutible counsels are far above human comprehension.

While the Arminian model might not completely satisfy these issues, it does have several advantages.

First, God in his sovereignty decreed to dignify humanity with a free will, so as to avoid a simplistic determinism. Consequently, man (Adam and Eve) freely chose to disobey God, rather than mindlessly and unavoidably fulfilling some irresistible decree.

Second, along these lines, we must ask which model brings greater glory and ascribes higher sovereignty to God: 1) the Calvinist model which defines sovereignty (more or less) in terms of God decreeing every facet and historical event in human history; or 2) the Arminian model which claims that God chose to dignify humanity with a free will, so that they are free moral agents rather than the objects of some sort of Platonic determinism.

Third, the supposed cruelty of God is mitigated immensely by the Arminian claim that God loved all of his creatures so much that he sent his Son as a substitute for each of them individually, so that whoever might believe in him should not perish.

This, then, puts moral responsibility back on the individual. In and of himself, fallen man cannot chose to follow God. However, God in his gracious sovereignty enables a person to choose to believe in him, although the sinner is still free to resist and not believe.

Of course, the Calvinist will object to all these points on various grounds. But, logically, the Arminian position makes God look much less like the cruel God of some Platonic determistic philosophical construct and more like the God of the Bible who was so deeply concerned for them all that he sent his Son to taste death for "every man."

At worst, the Arminian view still holds that God knowingly created humanity with the possibility of the fall with the consequential possibility that many of them would be condemned to hell. Yet, he has done everything possible short of voiding their free will to bring them to salvation. In this model, the divine motive is real, genuine fellowship with his creatures.

 

[Leechness]

I don't find God's being unbound by time to be unbiblical, and as far as it's informative I appreciate it.

Still there are depths of meaning to the word "predestination" that aren't addressed by this concept. Predestination isn't "destination" or "exdestination". It really does refer to a designation or appointment of someone beforehand, not simply "outside time" or "at the time but known beforehand."

But yes, I actually use the imagery of God outside time a whole lot. And it does inform the idea of predestination.

point taken, thanks.

 

[kj7gs]

While I'm not a Calvinist, I do hold to the position that any sin against an infinite and eternal God deserves (justly) deserves an infinite and eternal punishment. Otherwise, there is no justice in this world.

Absolutely. This is the condition of man. He starts off guilty, and goes through life without even a spark of ability to look to God for salvation of his own ability.

But on the other hand, I do think that Calvinists have a difficult time explaining how the God of the Bible could have determined to create a world, decree the fall, and then choose (apparently arbitrarily) to determine some to salvation but not others.

The fall of Adam being decreed would be supralapsarianism, with the argument that God is in total control of his universe and can do as he wishes with his own creation. You are implying that all of mankind deserves salvation, or at least free will, and that Calvinists withhold that, making God mean and the author of evil.

When Calvinists are asked, "Why did God choose some but not others," they can't give a rational explanation. They resort to their most common theological copout: the glory of God and the inscrutible counsels are far above human comprehension.

Yes, it's a mystery. But the ability to choose God puts God in subjection to man, the creation in charge of the Creator. I'll go with mystery.

While the Arminian model might not completely satisfy these issues, it does have several advantages.

First, God in his sovereignty decreed to dignify humanity with a free will, so as to avoid a simplistic determinism. Consequently, man (Adam and Eve) freely chose to disobey God, rather than mindlessly and unavoidably fulfilling some irresistible decree.

And some Calvinists also favor the infralapsarianism position. But falling from grace does not necessarily allow a regaining of that fellowship with God of our own ability.

Second, along these lines, we must ask which model brings greater glory and ascribes higher sovereignty to God: 1) the Calvinist model which defines sovereignty (more or less) in terms of God decreeing every facet and historical event in human history; or 2) the Arminian model which claims that God chose to dignify humanity with a free will, so that they are free moral agents rather than the objects of some sort of Platonic determinism.

And we are free to move away from God in any manner that we want. The elect love the Lord and look forward to his guiding of their footsteps. The reprobate do not care, nor do they recognize God's action in their lives. The Arminian model does not dignify man or God. It raises man up to a level that is able to tell God what to do, and puts God on the sidelines, wishing, hoping, begging his creation to come to him. This is not greater glory and higher sovereignty!

Third, the supposed cruelty of God is mitigated immensely by the Arminian claim that God loved all of his creatures so much that he sent his Son as a substitute for each of them individually, so that whoever might believe in him should not perish.

And you are left with the conundrum of how Christ could pay for the sins of all of humanity, and how hell could still exist and be justified if those sins are handed back to us after this payment. This makes Jesus a liar, or everyone in hell is innocent since those sins were paid for, or hell must be denied in spite of what the Bible says about its existence.

This, then, puts moral responsibility back on the individual. In and of himself, fallen man cannot chose to follow God. However, God in his gracious sovereignty enables a person to choose to believe in him, although the sinner is still free to resist and not believe.

But you give man the position of neutrality before the Lord by doing so, and therefore additional questions come into play regarding a life of sin, and then a quick "acceptance" prior to death, and you're good to go. You have merited heaven by your decision. God has been begging you all of your life, and you finally make him happy. And of course if you didn't choose him, God must be sad to throw you in the fire, when he created the fire in the first place. This makes God schizophrenic.

Of course, the Calvinist will object to all these points on various grounds.

And with good reason.

But, logically, the Arminian position makes God look much less like the cruel God of some Platonic determistic philosophical construct and more like the God of the Bible who was so deeply concerned for them all that he sent his Son to taste death for "every man."

No, this makes God into a kitten, to be controlled by his creation, a plaything to be taken off the shelf when we want him, and placed back on the shelf if we decide we don't want him anymore. Jesus' death for "every man" purchased nothing but a roulette wheel, half of a payment, a business transaction with a debt of salvation owed by the Lord when we accept.

At worst, the Arminian view still holds that God knowingly created humanity with the possibility of the fall with the consequential possibility that many of them would be condemned to hell. Yet, he has done everything possible short of voiding their free will to bring them to salvation. In this model, the divine motive is real, genuine fellowship with his creatures.

Whether God decreed the fall of Adam or reacted to it, is an issue that goes back and forth between Calvinists because the end result is the same -- total depravity of mankind. And, as I've said before, God's "doing everything possible... to bring them to salvation" puts God on the sidelines, crying and pleading for his own to come to him. The divine motive is destroyed, not "real, genuine fellowship." His fellowship is with the elect, and the elect only.

 

[UMP]

Pink's book on the sovreignty of God has been one of the things setting me on the path to losing my love of God. Pink seems to be a very harsh person also. many christians seem very harsh, especially when praising God's sense of justice in sending sinners to hell. maybe the doctrine of hell hardens people. just what i have noticed.

to say anything could be worse than eternal torment in the fire of hell isnt the most cruel thing is a strange idea, to me. isnt it meant to be the worst? i thought that was the idea of it.

anyway, i might have used the analogy before, of the story, the Emperor's New Clothes. where everyone is praising the emperors clothes, for fear of being thought stupid for not being able to see them. and the little boy saying 'but he's got no clothes on!'

from what i see in the forums, and in all the books written on the subject, and sermons and explanations people give....its just a lot of words, billions of words, which are just like the people praising the emperor's clothes, because they dont want to admit that God is very cruel. yet its obvious, so obvious that if God sends people to such a horrible fate, even if they deserve it, he must be very cruel.

no amount of rationalizing it away by saying, sinners deserve it, God is just so he has to do it, and he has the right to do whatever he wants, he had to give us free will etc, makes one scrap of difference to the fact that hell is the most cruel and horrible punishment imaginable. it can no way be the act of a kind being, in the common everyday sense we use the word 'kind'.

if God was kind, he would not have created the world at all, knowing hell was going to be the fate of billions of humans.

pippa

The word cruel might not be the right word. When I see the word cruel I think of "over and above" what is due. Like the phrase, "cruel and unusual punishment"..ie. more than what is due. The fact is, whether we understand it or not, hell, is EXACTLY what is deserved, hence it is not cruel, it is exacting justice from a perfect holy God.

The other point I would like to make is that God is not only a God of love but also a God of wrath. Who am I to say that one attribute of God is better than another. Given that God is perfect in everyway, his wrath is just as perfect as His love.

Here is Pink's explanation:

"Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if "wrath" were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His "severity" (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attributes.htm

You see, I believe the most horrible part of hell will be that those in hell will themselves acknowledge that they JUSTLY belong there. I myself realize, sans Christ spilling His blood for me, paying an eternal penalty in my stead, I too would deserve hell. I have no hope whatsoever outside of Christ.
In Him and in Him ONLY do I trust.

 

[pippa]

The word cruel might not be the right word. When I see the word cruel I think of "over and above" what is due. Like the phrase, "cruel and unusual punishment"..ie. more than what is due. The fact is, whether we understand it or not, hell, is EXACTLY what is deserved, hence it is not cruel, it is exacting justice from a perfect holy God.

The other point I would like to make is that God is not only a God of love but also a God of wrath. Who am I to say that one attribute of God is better than another. Given that God is perfect in everyway, his wrath is just as perfect as His love.

Here is Pink's explanation:

"Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if "wrath" were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His "severity" (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive."

A.W. Pink
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attributes.htm

You see, I believe the most horrible part of hell will be that those in hell will themselves acknowledge that they JUSTLY belong there. I myself realize, sans Christ spilling His blood for me, paying an eternal penalty in my stead, I too would deserve hell. I have no hope whatsoever outside of Christ.
In Him and in Him ONLY do I trust.

if God has to punish people with such a horrible thing as hell, it was cruel of him to create the world in the first place.

 

[UMP]

if God has to punish people with such a horrible thing as hell, it was cruel of him to create the world in the first place.

You are therefore judging God. The creature judging the creator of heaven and earth, not a good position to be in. Here is a conversation between Job and God when Job had similar complaints:

Job.38

[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
[8] Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
[9] When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
[10] And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
[11] And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
[12] Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
[13] That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
[14] It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
[15] And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
[17] Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
[18] Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
[19] Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
[20] That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
[21] Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
[22] Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
[23] Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
[24] By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
[25] Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
[26] To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
[27] To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
[28] Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
[29] Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
[30] The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
[31] Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
[32] Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
[33] Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
[34] Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
[35] Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
[36] Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
[37] Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
[38] When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
[39] Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
[40] When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
[41] Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Job 40:
[1] Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
[2] Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

[6] Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
[8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
[9] Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
[10] Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
[11] Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
[12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
[13] Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
[14] Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
[15] Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
[18] His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
[19] He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Jobs and mans (our) correct reply:

Job 42:
[1] Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
[2] I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
[3] Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

[5] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
[6] Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Your issue is not with me or calvinists in general, it is with almighty God.

 

[pippa]

You are therefore judging God. The creature judging the creator of heaven and earth, not a good position to be in. Here is a conversation between Job and God when Job had similar complaints:

Job.38

[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
[8] Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
[9] When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
[10] And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
[11] And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
[12] Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
[13] That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
[14] It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
[15] And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
[17] Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
[18] Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
[19] Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
[20] That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
[21] Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?
[22] Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
[23] Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
[24] By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
[25] Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;
[26] To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
[27] To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
[28] Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
[29] Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
[30] The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
[31] Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
[32] Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
[33] Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
[34] Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
[35] Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?
[36] Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?
[37] Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
[38] When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?
[39] Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,
[40] When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?
[41] Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Job 40:
[1] Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
[2] Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

[6] Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
[7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
[8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
[9] Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like him?
[10] Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.
[11] Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.
[12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.
[13] Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.
[14] Then will I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
[15] Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
[18] His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
[19] He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Jobs and mans (our) correct reply:

Job 42:
[1] Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
[2] I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
[3] Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

[5] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
[6] Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Your issue is not with me or calvinists in general, it is with almighty God.

ok

 

[UMP]

ok

Whenever I start feeling like I deserve more than I have.
Whenever I start feeling that God is too harsh.
Whenever I start feeling that I'm not that bad a person.
Whenever I start feeling that people in general are not all that bad and that hell seems too harsh.....

Pray, pray that God shows you the real you. I have found that God typically if not always answers that prayer and I ALWAYS don't like what He shows of the real me.

Whenever all fails and the world seems like it's crashing against me, I pray that God gives me to say the words of Job:

Job 1:
[21] And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
[22] In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Job 13:
[15] Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

I pray for you.

 

[tanelornpete]

You see, I believe the most horrible part of hell will be that those in hell will themselves acknowledge that they JUSTLY belong there. I myself realize, sans Christ spilling His blood for me, paying an eternal penalty in my stead, I too would deserve hell. I have no hope whatsoever outside of Christ.
In Him and in Him ONLY do I trust.

Might I add that those in hell will not be repentant of their sin, nor will they be desiring God's fellowship - they will hate Him as much (or more) there than here. Hell is absence of good, and to desire God's company is a good. Hell is all evil.

 

[bradfordl]

Might I add that those in hell will not be repentant of their sin, nor will they be desiring God's fellowship - they will hate Him as much (or more) there than here. Hell is absence of good, and to desire God's company is a good. Hell is all evil.

AGREED

 

[BenjaminRandall]

I wrote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjaminRandall
But on the other hand, I do think that Calvinists have a difficult time explaining how the God of the Bible could have determined to create a world, decree the fall, and then choose (apparently arbitrarily) to determine some to salvation but not others.

To which KJ7 responds,

The fall of Adam being decreed would be supralapsarianism, with the argument that God is in total control of his universe and can do as he wishes with his own creation. You are implying that all of mankind deserves salvation, or at least free will, and that Calvinists withhold that, making God mean and the author of evil.

Actually, I'm not suggesting that, in reality, man deserves salvation.

But I am suggesting that there are two models in this regard. The first, that God decreed the fall does come across as being incompatible with the character of God as revealed in Scripture. While a Platonic God might want to create a race of people for the purpose of causing them to sin so that he might be justified in sending them to hell, we get a very different impression about the biblical God. This first model does seem to make God the author of evil. If it is exactly supralapsarian, I don't know, but it does seem especially compatible with Calvinism.

The second model, which I think might be preferred (nonetheless) by some Calvinists, is that God didn't decree the fall, but allowed it and foresaw it, and graciously chose a select few to save. It assumes that no one deserves to be saved. This model is closer to the portrait of God, although it Achille's Heel is limited atonement.

But, the assumption of this second model is that man deserves hell. This too is my assumption. Where I differ on the second model is the extent of the atonement.