Words that Calvinists IGNORE

[nill]

chestertonrules, are you going to answer?

 

[chestertonrules]

chestertonrules, are you going to answer?

If you mean this simple minded and meaningless analogy:

Even unsaved parents love their children enough to force them to do things against their will that are for their own good.

You claim that God will not force anyone to do anything.

Therefore, it is clear that your god does not love his creation as much as unsaved parents love their own children.

...then I already answered. However, I will be glad to answer again:


Parents force children to do things against their will to teach them and make them better people.

Parents don't punish their children for all eternity because they behave like children.


Your God punishes his children eternally for simply following the natures he gave them. Your God is a fabrication of a disturbed mind.

 

[nill]

No, I meant the post that I spent hours answering for you. #54 and #55 in this thread.

 

[chestertonrules]

No, I meant the post that I spent hours answering for you. #54 and #55 in this thread.

Sorry.

I've been away for a few days. I'll check it out and then viscerate your weak assertions shortly!

 

[chestertonrules]

I was getting to that Iosias. Incidentally, that's my quote, not his.

* * * * *


IF it literally means that "one act of righteousness" merely and only leads to "justification and life for all men," and Jesus' sacrifice does not in any way mean that justification will ever actually happen to anyone (i.e., saying, "It isn't guaranteed for anyone, but it's possible for everyone), THEN does it ALSO literally mean, in the preceding sentence, that "one trespass" merely and only leads to "condemnation for all men," and Adam's sin does not in any way mean that condemnation ever actually would happen to anyone (i.e., saying, "It isn't guaranteed for anyone, but it's possible for everyone)?


You are distorting scripture.

Let me help:

Romans 5:18 - Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

led=COMPLETED
leads=IN PROGRESS

Jesus is leading, but we must follow to reach the destination. All men can follow his lead, but none are forced to follow. Original sin has already led all men to condemnation.

 

[nill]

Okay... how about the rest? ...I had a lot more than that in there, you know.

 

[chestertonrules]

QUOTE]
Now. You can see that there's a very important so in the middle of this verse. Strong's number is 3779, houto. It means "in like manner," or "in this way," or "in this fashion." It's how English-speakers used to talk to each other: "Why do you talk to me so?" (That is, "Why do you talk to me in this manner?") Or poetry: "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God" (Psalm 42:1).

(Incidentally, this is the same word used for John 3:16 -- People often try to claim that the "so" used in that verse ("For God so loved the world...") expresses that God really, really, really, really loved the world a whole lot (e.g., "God SOOOOOOO loved the world!"). But that's not what it says. It says, when read correctly, "For God loved the world in this way"--nothing about how MUCH, though that's expressed elsewhere... but not here!)[[/QUOTE]


God's love is expressed here very clearly in that he loved the world is such a way that he GAVE HIS SON TO A brutal torturous death FOR the WORLD.




As to you elaborate effort to avoid the simple meaning in Romans 5, I've already answered.

Original sin has already led to our condemnation, the sacrifice of Jesus leads us to salvation, IF we follow.

 

[chestertonrules]

...continued.



You're missing the point again. It's less about defending the actual doctrines of Calvinists and more about defending their right to explain themselves in their own words without someone like you blatantly dismissing arguments and continuing to be wilfully ignorant about what you write. So far, you've said a plethora of obviously untrue statements about Calvinists with multiple Calvinists telling you that you're wrong about what you tell them that they believe.


What Calvinist don't like is the clarification of their dogma. They want to sidestep the unavoidable conclusions of the five points.

When I point to the clear conclusions of their statements, they cry foul then go on to restate the same thing in different words. It's quite amusing.

Feel free to point out something that I believe about Calvinism that is wrong.


I'll sum up my understanding in blunt terms, you can point out errors in my understanding if they exist:

1) From the beginning of creation God chose some men for salvation and some for hell with no regard for their intentions, words, thoughts, or deeds.

2) Jesus died only for those already chosen. All others have no chance or inclination to seek God.

3) It doesn't matter if we try to follow Jesus or not because our salvation has nothing to do with our actions, thoughts, or deeds. Nothing a human being does while on earth can have any bearing on his salvation.

4) God's grace to election is irresistible. Those chosen cannot turn away. Those not chosen have no chance of gaining salvation.


If any of these points are wrong, please correct them.

 

[beloved57]

You are distorting scripture.

Let me help:

Romans 5:18 - Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

led=COMPLETED
leads=IN PROGRESS

Jesus is leading, but we must follow to reach the destination. All men can follow his lead, but none are forced to follow. Original sin has already led all men to condemnation.

No you are distorting scripture, you actually validated his point, you are giving adams leading into death [past tense] more assurance and strength and perfection of accomplishement] than christ leading into life ..whereas the writer of romans is using the perfect contrast to bring his point acoss..

Just as adams one act of disobedience was succesful in accomplishing death, so likewise the second adams act of obedience was successful in accompling life..

The elect are not born in this world having to choose spiritual death, it was a choice already made, so likewise, the elect dont have to choose to be spirtually reborn, thats a choice made for them..

Jesus christ the second adam via His resurrection provides and activates the newbirth of the elect..

1 pet 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

 

[chestertonrules]

No you are distorting scripture, you actually validated his point, you are giving adams leading into death [past tense] more assurance and strength and perfection of accomplishement] than christ leading into life ..whereas the writer of romans is using the perfect contrast to bring his point acoss..

Just as adams one act of disobedience was succesful in accomplishing death, so likewise the second adams act of obedience was successful in accompling life..

The elect are not born in this world having to choose spiritual death, it was a choice already made, so likewise, the elect dont have to choose to be spirtually reborn, thats a choice made for them..

Jesus christ the second adam via His resurrection provides and activates the newbirth of the elect..

1 pet 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Anyone reading this can see the difference.

Led is past tense, leading is present.

Led is accomplished, leading is not yet accomplished.

 

[nill]

By the way, chestertonrules, do you actually read the entirety of each of my posts?

chestertonrules said,

Jesus is leading, but we must follow to reach the destination. All men can follow his lead, but none are forced to follow. Original sin has already led all men to condemnation.​

It's easy to see that one is in past tense and the other in future tense. I did not miss that. (If I am not mistaken, those words aren't actually in the Greek, anyway.) But the implication is certainly the same, and easy to understand: one's over with, the other is coming.

But that wasn't my point, chestertonrules. The point is in the parallels that Paul is employing in his prose. Like I said, you are asserting that, because it's in future tense, one of the statements is only declaring possibility, whereas the other, because it's in past tense, declares certainty.

And that... for all men. Every last one. In your scheme, that seems to fit with the facts, so far: you say that it says that all men before Christ are certainly condemned (a fact revealed, you say, because it's in past tense) and that all men after Christ have a chance to possibly be justified (a fact revealed, you say, because it's in future tense).

Let's put both verses here in the way you are reading them:

18 One trespass led to condemnation for all men. One act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 One man's disobedience made many sinners. One man's obedience will make many righteous.

Here's where I think your scheme suffers: the next verse, Romans 5:19, which says, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."

In this case, why does he only say "many"? Tell me if my answering is what you would say: "Because only many will be made righteous--not all, of course, because not all people will be saved--only those who, of their own free will, believe and accept Jesus." Accurate? If so, then what of the previous clause? The previous clause said that only "many" were made sinners. You said before that the past tense was what enabled you to conclude that verse 18 truly meant that all men were condemned. But this is past tense, too, and it only says many were made sinners. Now which one is it? Is it many condemned and sinners (and some not), or all condemned and sinners? And you were so emphatic on the point of inclusion--i.e., pretty much that the word "all" must absolutely never be interpreted as anything but "every last single human being who ever lived, lives now, or ever will live." Why do you not explain the next verse, verse 19? Why not be as emphatic on the word "many," as well?

Of course, the verses actually read:

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Those words are actually there in the Greek, you know, hos and houto. Do you think they're extraneous? The way you're reading the passage, you're acting like they don't even exist. No, they're there for a very specific reason. I've already gone through and painstakingly explained that reason, but you seem to have ignored it. You say that I'm making an "elaborate effort to avoid the simple meaning in Romans 5," but this is obviously not true. I'm taking great pains to make sure I know what the passage is actually saying, according to the style and grammar of the author. In other words, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that the "so" in John 3:16 actually means "very much" rather than its true Greek (houto) meaning, "in this manner." But since learning that it is not, I do not treat it as though it were. Same with Romans 5.

God's love is expressed here very clearly in that he loved the world is such a way that he GAVE HIS SON TO A brutal torturous death FOR the WORLD.​

I wasn't arguing that point, chestertonrules. I was demonstrating that people often misinterpret one Greek word in order to prove their point, which makes their argument invalid. You came back as though your reply was a counterargument or something. It's attacking a point that I didn't even make.

Original sin has already led to our condemnation, the sacrifice of Jesus leads us to salvation, IF we follow.​

Again, this would only be true if you totally ignored the style and grammar of the passage.

Before I move on to your next post, please tell me why this consideration of the passage is most certainly, in your opinion, not correct:

"AS [something because of Adam], SO [something because of Christ]."​

And please tell me why you've not addressed anything about this parallel relationship between Adam and Christ to which I have referred in this discussion.

chestertonrules said,

1) From the beginning of creation God chose some men for salvation and some for hell with no regard for their intentions, words, thoughts, or deeds.​

Partly correct, partly incorrect. "What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God' . . . Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God" (Romans 3:9-11, 19). Since all men are under sin, God requires justice for disobedience. Thus, "choosing" some men for hell is misleading; it really is men who deserve to go to hell for their sins. On the other hand, the ones who go to heaven did not deserve it, but were recipients of God's unmerited grace. The Bible is absolutely replete with that declaration. We're going to see what that means, however, in point 3.

A question for you: You have stated in this thread in two places, "The elect are those who remain in the love of Jesus, those who obey his commands. God already knows who will reject him" (21), and "Calvinists claim that God created some men for the express purpose of damning them" (22). If God already knows that in the future, most people will never, ever, ever accept Him, and He knows that their certain and sure end is painful torment in Hell... how is that different from what you charge Calvinists? He created them just the same, in either scenario, didn't He? They rejected Him just the same, in either scenario, didn't they? Now, you might reply, "But no! For in the Calvinist scheme, it was already all planned out, and they didn't even have a chance or possibility of being saved!" Is it really a chance or possibility of being saved when God knows that they will never accept, when God knows perfectly and absolutely that they will go to Hell, anyway? Why would it be somehow "more loving" for God to do this? In this sense, isn't it God taunting those damned men, because He pretends to offer a chance or possibility of salvation, all the while knowing that they're actually going to go to Hell, no matter what? "No matter what," of course, because God knows the future perfectly, doesn't He? And He knows the destination of every creature, doesn't He?

2) Jesus died only for those already chosen. All others have no chance or inclination to seek God.​

Correct, per Jesus' words: "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:14-15). Jesus made a distinction in this passage and surrounding of those who were and who were not His sheep, which signifies a difference between those for whom He is laying down His life and those for whom He is not laying down His life. "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9). Again, for a group and not for another group. Remember, though, that Calvinism teaches that there is actually a period of sin in which the elect lives--i.e., as "unregenerated." It's why the Westminster Confession of Faith reads in chapter 11, section 4, "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them." "In due time," being the key phrase there. Thus, I think that any inclination of ours to seek God only comes from the Holy Spirit (since, as in point 1, we naturally do not seek God).

3) It doesn't matter if we try to follow Jesus or not because our salvation has nothing to do with our actions, thoughts, or deeds. Nothing a human being does while on earth can have any bearing on his salvation.​

Incorrect, and surprisingly ignorant. You may think Calvinists twists words here and there to make their doctrine fit the Bible--whatever, you're allowed to think that--but to charge them with blatantly ignoring the entirety of each of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life is absolutely deplorable and untrue. You think they say that we can be saved without following Jesus? There is such a thing called Hyper-Calvinism, you know, and it is not the same thing as Calvinism. What you have just charged Calvinists here is something that Calvinists do not believe, but Hyper-Calvinists likely do. Among others on this list (click here) is a statement of the exact same thing you accuse of Calvinists: "that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do." The "fifth point" in Calvinism, the doctrine called "Preservation of the Saints," sincerely admits that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved, but the Westminster Confession of Faith continues on to say, in chapter 17, section 2, that it depends also upon "the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them." And what does that Spirit do? Produces growth in a person! Thus, the human being who walks and follows Jesus ought also to grow in Him and in His Spirit. We become more like Him and less like the "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3) that we once were. It's been said that this, sanctification, is the one synergistic aspect of our salvation; the rest is entirely of God, monergistic, a sole actor.

4) God's grace to election is irresistible. Those chosen cannot turn away. Those not chosen have no chance of gaining salvation.​

Mostly correct. Westminster of Confession, chapter 18, section 3, "Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalancy of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their perseverance, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." We cannot turn away so as to make Jesus' justification for their sins all for naught, for Jesus does not fail in what He does, but we can still sin, and in that sense, all sinning is a turning away from God.

If any of these points are wrong, please correct them.​

But so far, you have demonstrated that you refuse correction, even on points as simple as these. Historic Calvinism has always rejected the errors you are attributing to it (it's in writing, too, by the way).

 

[chestertonrules]

If God already knows that in the future, most people will never, ever, ever accept Him, and He knows that their certain and sure end is painful torment in Hell... how is that different from what you charge Calvinists?

If God already knows that in the future, most people will never, ever, ever accept Him, and He knows that their certain and sure end is painful torment in Hell... how is that different from what you charge Calvinists?

Because God is not just in Calvinist theology. Knowing who will reject him is entirely different than choosing who will reject him. We are judged impartially for our deeds, according to scripture.

Punishing a creature for acting exactly as you created them to act is not just. God gives us an opportunity to follow him.

 

[chestertonrules]

Correct, per Jesus' words: "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:14-15).quote]

And who are the sheep?

John 15
10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.

The Sheep and the Goats

Who are the sheep?

Matt 25

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


Who are the Calvinists?(just kidding)

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Some versions include: "But Lord, we studied theology and determined that our works didn't matter, what's the deal?"


Clearly, it is our actions on earth that distinguish us as sheep.

 

[nill]

Erg. I jumped to a conclusion; just... let me know when you're actually finished answering all the points you're going to answer. It'd be a lot easier if you could do this all in one posting, as I have.

 

[chestertonrules]

3) It doesn't matter if we try to follow Jesus or not because our salvation has nothing to do with our actions, thoughts, or deeds. Nothing a human being does while on earth can have any bearing on his salvation.
Incorrect, and surprisingly ignorant. You may think Calvinists twists words here and there to make their doctrine fit the Bible--whatever, you're allowed to think that--but to charge them with blatantly ignoring the entirety of each of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life is absolutely deplorable and untrue. You think they say that we can be saved without following Jesus? There is such a thing called Hyper-Calvinism, you know, and it is not the same thing as Calvinism.

Is this hypercalvinism?

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual.


If so, then every site I can find is run by hypercalvinists.

Maybe in reality you just aren't a calvinist.

 

[nill]

chestertonrules said,

Some versions include: "But Lord, we studied theology and determined that our works didn't matter, what's the deal?"​

Actually, Paul said it first in Romans 4:4. Your mocking is asserting that you believe your works earn you salvation, that God gives you salvation, that it's your due, that it's given because of what you've done. False.

 

[justsurfing]

Hi chestertonrules,

Amen. Additional nuance: when God regenerates us... we are by natures followers of Jesus. Sheep hear the Shepherds voice and follow Him. When God makes us sheep ~~ we follow the Shepherd. Why? Cause that's what sheep do... and He made us anew. As sheep. His sheep.

John 10:4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.

John 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

Amen, that original sin has already led all men to condemnation. That's why God owes it to none to immediately save any... irrespective of Unlimited Atonement. God is not under contract to give men salvation in their time. It's in God's time ~~ when the Spirit reveals.


Galatians 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
​

Galatians 1:15But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man.

Luke 10:22 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
​

Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
​

Luke 2:26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
​

1 Cor. 2:9However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.


Grace and peace.

chestertonrules said,

Jesus is leading, but we must follow to reach the destination. All men can follow his lead, but none are forced to follow. Original sin has already led all men to condemnation.
​

 

[justsurfing]

Hi chestertonrules,

I think that you are correct in some things ~~ but stated them in such a way that raised objection. Unconditional election means all man in the fall became separated from God by sin. In a state of separation from God who is 100% Light and Good ~~ the spirit of man became 100% dark and evil. Can anything completely separated from 100% Light and Good be anything but 100% dark and evil? Of course not. God is not in man's unregenerate spirit. That's why man must be born anew in man's spirit in a 100% light and good spirit from God.

Now, AFTER we are born of God from above... with a 100% light and good spirit from God born of God's Spirit ~~ we are a new creation. BECAUSE WE ARE a new creation... we do light and good things as we work out our salvation in progressive sanctification that shows forth the praises of God and produces the fruit of the Spirit and good works by faith. None of this sanctification occurs to become or to be saved; nor were we chosen on the basis of good works or fruit or faith that we possessed any different than all others ~~ having been equally separated from God through sin and the fall of man in death,darkness, sin and evil spiritually.


None of us ever said, "Because we are saved by grace ~~~ we don't 'have to' produce good works." No, by nature we WILL produce good works, sanctification, faith, fruits BECAUSE we are regenerated... not to get regenerated or stay regenerated. That's where we object. And I know I also object to any saying that a real, true spiritual salvation does not produce fruit and good works. Of course it does.. by very nature. From the Calvinist position, we object to all slander against our salvation that declares that because we are saved by grace we were saved TO license rather than good works ~~ which is an assault on the very Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit who produces good works.

Just because we refuse to take credit or rob God's glory in declaring these works and fruit and sanctification to be in and of ourselves apart from God ~~ this does not mean we deny that these works and fruit and sanctifiation are produced in us through the Holy Spirit and by God to whom we give all glory for His work in and through us. Our humility in giving God the glory is no basis to slander us as if we declare God by the Holy Spirit shall produce no fruit nor works nor sanctification.

The slander is an intentional misunderstanding, it appears to us, of what we say as we give God the glory for our salvation and all subsequent works of the Holy Spirit in and through us ~~ for apart from Christ, we boldly agree with scripture, we can do nothing. To God be the glory. Great things He hath done. (That's total Bible talking not any label of "Calvinist" or "hypercalvinist"... that's just us giving glory to God and not taking it for ourselves ~~ rather than us denying the reality of good fruits, good works, and sanctification as the position is falsely accused of.)

There are some (and I hope you are not one of them) who willfully misunderstand it to falsely accuse our Christian characters and witness of things like license and being lax or lazy or lacking in spiritual fervor... SIMPLY for the sake of deference to God and humility before Jesus Christ in refusing to rob God's glory for His work in us in Jesus' name!!

Grace and peace.

Is this hypercalvinism?

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual.


If so, then every site I can find is run by hypercalvinists.

Maybe in reality you just aren't a calvinist.

​

 

[chestertonrules]

chestertonrules said,

Some versions include: "But Lord, we studied theology and determined that our works didn't matter, what's the deal?"
​

Actually, Paul said it first in Romans 4:4. Your mocking is asserting that you believe your works earn you salvation, that God gives you salvation, that it's your due, that it's given because of what you've done. False.

Let's see what the bible says. You've already ignored Matthew 25 above which makes this case explicitly.

Here are more:

- Romans 2:6-7 "For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life."

- James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."

- Matthew 6:14 "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

- John 6:53-54 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Isn't that something we have to do?

1 Peter 1
17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;

Matt 7
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


Also, as I mentioned earlier, it's crucial to note in the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 that those who were admitted to the kingdom didn't even know there were serving Jesus when they helped the least of us.

 

[justsurfing]

Chestertonrules,

You say God created the lake of fire for the devil and his angels, planned the creation of every human being, PUT the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the center of the Garden... KNOWING most of humanity would not be recovered from the fall in this life.

God is 100% responsible for the creation of every human being He created knowing with full foreknowledge they would not be functionally recovered from the fall in this life.

God, in your view, by creating them with that full foreknowledge... predestined them to hell VIA creation, setting that tree in the center of the Garden and choosing to let Satan come into the Garden to tempt KNOWING also that if HE CHOSE to let Satan into the Garden ~~ eternal hell (from your pov) would be the predestinated result for the vast majority of all mankind.

That's no moral high ground. Same end result?? Same difference. God could have done things differently and effected a different result.

Grace and peace.

If God already knows that in the future, most people will never, ever, ever accept Him, and He knows that their certain and sure end is painful torment in Hell... how is that different from what you charge Calvinists?

Because God is not just in Calvinist theology. Knowing who will reject him is entirely different than choosing who will reject him. We are judged impartially for our deeds, according to scripture.

Punishing a creature for acting exactly as you created them to act is not just. God gives us an opportunity to follow him.

​