"Election"

Jude specifically mentions the CITIES and Christ specifically mentions the PEOPLE.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Just as their CITY was destroyed along with their bodies.

Think about it, Bob. If their bodies where annihilated (as you claim), how can they be annihilated again?

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
Jude specifically mentions the CITIES and Christ specifically mentions the PEOPLE.

Jude speaks not of the buildings, Bob, but of the people. Just as we would speak of the sins of San Francisco - the buildings are not sinful, but the people. Are you actually saying the buildings of Sodom and Gomorrah gave 'themselves over to sexual immorality '?

No, the people were destroyed then and will continue to be destroyed at the Judgement and forever after. That's what the Lord Jesus and Jude reveal to us.

In Him

Ian

 

"CITIES" are mentioned in Jude - and obviously those CITIES were destroyed. This is not debatable.

The destruction is eternal in that those cities will never return. In the Rev 20 second resurrection - the wicked are raised INCLUDING the wicked from those destroyed cities. Though Sodom will never be rebuilt - the wicked will be raised to life and destroyed by eternal fire where "BOTH the body AND the soul are DESTROYED" Matt 10:28.

I think the points made in scripture are pretty clear there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

With a little editing (as in deletion of the Calvinist strawmen inserted in his posts) - Nick's post can be made to accurately reflect the "real" problem in the Arminian position.

This is in fact that only legitimate argument that he makes "that sticks" and it is the reason for the focus on this PART of the problem.

Rev 14:10 DOES show that you WILL be there for the ENTIRE ordeal of your precious daughter. No turning your back on her while she suffers without your attention and concern.

The God of Love that saved you - gives you the loving "MIND of CHRIST" who is "NOT willing for ANY to perish but ALL to come to repentance" and that "MIND" does not cease to function once you cross the threshold of heaven.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
"CITIES" are mentioned in Jude - and obviously those CITIES were destroyed. This is not debatable.

I've said all I can to show you the light, Bob, so I won't be debating it anymore. Just be careful around those buildings, Bob, I gather the red-brick ones are real sexual predators.

In Him

Ian

 

With a little editing (as in deletion of the Calvinist strawmen inserted in his posts) - Nick's post can be made to accurately reflect the "real" problem in the Arminian position.</font>[/QUOTE]The real problem with the Arminian position is the same real problem with the Calvinist position. When you ask God if there's anything He could have done to save your precious daughter, the answer will always be "yes, I could have saved your precious daughter - but I didn't."

You may be comfortable with thinking it's okay that God chose not to save your daughter because He wouldn't violate her free will. Good for you. I'm comfortable with the fact that God can do whatever He wants to do, period. He is, after all, God.

 

Actually that is not true at all.

The "real" problem in Calvinism is that Calvinism teaches that God pithed-the-brain of all those He "Cared to save" and it glorifies Him to show His wrath revealed in those whom He did not choose to "turn-the-brain-on-to-faith".

Hence the Calvinist future scenario emphasizes the Calvinist idea of "the unfair God" in which Calvinists claim that God so unfairly selected the parent to go to heaven when He would have been fully justified in ALSO condemning the parent. The only reason that works is because the default is "supposed to be" - God delights in burning you in the fires of hell as He is doing with your child.

---------------------------

The "real" problem in the Arminian position is very different. In the Arminian position there is NO difference in the effort God makes to save the parent - vs the child. There is NO difference in the love God has for the parent vs the child. And God sorrows even MORE than the parent over the loss of the child.

But alhtough this solves all the monster-god scenarios created in the Calvinist model - it still leaves the gap that you identified in your "pass the pop corn" scenario.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Maybe you need to provide the quote. My claim has been that the moral depravity of the people results in both the destruction of the people AND the destruction of the city. But in the case of the city - God declares that it is a PERFECT example of the punishment of eternal fire.

And indeed it IS. Those cities will never be back. They are gone "forever".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know there's no difference. The Arminian/Pelagian god makes the same effort for all. For some people, that's enough. For others, it's not enough. When it's not enoguh, the Arminian/Pelagian god says, to hell with them. Literally. But that doesn't change the fact that if the Arminian/Pelagian god had applied more effort or a different kind of effort, he could have saved the precious daughter. He simply chose not to.

You like those rules because it makes God seem more "fair" to you. Fine. Make up any rules you like if it makes you feel better.

 

Like God's rules because they match His claims - without having to water down his claims in the Bible.

Your Calvinist Scenario has God doing something for the parent that He rejoices in NOT doing for the child.

The Arminian view has God loving BOTH and reaching out to BOTH.

The only complaint you have on that point is that God refuses to "zap" the free will of the child and just "turn them into a robot" to save them. So even though in the Arminian scenario we both Admit He did NOT do this in the case of the saved parent - you complain that He is in error by not turning the child into a robot.

I will agree with you to this extent. When He explains this to the parent - and the parent says "YES but I would rather have a little robot following me around than have my daughter suffer" -- God will have to convince them that such a salvish life would NOT be the heaven of love and joy and freedom that God designed it to be. And as you point out - the parent may still find that "unsatisfying" if he is really married to the idea of robotic life vs willing love and obedience.

But the other point you raise is by far the bigger problem for Arminians (in fact it is the REAL problem) - and that is the point that ONCE you find that God is loving BOTH the parent and child and providing grace to BOTH - at some point etern torment goes from "sorry to have to do this" -- to "and why are we still doing this? Pass the popcorn again!".

This is the point I was addressing more recently.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, that's not the Calvinist scenario. That's the Bob scenario. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God rejoices in not saving the child. Indeed, it says quite the opposite, that God does not delight in the death of the wicked.

And the Arminian god only reaches out enough to save some, although He is perfectly capable of saving all. So in both scenarios, God makes the decision as to who is saved and who is not. You just prefer the Arminian (actually Pelagian) model because the pivotal issue is the human will, not God's effort, which is simply inadequate for some.

Straw man. I said nothing of the sort, because I do not beleive that if you change the heart of someone, it turns that person into a robot.

What parent, who has a child with an evil inclination, does not want to change the heart of that child? If you had the power, wouldn't you want to change a wayward child to want to do good instead? Unfortunately, with men this is impossible, so we do what we can with our limited means, and often we fail. But with God anything is possible.

Now watch closely, because here is something God plainly says He is not only capable of doing, but intends to do with His chosen people:

Deut 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

God comes right out and says He's going to zap these people's hearts so that they will love Him and live.

But according to Bobism/Arminianism/Pelagianism, it is an abomination, since doing such a thing would turn people into robots. So, if in this life you saw your precious daughter headed for hell, I assume you would refuse to pray that God would circumcise your daughter's heart so that she could turn to Him and love Him, so that she could live?

I assume you rather see her suffer in hell for eternity, because the thought of God taking such an active role in changing her heart would, according to you, make her a robot.

Better that your daughter should make up her own mind and suffer in hell for eternity than have God change her heart and live, right?

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1154.html#000014

quote: Bob said
________________________________________
What Calvinism "needs" is for the text to say "I DRAW ALL the FEW of Matt 7" or it needs to say "I draw A FEW of mankind" or it needs to say "I draw a FEW of the Jews and the Gentiles...
________________________________________

Nick said --

 

And then "on another day" Nick said --

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Calvinist Scenario has God doing something for the parent that He rejoices in NOT doing for the child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which one is it Nick?

In Christ,

Bob

 

HERE is a direct quote for Charles Haden Spurgeon
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1148.html#000000

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arminian view has God loving BOTH and reaching out to BOTH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That statement CAN only be true IF you assume Calvinism from the start. ONLY Calvinism argues that man only chooses what he is MADE to choose. ONLY Calvinism argues that God DID MORE to get the ones who go to heaven IN heaven - than for those who do not choose life.

You complaint first INSERTS Calvinism into the Arminian scenario AND THEN steps back to complain about the unfair results. But it is only unfair to the extent that you "inserted Calvinism"!

Why not REVIEW the REAL Arminian position and find fault with IT? If I were a Calvinist - I think I would prefer that option.

In the Arminian scenario -- God does the SAME for BOTH in drawing them to Him.

In the Arminian scenario the individuals HAVE free will - enabled by God.

Unless you can find a way to "allow" for that and then TEST it's results - you will simply be re-testing the failed scenarios of Calvinism "again".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only complaint you have on that point is that God refuses to "zap" the free will of the child and just "turn them into a robot" to save them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the contrary - the point is correct. Your only complaint is that Calvinism's "zap"! did not force the will.

Imagine you are in college and you want to meet a certain lovely coed. But she does not like you. So you snap your finger and suddenly she is "all-in-like" with you.

Then you snap your fingers again - and she can hardly spare you the time of day. Moving down the isle you find another person and want talk with them - but they too don't care to give you the time of day - so you snap your fingers and suddenly 'they want to chat with you' -- until once again you snap your fingers and they go back to "being themselves".

Of course - in Calvinism - this is not "the life of robots" it is just good old "grace" or arbitrary selection being called "election".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Imagine if you will a sky diving school. The students are all thrown out of the plane without parachutes. The instructor hops out with etra parachutes, arbitrarily selects A FEW and attaches the chutes and pulls the cord. To the rest - he floats around them asking them to fly, asking them to float, pretending to be very upset with them and even sad that they are not flying.

Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It does not assume Calvinism. The Pelagian view is that God allows people to make up their own mind of their own free will about whether or not they want to believe and be saved. (The Arminian view is that they would never choose to believe on their own, but when drawn by the Spirit, they make up their own mind of their own free will as to whether or not they want to resist the drawing of the Spirit.)

In both the Arminian and Pelagian views, God saves some but not all. You place the responsibility on man, because the difference hinges upon their free will.

But you neglect to acknolwedge that God COULD save everyone if He so willed. Or are you saying that God is unable to change the heart of a person such that he/she would not resist the Holy Spirit? Is your God incompetent or simply an underachiever?

These are rhetorical questions, because I know your answer will be that God chooses not to change their hearts because that would make them robots. I'd ask for scriptural support for that bit of philosophical fantasy, but I know there is none! It's purely a fabrication of Arminians/Pelagians.

In contrast, I can give you ample scriptural support for the fact that God does indeed change the hearts of people all the time. Yet these people are not made robots. Here's the same one I cited before:

Deut 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

So - given that God is ABLE, WILLING, and PLANS to change the hearts of people, your claim that God chooses not to do so in order to avoid making them robots is entirely without merit.

So either your Arminian/Pelagian god simply does not care to save everyone, or he is simply too inept to do so.

 

npetreley said

Deut 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

So - given that God is ABLE, WILLING, and PLANS to change the hearts of people, your claim that God chooses not to do so in order to avoid making them robots is entirely without merit.

So either your Arminian/Pelagian god simply does not care to save everyone, or he is simply too inept to do so.

Well said, Nick.

In Him

Ian