Featured What does this statement mean?

Are does being either calvinist or not, I wonder, figure into how just Moriah knows that calvinist would have God destining all infants, challanged etc to hell?

isn't that question seperate and distinct from how we view the cal/non cal issue?

 

Yes it is. Even if Biblicist mentions something about it, Moriah will assume much more than Biblicist said, and will put words into his mouth that he never said. That is one of the problems here.

 

other main problem is that Moriah appears to be fighting back against calvinist holding to extreme/high views pf election/predestination, which neither I nor Biblicist hold too!

 

'What if ... what if ...

There's no 'what if's in God's Eternal Predestination.

 

Calvinists are very careful and selective with the words they use. Note that Biblicist says God "chooses" the elect, but "allows" the non-elect to perish. By using the word "allows", Biblicist can claim that God never "chooses" to damn anyone.

Is this true? Let's look at an analogy.

Let's say I have a swimming pool. I do not want anyone to swim in it except my immediate family, so I erect a tall chain link fence around it. I also post "Keep Out!- No Trespassing!" signs in plain sight on all sides of the fence.

Billy and Joey see my pool and desire to go swimming. They clearly see the chain link fence and the No Trespassing signs. Billy and Joey climb over my fence and jump in the pool. But the pool is deep and neither boy can swim well. Both boys begin to thrash in the water and drown.

I hear the boys drowning and run to the side of the pool. Both boys deserve to drown, they have trespassed on my property and disobeyed my strict commands to keep out.

I look at the boys drowning and have mercy on Billy, and choose to jump in the pool and pull him out. I do not have mercy on Joey and allow him to drown.

By allowing Joey to drown did I make a choice? I most certainly did, and saying I "allowed" Joey to drown because of his own disobedience does not change that fact.

Now, if this happened in reality to one of us, we would be arrested for allowing Joey to drown when we could have easily jumped in the pool and pulled him out as we chose to save Billy.

"Allowing" the non-elect to perish is a choice, and using another word for choice does not change this fact.

 

Actually, ALL people will perish regardless, for IF the Lord just let everyone exercise their natural wills, NONE would get saved!

So God is honoring the wills/requests of the Lord to stay lost and away from him, while he saves out a group for His own good pleasure and Will!

 

OK, let's say Billy and Joey want to die and have drank poison and will die in an hour. You have mercy on Billy and convince him he should live, and that you have a hypodermic needle with the antidote to the poison. You ask him if he wants to live and he says yes, so you administer the antidote and he quickly recovers.

You are not particularly concerned with Joey, but you tell him you have the needle with the antidote to save him. You ask him if he wants to live and he says no. So you simply walk away and allow him to die.

Have you made a choice? Yes, you have allowed Joey to die when you could have saved him. You could have stuck the needle in him and administered the antidote if you wanted to. It does not matter if he desired to die or not.

Again, if this happened in real life would you be found responsible for Joey's death?

 

Winman, are you taking the position that every person that comes to death has had the gospel given to them, and they have made a conscious decision to either reject or accept it?

 

No, I do not believe every person who dies has heard the gospel. Babies and little children who die have not heard the gospel. Someone who was born and died in some isolated land where the gospel has never been preached have not heard the gospel.

This is one of those questions that Christians have never been able to answer, so I am not going to do any better.

I believe that God judges a person according to the knowledge they had.

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus said that the servant who knew his lord's will but did not prepare himself shall be beaten with many stripes, but the person who did not know, yet committed things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes.

In Romans 1 it also teaches that all men (but not necessarily infants or young children) have the revelation of creation and are without excuse. In Romans 2 Paul showed the Gentiles who have not the law are a law unto themselves, showing the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience.

I do not know exactly how God judges those who have never heard of Christ. I do not know of anybody who knows the answer to this question. But those with knowledge are certainly more accountable.

 

You are totally misrepresenting what I both said and meant. Look at my explanation again and you will see that I make it very clear that election follows rather than proceeds the fall of man in logical order in Romans 9:18-24. That is, those represented by the clay are already fallen into sin because the elect are regarded as vessels of "MERCY"! Do you know the implication of "mercy"?

Mercy necesarrily implies that you are not getting what you deserve justly but God is restraining just wrath. Those in the analogy of the potter - the clay - are presented as already in a fallen condition and election is "to salvation."

The fact that Paul says they are "chosen TO salvation" necessarily infers they already were in a lost and fallen condition or there is no need to chose them "TO" salvation. In regard to election there is no need to choose anyone to hell because election presupposes all have already fallen into sin and that choice has already been made not by God but by fallen mankind.

Hence, the fall is attributed to the will of man but election "TO" salvation is attributed to the will of God and purely upon the basis of MERCY not JUSTICE!

 

Excellent response Winman. :thumbs:

 

Come on fella's where is your response? Have the kindness to at least deal with what I say I mean instead of inventing what you want me to say and mean!

 

Does God "owe" salvation to all people?
Does he "owe' that all have exact same thing between Him and them happen"
is it a problem with God not being "fair?"
Since God allows the unsaved to have what they want really, freedom from him, is that not showing love towards them?

 

You tell me. If Billy and Joey climbed over your fence and jumped into the pool and started drowning, should you be responsible for saving both of them if you are able to do so?

If you neglected to help Joey and were arrested, could you claim that Joey was trespassing and deserved to die? Could you claim you had no responsibility to attempt to save him?

It is amazing, in your view man is more merciful than God. Many countries have laws called "duty to rescue" which requires a person to at least attempt to help a person in peril, but you believe God can simply "pass over" a person.

If you let Joey drown without attempting to help him in Serbia, you could get up to 8 years in prison. But in Calvinism God has no responsibility for his own creation.

Wow.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

The scriptures say we should owe no man any thing, but to love one another. We are responsible for one another. But in your system God does not obey his own commandments.

That is messed up dude.

 

GE:

God neither 'allows' or 'chooses'. Both words suppose force to act in response. God never is forced to 'choose' between two evils. If He 'allowed' it would imply weakness just as to 'choose' means to respond to options left some helpless victim.

No; God WILLS.

Can it be imagined God WILLED not to destroy the wicked with their sin with the instigator of their sin without mercy?! What God would that be?

 

The problem with this is that unbelievers do not WANT God. They do not WANT to obey Jesus' teachings, and they do not have the POWER to obey them even if they did want God.

A blind man is blind until God opens his eyes. We do not unblind ourselves.

 

An unbeliever is NOT on the side of truth. They are in darkness. In John 18:37 Jesus is speaking of Jews who had faith in God the Father (Yahweh, IAM,)already. THEY are the ones who would recognize the Messiah because God would open their eyes to Him. They are the sheep. The self righteous would remain in darkness.