"Election"

Here you cheat a little in that you ALSO add the eternal torment of that precious child into the mix so that BOTH Arminian and Calvinist parent SHOULD be in sorrow and anguish in that case. (For all eternity)

Recall that in Rev 14:10 we find that the wicked suffer IN THE PRESENCE of the Lamb AND of His holy ones. So you are right to say "We are there with Christ watching the entire sad ending" - and certainly we will find it painful as does God.

You are also right that AS HER PARENT we WILL ask ourselves "DID I DO ALL that I COULD"??

What heartless parent would have NO regard for the fate of their loved one? No question - we will ask and we will want to know. So God must SHOW US that HE DID EVERYTHING - employed ALL that heaven had to PURSUADE via compelling and convicting, enabling presence and power of HIS Holy Spirit. When WE see that fully ENABLED to choose -- she was hardening HER OWN heart to the point that it was TORMENT to her to keep coming back and urging her to change -- then we will see it as "mercy" to cease after some point.

FUTHER - when we read and understand Luke 12:40-50 we will see that God is NOT going to torment her BEYOND a fair and reasonable limit. And we will not be doomed to spend eternity watching her suffering for Matt 10 says "God will DESTROY both body AND soul in hell fire".

After the LAKE of FIRE EVENT - we get to Rev 21 where God "wipes away ever tear".

The Arminian scenario works far better than you could have imagined. But never does it require a heartless disconcern for the lost loved one NOR that we turn our back on them so that they suffer away from "our presence". The end will take place "IN the PRESENCE" of the Lamb AND of His holy ones Rev 14:10.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again we find that you are inserting CALVINIST words AND ideas into the Arminian view AS IF Arminians EVER argue that BECAUSE God sovereignly chose free will - all Arminians are creator of the Universe.

As I said before - at some point you have to be willing to step away from Calvinism enough to "test" the Arminian scenario. I believe my example of the Arminian scenario does just that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Romans 1 "So that they are without excuse" speaking of those to whom nature witnesses.

Yes, I agree they are without excuse. 'Do this and live' makes men without excuse. Whether conscience or the revealed Law, man is without excuse for not loving and obeying God. But are you saying nature, conscience or Law are enough to get saved by? Are the 'daughters' of millions of unevangelised folk able to be saved without the gospel?

And then notice 2:26 -- the clincher about those uninformed Gentiles.

Here's the text, Rom.2: 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? Are you saying this teaches unevangelised Gentiles can be righteous without even hearing of Christ, much less His atonement?

HOW can this be?? "I will DRAW ALL MANKIND unto Me" John 12:32

But this drawing was to come AFTER His passion - yet nature and conscience witnessed to the Gentiles from the beginning.

"I will send the Holy Spirit to CONVICT THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16.

Again, this was to come on and after Pentecost, not from the Fall.

The key to your misunderstanding here is that Christ speaks of the GOSPEL call. That does not apply to the unevangelised daughters I asked about. Want to have another go?

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
FUTHER - when we read and understand Luke 12:40-50 we will see that God is NOT going to torment her BEYOND a fair and reasonable limit. And we will not be doomed to spend eternity watching her suffering for Matt 10 says "God will DESTROY both body AND soul in hell fire".

Another annihilationist,

Are there any Arminians on this board who hold to the historic view of eternal punishment?

And why stop there, if ignoring Scripture is no problem: Universalism is a much more attractive scenario. Ask Me2.

In Him

Ian

 

Npetreley said
Pelagian 1, etc.



In Him

Ian

 

Isn't that the point Paul is making? That they had all that they needed to acknowledge God as God in faith as Abraham, Cornelious, Lydia and so many others did? Is seems from scripture that men are judged by the level of what has been revealed to them. "John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains." And John 12 teaches that Jesus didn't come to judge us but that we will be judged by his words...that is our response to them.

 

Pelagian 1: Yes, I could have changed her heart to love me and be saved, but that would be a Calvinist God, not me. So instead, I left it up to everyone's free will to choose to believe or not to believe. She chose not to believe

"... so I came back to her with wave after wave of compelling, convicting, enabling mercy JUST as I did with you."

And she still chose not to believe. Rather than changing her heart -- which is certainly something I could have done but chose not to do because I came up with the rules of free will salvation -- I just gave up and let her refuse to believe. Now she'll roast in hell for eternity. Want to watch with me? I'll make popcorn.

Yeah, that works.

And by the way, that's Pelagianism, not Arminianism.

 

Oh brother Nick! Popcorn? Come on!

 

Indeed. I already GAVE the Arminian position.

Here it is "again".

Some have argued that plugging our doctrine into the future scenario to see what we are really saying about God - is not valid since our doctrines may not always fare well in that exposed light of day.

Lets try the Arminian view of the future - where you go to heaven as one of the "FEW" and find that your precious child was one of the "MANY" of Matt 7.

(Note: There is a God, there will be a day of judgment, not everyone is going to heaven. So we would then have the following scenario - that you might "expect" if the doctrines of Grace as seen in the Arminian teachings are true..).

But some Calvinist could “really” think that the Arminian idea of “God who so loved the WORLD” (as described above is) in fact an “awful” idea.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As you can see - I LIKE giving the Arminian scenario as much as I like posting the Calvinist one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
FUTHER - when we read and understand Luke 12:40-50 we will see that God is NOT going to torment her BEYOND a fair and reasonable limit. And we will not be doomed to spend eternity watching her suffering for Matt 10 says "God will DESTROY both body AND soul in hell fire".

Why is it that my refusing to ignore MAtt 10 and Luke 12 cause you such heartburn?

I am just showing that the beauty of this Arminian solution - this particular brand of the Arminian solution - DOES NOT leave the Arminians stuck in the same boat as the Calvinists (as Nick was claiming).

The fact that I have a Matt 10, Luke 12, Rev 14:10 "solution" that gets me out of that problem - should be a challenge for Calvinists - to "come up with as good a Bible based solution".

So far - you merely complain that I have it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan said
Romans 1 "So that they are without excuse" speaking of those to whom nature witnesses.

Your answer is in Romans 2: 5-26.


And then notice 2:26 -- the clincher about those uninformed Gentiles.

Here's the text, Rom.2: 26Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

Salvation-by-better-story is never taught in scripture. Hebrews 11 makes that point loud and clear.

But lets look at Romans 2.

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Further - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" while others are lost for doing evil. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

Interesting that there are two different systems – one to address those who HAVE scripture and one to address those who do not.

Paul appears to be in harmony with Christ here as Christ said that those who knew there master's will and did it not receive many lashes but those that did not know the master's will and yet did deeds worthy of punishment - receive few

notice that Christ does not assume everyone goes to hell anymore than Paul would make such an absurd statement in Romans 2. Rather the chapter is in context with the call for repentance as noted at the start.

having shown us both the group that in the future obtain immortality and the group that in the future suffer the wrath after the future judgment of God - Paul now summs it up - the justification that is future will be for the doers and not for those who are proven to be merely hearers.

This is not a fact that Paul then goes on to deny in the rest of the book of Romans. Rather he continues to strongly endorse it (note particularly Romans 6). John McAarthur did an excellent series on this point - titled "the power over sin".

Paul now continues with the succeeding case! Yes that is right! His argument works and he gives a very simple proving case.

There actually were Gentiles that really did not have the Law of God! That is very important to understand. And there were those who did instinctively the things of the Law showing it was written on their heart!! Wow! So that means Paul really was right!

Even more interesting is the fact that this terminology regarding "the Law written on the heart" is new covenant terminology. Heb 8, 2Cor 3!!! Yes indeed we have the succeeding case as well as the failing case made in this non-myopic chapter of God's infallible word.

wow! Apparently the infallible word is telling us that it is gospel - good news that a future judgment, where the Gentiles are shown to be doers of the Law and not merely hearers only, is coming. A future Christ centered judgment!! What a Christ-centered gospel Paul has in this chapter!!

2 Cor 5

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Nice spin there. I could also spin the Calvinist position, but suffice it to say your precious daughter will still roast in hell for all eternity with you there to watch, all because God decided not to do anything more than "woo" her.

And the answer to your question "Couldn't you do anything to save her?" is still "Yes, I could have changed her heart. But while I am sovereign over everything else in the world, even the death of a sparrow -- not a single one falls to the ground apart from my will -- I chose not to be sovereign over the eternal destiny of your precious child. She's going to roast in hell simply because I chose to elevate her will above my own. Too bad, but those are the rules. What can I say? I just happen to like sparrows more than I like people. And with people like you "fighting" to defend my choice to elevate man's will over my own, perhaps that isn't so hard to believe after all."

 

Nick,

Turn the tables. You have children. Lets say they were riding the bus to school. You are entrusting the lives of your children to this bus driver. (scaring at times for all of us)

Scenerio 1:

1. The bus driver has a plan one day to get done with his route early. He purposefully drives recklessly knowing full well that it would cost the lives of his passengers but does it anyway killing all of your children. He puts his purposes above the very lives of your children while pretending as if he really cared about them.

How do you feel about this bus driver? OR

2. The bus driver explains the rules of the bus to all the passengers, tells them to stay in their seats etc. He drives responsibly and when the kids break the rules he pleads with them to obey, at times he even disciplines them. Some obey some do not. Though he has the ability to stop the bus at any time and correct their behavior sometimes he chooses to let them go and learn for themselves. One day he let them continue breaking the rules even after continually scolding them. Because of their disobedience they fall out of the bus and get killed.

In comparison how do you feel about this Bus Driver?

In both scenerios the driver had the ability to stop the bus and save your children, but in the first scenerio they die because the driver puts his purposes above their lives all the while making you think that he cared about them more. In the second scenerio the kids die because of their disobedience despite the fact the driver could have stopped it. There is a huge difference by anyone's standards.

 

Skandelon said
sn't that the point Paul is making? That they had all that they needed to acknowledge God as God in faith as Abraham, Cornelious, Lydia and so many others did? Is seems from scripture that men are judged by the level of what has been revealed to them. "John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see.' Therefore your sin remains." And John 12 teaches that Jesus didn't come to judge us but that we will be judged by his words...that is our response to them.

No, the knowledge of God that the heathen possess is much less than that possessed by Abraham, Cornelious, Lydia and all the others. God revealed Himself to these folk - directly to Abraham; through the Scriptures to Cornelious and Lydia. They all knew not just of ' His eternal power and Godhead' but also of His provision of a Deliverer who would take away their sins. Who that deliverer was had to be preached to them, but they looked for Him.

Yes, we will be judged according to the level of our knowledge - but that doesn't mean we can be saved by ignorance. Ignorance mitigates culpability, but does not remove it, for none of us are totally ignorant, as Rom.1 attests. The heathen who dies without hearing the gospel perishes for their sin but not for the sin of rejecting the gospel. Those who have heard the gospel and perish in unbelief will be punished more severely.

In Him

Ian

 

Bob Ryan said
Why is it that my refusing to ignore MAtt 10 and Luke 12 cause you such heartburn?

It is your abuse of those texts that causes me pain. Your ignoring ALL the Scripture says about eternal punishment.

I am just showing that the beauty of this Arminian solution - this particular brand of the Arminian solution - DOES NOT leave the Arminians stuck in the same boat as the Calvinists (as Nick was claiming).

I understand that - annihilation certainly fits better with Arminianism than does the historic Christian doctrine of unending punishment. Your logic cannot be faulted.

The fact that I have a Matt 10, Luke 12, Rev 14:10 "solution" that gets me out of that problem - should be a challenge for Calvinists - to "come up with as good a Bible based solution".

Quite right. Here goes:
Matt.10: 28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
What makes you think 'destroy' means annihilate, rather than the experience of the Second Death, suffering in Gehenna, the outer darkness, where the worm does not die nor is the fire quenched?

Luke 12: 47And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.
How does different levels of punishment prove annihilation? Severity need not be determined soley by length but can equally be by intensity.

Rev.12: 10he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
How does the suffering in the presence of the Lamb and the holy angels prove annihilation? Look at the very next verse, which plainly disrpoves it: 11And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." NO REST, DAY OR NIGHT!

Look at Rev.20 10The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Here is explicit teaching of eternal punishment. The best the annihilationist can do is say 'the ages of the ages' need not mean forever. Is that not a disgraceful twisting of Scripture to avoid its plain teaching? Can any honest reader think John meant a certain time, a few months, years - rather than forever and ever? The Lord's prayer ends with ' For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.' The word 'forever' renders 'into the ages' in the original. In Rev. 20:10 'forever and ever' renders 'to the ages of the ages' in the original. Are you saying the latter is a weaker expression?

In Him

Ian

 

Annihilation is more emotionally comfortable when paired with any doctrine except universalism, where it is not needed. There's nothing uniquely satisfying about Arminianism/Pelagianism and annihilation vs. Calvinism+annihilation.

Actually, the most basic principle at work here is that if we men could pick what we want to believe according to what suits our emotions and make it true simply by believing it, then we might as well include some new age doctrines or start from scratch and create a whole new religion with no problems at all.

 

npetreley,

'The Arminian scenario is rather close to the truth as to Biblical theology. The only difference I see from my perspective from the Word of God is that both the father and daughter, as sinners, were by their Adamic nature, 'children of the evil one,' [I John 3:8] plus they practiced sinning. Check the Greek. {practice}

In Ephesians 2:2 all sinners are called, 'children of disobedience.' This is true.

Those who receive Christ are no longer condemned [Romans 8:1] before holy God and are adopted into the family of God [Romans 8:15, 23; 9:4; *Galatians 4:5 & *Ephesians 1:5] as children of God. [John 1:12 & I John 3:9]

The father became a Christian while the daughter either ignored or rebelled against the God of grace, and remained in her sinful condition. She willed, even perhaps inadvertently her own destiny in the Lake of fire. This is the worst of all thoughts but is the place where she will be for eternity because of her unwillingness to take Jesus into her life. [I John 4:14 & 5:13]

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Bob Ryan said

You are welcome to present your case. However the sense of Matt 10, and Luke 12 and Rev 14:10 is clear in this case.

#1. Your "historic" doctrine is not as "historic" as the NT -- as it turns out.

#2. It fits better with Arminianism - in that the Arminian position is consitently "God is Love" and God "literally means what He says".

Bob said

Well your first problem is that this sovles nothing for the Calvinist problem exemplified by "Sure I could IF I had cared to". (Recall this is where Nick was trying to Argue that Arminians are stuck with that same problem once the torment is unnending).

Secondly - EVEN Calvinists do not argue that those who "can kill the body but not the soul" are killing your "future spiritual body".

Even Calvinists will admit that "context" is key to exegesis.

IF BOTH body AND soul are destroyed --- AND you admit that this corruptible body is NOT susceptible to being destroyed - then you are stuck with the soul also being destroyed RATHER then having "eternal life".

Luke 12: 47And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few.

Acdtually - infinity times 1 is the same result as infinity times 100.


Rev.14: 10he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

#1. They are there for the "whole thing".
#2. Rev 14 tells us that the saints follow the Lamb where ever He goes - so WE are there too.
#3. Spending an eternity at the brink of the lake of fire - is never the promise to the saints.

Clearly it must end when as Christ says "BOTH body and soul are DESTROYED".

Having said all that - there is in fact an even better case for this.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is what you believe. It still doesn't solve the emotional problem that Bob keeps raising in his contrived tug-at-the-heartstrings arguments.

Even if one assumes that what you say above is true, it doesn't change the answer to the question, "Isn't there anything you could have done to save my precious daughter?"

Any sane Christian must admit that if God really wants to save someone, it is entirely within His power to do so, no matter who the person may be, and no matter what that person may be like.

So when it comes right down to it, when a person asks God, "Wasn't there anything you could have done to save my precious daughter?" The answer will ALWAYS be "Yes, I could have saved your daughter".

The only thing that differs between Arminians, Pelagians and Calvinists is how they express the part after "I didn't save your daughter because..." But no matter what Arminians, Pelagians, or Calvinists say, one truth remains: "Your daughter is roasting in hell, and she's exactly where she deserves to be." We ALL deserve such a fate.

So the tug-at-the-heartstrings argument boils down to total nonsense.