Featured Question About Cals/Non Cals

What about "free will" in eternity? I actually know some people who claim that people will have "free will" in eternity and have the real possibility of rebelling even in heaven (a la Satan), but would say that such is highly improbable.

I would say that, statistically speaking, given eternity, if saints have the "free will" to rebel, eventually every last person would end up in hell. At some point eternity is long enough that God would lose all His saints.

Of course, these same people do not think through their position enough. If people in eternal bliss have the real possibility of rebellion (regardless how improbable), why cannot those in hell have the same "free will" to switch over to heaven? Why is it that someone can lose heaven and go to hell, yet cannot lose hell and go to heaven?

 

And yet, you are attempting to use the passage as PRESCRIPTIVE.

 

If you had read sufficiently of my position in this matter on this forum, you would know that I believe exactly as you have stated, and my views are logically consistent throughout -- consistent with freedom as integral to whom God is.

 

It is either

a) hilarious
b) tragic
c) to be expected

that after having this issue debated and hashed out for years here on BB just about everyone misrepresents the other's theology.

 

Could we not see THIS PRESENT WORLD as God's mechanism to insure that there will never again be a rebellion for eternity? Only those who are truly regenerate and who persevere in their faith against all odds will be the ones who actually enter eternity, where they will live without rebellion for eternity.

Seeing God's actions in this light helps to explan a lot of difficult conceps like the problem of evil, choice, etc.

 

This is not saying what you think it is.

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter is specifically referring back to false prophets among the people (among the nation of Israel) who were denying the sovereign God who bought them out of the "marketplace" of slavery in Egypt.

The word for Lord is NOT the usual kurios that references Jesus Christ, but is despotes, which is like a "sovereign lord," "master," or "ruler." There is no reference in this verse to the "price" of this purchase (agorazo) as is usually the case ("bought with a price", "purchased with his own blood", etc.). There is no reason to read into this text the idea that it refers at all to the atonement of Christ that purchased these people with His blood. I believe Peter is clearly referring to Jewish false prophets similar to those in the nation of Israel of old who denied the Yahweh who bought them out of Egypt.

Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

 

I suggest that you dive into some of the controversy over Rob Bell, for his work -- aligned with your own take expressed here -- is WIDELY seen as heretical in nature.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here as I know that you are on a quest to discover what you truly believe on these issues, so let me say up front that I find the DOCTRINES you express as heretical in nature, but that I am not calling YOU a heretic.

 

Yes, of course, but these same people (open theists, I might add) are so committed to libertarian free will that they (reluctantly?) conclude that any sentient creature must have "real" free will if they are to be a "person," and therefore, if we can rule out "free will" in eternity, we might as well rule it out in this life.

Thus, my argument above about the absurd logical ramifications of the position.

 

Sorry, I have not followed your posts to know what your "position" is.

You believe that people can go from hell to heaven and vice versa?

 

Very well.

 

I don't know if I can answer you briefly. Maybe it would be better if you looked up some of my posts.

 

Two things.
1. Who is being spoken of as being gathered? - children
2. Who is not willing. - Pharisees.

Different group. However, one thing to note is that "irresistible grace" is often misunderstood. I believe a better term should be used .

"Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do - but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non-elect effectively resist Him all their lives." - http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html

Matt, I didn't know you were now a Calvinist!

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Does the devil have the kind of "free will" that you would assert?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

If the devil can convert, then this statement of Scripture is not true. God gave the Apostle John a false prophecy and violated His own requirement of those who speak in His name in Deuteronomy 18.

If your apparent version of "free will" is true, then the Word of God cannot be trusted. I might as well throw it away.

 

Oh, dear, I can't get into this again right now. I've gone over this stuff in several places. I'll get back here after I rest a while. But just a hint: the word translated "eternal" or "forever" did not mean "endless" in the original.

 

Uh huh. I am aware of the literal meaning of aoinion, but that does not mean that the intent of the writer in connotation is to imply that the words do not indicate the indefinite perpetuity of the condition expressed. Compare the statements regarding the devil and his followers being cast into the lake of fire and being tormented "day and night forever and ever" ("into the ages of the ages") with what is said about the saints:

Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

So, by "into the ages of the ages," are the saints only supposed to reign with Christ for "a very long period of time," and then this reign will end according to the intended meaning of the writer? If the writer intended with aionon that the torment of God's enemies was not perpetual, but would indeed end and "reverse" to a different (better) state, then, to be consistent, would we not have to understand that the writer had the same intention regarding the reign of the saints with Christ that there would indeed be an end to this? How about we all--believer and unbeliever alike--disappear into oblivion after "the ages of the ages." That would be a fair solution to this dilemma of the eternal dichotomy.

Sorry, the eternal state is it for all participants.

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

 

So you say. The Calvinist says different, and that's my point. Cal vs Noncal isn't a difference in some minor point of doctrine. It is two different gospels. One is the Gospel, and the other is not.

 

So non cals are not saved?