Posted on 07/25/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by xzins
I will say, however that your contention that God only loved a small part of the world is one example of how Calvinists must twist the scripture to conform to their theology.
There will be no believers in hell. All believers will be saved "yet so as by fire."
I cannot fathom that anyone who meets the contingency of John 3:16 can possibly end up in hell. If "eternal" life is revokable, then eternal punishment would likewise be revokable. If "Eternal" Punsishment is revokable then there was never any need for the cross.
The promise to Adam in the garden was an eternal promise. It was based on a COVENANT. Adam was required to NOT EAT of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the day that he did, he would surely die.
God has had such conditions on an eternal covenant in the past.
The conditions of the New Testament(covenant) are: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
Be a believer and you're saved. Be a non-believer and you're lost.
I can't seem to separate where you disagree with me from where you agree with me. Why don't you just post your opinion in your own words. Then after you post your opinion we can compare it to mine and then determine if there is a disagreement. :-)
Focus on this:
con·tin·gent
n.
An event or condition that is likely but not inevitable.
A share or quota, as of troops, contributed to a general effort.
A representative group forming part of an assemblage.
I will say, however that your contention that God only loved a small part of the world is one example of how Calvinists must twist the scripture to conform to their theology.
Let me say that mercy is God's "attitude" toward some of us in the world. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that "God has love toward every sinner" unless you mean that the common grace extends to every man alike. Nevertheless God does not love everyone:
How do you reconcile verses which say that God hates the wicked to mean that God loves the wicked?
Pro 11:20 They that are of a froward heart [are] abomination to the LORD: but [such as are] upright in [their] way [are] his delight.
Pro 16:5 Every one [that is] proud in heart [is] an abomination to the LORD: [though] hand [join] in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
Psa 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Please explain what Arminians believe regarding those who don't have an opportunity to hear the Bible, know Jesus, experience "belief for yourself."
As a Calvinist, I believe God is the sole arbitor of each man's destiny. "Belief" is a tangible sign of God's grace, but my faith recognizes that God, in His wisdom, can save or not save, anyone He wishes, regardless of their station in life.
What then does the Arminian say to the person half-way across the globe, who's never heard of Christ nor the Cross, in light of your statement, "You have to believe for yourself?"
If salvation is dependent on man's acceptance of God's offer of grace, what about those who live and die without "hearing the Word" and have no opportunity to choose for themselves God's gift of salvation?
Regarding your #559, I cannot see how your point is in any way related to my statement. Could you explain it in terms even a child can understand. Are you saying that there will be believers in hell? If that is possible then how do you reconcile your idea of eternal security?
I'm not addressing what you said, but why you said it. The very statement itself only has any sense if you are under the impression that the natural fallen man is likely to believe on his own. You said precisely that when you said this:
Salvation is contingent upon belief. "That whosoever believes in him..." That means it is open to everyone,
Therefore, if you are going to maintain that the natural fallen man is likely to believe, then you are going to need to provide Biblical scriptures to back you up. Until then, I will maintain that "Salvation is of the Lord."
Beyond that, I will maintain that everyone in hell will believe in the Lord Jesus, but none of them will believe on the Lord Jesus. For it is written that "even the Demons believe, and tremble" and "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the father" (If I remember the quotes correctly). And all those who are forever in the Lake of Fire will look upon the Lamb for they shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in His presence (Rev 14:10).
Does that clarify it for you?
BTW, xzins, I did notice your shoddy presentation of "believe in the Lord":
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,....
Amen! Jn.3:36
Is there some verse that says that God cannot hate something while at the same time loving it. Did not God love us while we were yet sinners? And while we were yet sinners were we not in open rebellion against God? And while we were in open rebellion against God, did not God hate us?
It seems to me that you are limiting God's sovereignty by stating that it is impossible for God to both love and hate something at the same time. Indeed if God is omnipotent, can he not both love and hate at the same time? Can he not extend his Love toward us while He still views us in a state of sin and thus an abomination to his eyes? Is he not powerful enough to do that? Is his sovereignty limited to only loving or hating?
I don't have to reconcile the problem. The scriptures state that God loved the World (not some little portion of the World) and that he loved us while we were yet sinners.
Anyone who claims that it is impossible to love something and hate it at the same time has never played golf.
Are you saying that there is not enough room in your theology for Divine Sovereignty, Free Grace and Human Responsibility?
No, but you have to be able to explain how they relate, that is the paradox that has to be addressed.
Can man say 'no' to God?
Is God still Sovereign if he does?
There are only two possible views, either man is 'elect' because he believes, or he believes because he is 'elect'
Which side do you fall on or do you see a third way?
LOL!
The Calvinists seem to think that no man can say yes to God. To answer your question. Yes man can say no to God. (There may be some gentle persuasion in such a case -- just ask Jonah)
Is God still Sovereign if he does?
Is God still Sovereign if man says no to him? Certainly. God can kill him. :-)
There are only two possible views, either man is 'elect' because he believes, or he believes because he is 'elect'
Which side do you fall on or do you see a third way?
Frankly I don't see an inconsistency with straddling the fence. Man is elect because he believes and he believes because he is elect. I see both as correct statements of man's condition. It can also be said that man is not elect because he does not believe and he does not believe because he is not elect. Why do you feel they are inconsistent? Does it say anywhere in scripture that the positions are mutually exclusive?
Was the whole passage confusing to you or is there a particular part of the passage that you are ignorant of?
S.K.
And what is your attitude toward others? Are you at one with all- by willing only one thing? Or do you contentiously belong to a party, or is your hand raised against you? Do you wish for all others what you wish for yourself, or do you desire the highest thing of all for you and yours, or do you desire that they should do unto you- by willing one thing? For this will is the eternal order that governs all things, that brings you into union with the dead, and with the men whom you never see, with foreign people whose language and customs you do not know, with all men upon the whole earth, who are related to each by blood and eternally related to the Divine by eternity's task of willing only one thing. Do you wish, that there should be another law for you and yours than for others? Do you wish to find your consolation in something other than that in which each man without exception may and shall find consolation?
Amen!
Does Grace being resistible by fallen man automatically mean Grace is not Grace anymore?
I appreciate your comments!
One question for you, what do you do with this: Ex. 8:32 “Pharaoh hardened his heart.” ?
Do you just assume God didn’t let the people go...through Pharaoh?
And isn’t Romans 9 within the context of Paul, a disciple to the Gentiles, communicating to Jews who worked so hard for their faith?
What about Romans 11 addressing this more-the Jews struggling with Gentiles being offered salvation by FAITH?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.