• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do Sinners go to hell due to rejection of Christ/Or Their Sin Natures?

jbh28

Active Member
We agree on this point.
Good
Right, and what were those words? Were they words of condemnation for sin? No, he didn't come to bring condemnation. The Law does that. The words of Jesus were words of reconciliation with God. It is the rejection of him and this words that will condemn them, not their breaking of the law. Jesus fulfilled the law and removed the curse of sin and death once and for all.
only for believers. Unbelievers will still have to answer. They do not have Christ's righteousness imputed to them. They are not covered under the blood.
Notice the qualification of what separates the two. Believers and unbelievers. Not sinners and nonsinners. Thus, they are judged/condemned for their rejection of the truth (unbelief. Point made.
Of course. Believers are covered by the blood, unbelievers are not.


I think Fred's wife's rebuttal of this view is worthy of repost:
It's what they have done. everything. They works would include sin.

Plus, you haven't addressed all the other passages which clearly show that they are condemned because they didn't believe.
But that's true too.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
rb



What about the blood alone that one is Justified before God ?

Rom 5:

9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Do you anything about Faith in this verse ?

Yes. The part that says "through him" Thats Jesus.

It is by grace that you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Skan,
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
skan,

View three is not valid, it is fatalism.

I don't want to put myself in the place of defending a view I don't hold to, but I'm not sure how you can make that claim of this view while avoiding it for your own.

I don't want to put myself in the place of defending a view I don't hold to,
Understood
but I'm not sure how you can make that claim of this view while avoiding it for your own.

I am sure you cannot see this yet, or you would be a calvinist!
The bible view has God in complete control of every molecule and atom in the created universe....working His good pleasure.There is nothing outside of his control,or He would not be God.

fatalism has a god who is a spectator,and a victim....reacting to creation and the creatures ,like a cowboy trying to get control of a run-away stagecoach before it goes over the cliff....he kind of wishes for it to happen but he really cannot determine the outcome for sure. Things happen that he has to see first,then figure out what he would like to happen ,even though it happens regardless of what he wills to happen.
This kind of invented philosphical god does not match the God of scripture.
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
More food for thought

Iconoclst....

More of the proverbial "food for thought" for you, and any other Calvinists...


In theological debate, both Calvinism and Arminianism have their longstanding traditions and arguments. Both systems attempt to make sense of Biblical passages and reconcile them to the whole. But the strength of Calvinism relies on another factor outside of the Bible which is valued as much, if not more than the Bible, i.e., unassailable logic.

In their system of theology, one doctrine builds upon the other with perfect consistency with the whole. I actually admire the consistency of the Calvinistic system, and can see how this peerless system could be so appealing to so many, especially those with an analytical mind. My objections to Calvinism are not based upon any flaw that I see in their logic, but with the Biblical basis used to develop their conclusions, and their willingness to dismiss passages that seem to be too difficult to reconcile to their system.

The approach to arguing for Calvinism has been almost as predictable and consistent as their theological system. If one challenges one of the five points of Calvinism, and they are unable to convince someone of the validity of that point by using Scripture, then they appeal to the theological point above or below the one they are arguing for as a "proof" of the logic of their conclusions. "If you are predestined, you cannot lose your salvation." While this method is extremely effective in convincing the simple thinker, it is nothing more than the use of circular logic, i.e., using part of a theory as proof of that theory.

One thing that I find most amazing is the way that Calvinism approaches some difficulties. For example: If God limits the atonement to the elect, and those that are "chosen" are not selected by anything within themselves, for God is no respecter of persons; then what happens to babies that die? Well, based upon their theory, they are either elect or they are not. God cannot base His election on their infancy since that would make Him a respecter of persons. So, the God of "love" chooses to torment little babies for eternity in a fiery hell! If God is the "cause" of "everything" then is He not the "cause" of sin? Doesn't He have to "will' sin for it to exist? Wouldn't that make God evil?

If they cannot support their teaching through circular logic, the final appeal that they will predictably fall back upon is what I call "the last refuge of Calvinism." For their answer, they like to appeal to the following verses:

"O the depth of riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!." Romans 11:33 "For who can know the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?" Romans 11:34 "For my thought are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." Isaiah 55:8

These are quoted as if they were an answer to any difficult question that faces their theory. When their theory makes God out to be a puppeteer, a baby torturer, or the author of sin, these verses are quoted as their refuge. If we believe that Calvinism makes God unjust, then we just "do not understand God," for "His ways are not our ways!" This my friends is not an answer, but an evasion. To the Calvinist, "God's ways are not our ways" seems to cover manifold Biblical and theological inconsistencies which they refuse to deal with. We however, should not base truth upon their conscience, but upon the Scriptures!

If one disagrees with their "explanation," then these verses are spouted with an air of finality. In essence, they are saying that we are wrong in using human reasoning, and we should yield to their theological absurdities as the mind of God! Anything that does not make sense can easily be dismissed as an "unfathomable mystery" which excuses all contradictions in the Scripture and the character of God. The appeal to mystery seems to be a Biblical answer, but it is not! It is not an answer at all! It is an evasion of the Bible and sound logic. If we cannot "know" God by what the Scriptures say about Him because His ways are greater than ours, then how can we be arrogant enough to say that we can accurately comprehend God and His plans at all? This is equally true for the dogmatic Calvinist. By choosing to believe Calvinism instead of believing the Biblical idea of God, they choose a "mystery" that makes God out to be a monster that the Bible never says that He is!

And sure enough, I have seen these very unstable stratagies employed on this, and other, Christian discussion forms.

AiC

http://www.eternalsecurity.us/last_refuge_of_calvinism.htm
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Skan,



Understood

The bible view has God in complete control of every molecule and atom in the created universe....working His good pleasure.There is nothing outside of his control,or He would not be God.

fatalism has a god who is a spectator,and a victim....reacting to creation and the creatures ,like a cowboy trying to get control of a run-away stagecoach before it goes over the cliff....he kind of wishes for it to happen but he really cannot determine the outcome for sure. Things happen that he has to see first,then figure out what he would like to happen ,even though it happens regardless of what he wills to happen.
This kind of invented philosphical god does not match the God of scripture.

Iconoclast, this is not true if in fact God has designed "things" to run according to natural laws and principles, He of of course having all rights to step in and purposefully direct a flow of events, if He so desires and wills. He, and He alone designed all the parameters for natural law and thus is quite well aware of all possibilities, "random" as may appear from our perspective. Great is a God who can allow for so much "freedom" and still accomplish any and all that he desires.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
fatalism has a god who is a spectator,and a victim....reacting to creation and the creatures ,like a cowboy trying to get control of a run-away stagecoach before it goes over the cliff....he kind of wishes for it to happen but he really cannot determine the outcome for sure. Things happen that he has to see first,then figure out what he would like to happen ,even though it happens regardless of what he wills to happen.
This kind of invented philosphical god does not match the God of scripture.

I've never seen or heard fatalism described in this manner. Can you point me to any scholar or resource which teaches this view?
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Good
only for believers.
Clearly this is where we differ, and I suppose we could go back and forth over the same verses that have been debated ad nauseum, but you've been around long enough to know them so I don't see the point...

We'll just agree to disagree. Blessings!
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you for being gracious here.

Quantum,
If you are sincere, I will take a look. I want truth not error.I think most in here are searching to come to truth. The truth belongs to God.
I make it a practice to search out, and search for the strongest views that would oppose what I hold. Although each one of us at this point have a view that we hold...it can and should be always improved upon.
Although having read many of these kind of views in times past, I already have an idea of what I might find....I will try to give it a fair reading...
For it to really get my attention it will have to have some substance to it.
As I have sought to read opponents of calvinism...I have sought out some of the most substantial calvinistic theologians also.....seeing what verses they offer,and what responses they have to these issues.
After awhile it all settles down somewhere.
You might have noticed:wavey: I am not shy about taking a stand for truth.
If something I hold is less than truth,and defective, I would like to believe that I would be granted grace by God to cast aside my own fleshly pre-suppositions...and adopt the new found biblical ones.

Where I lack patience is when I see someone just attack a position that it is clear they really do not grasp [recently GLfredrick has expressed frustration over this]....

Or if open error and heresy is proudly posted....I feel that to not call the poster into question would be sinful neglect...like watching a mugger assault an old lady and do nothing !

I enjoy J.C.Ryle.....even though he had a different view of the atonement.
Richard Baxter is very convicting to read on the christian life[a christian directory] if you just read the table of contents you get convicted of sin !...but many in the Reformed camp can find fault with his views of grace.

All of us are defective in many ways:thumbs: that is why God has promised to work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure....if left to our own devices we would muff it up worse than we do.
2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AIC<
good quote.....will respond in detail later..showing the good part of the quote,and where the writer loses control of himself emotionally:applause:

Skan, I will try to do that later on...when my driving endsabout 400 m iles from now,lol It is an important topic and worth the time and thought.

Quantum, will also get back to this later on, just typed a brief answer to your other post
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Quantum,
If you are sincere, I will take a look. I want truth not error.I think most in here are searching to come to truth. The truth belongs to God.
I make it a practice to search out, and search for the strongest views that would oppose what I hold. Although each one of us at this point have a view that we hold...it can and should be always improved upon.
Although having read many of these kind of views in times past, I already have an idea of what I might find....I will try to give it a fair reading...
For it to really get my attention it will have to have some substance to it.
As I have sought to read opponents of calvinism...I have sought out some of the most substantial calvinistic theologians also.....seeing what verses they offer,and what responses they have to these issues.
After awhile it all settles down somewhere.
You might have noticed:wavey: I am not shy about taking a stand for truth.
If something I hold is less than truth,and defective, I would like to believe that I would be granted grace by God to cast aside my own fleshly pre-suppositions...and adopt the new found biblical ones.

Where I lack patience is when I see someone just attack a position that it is clear they really do not grasp [recently GLfredrick has expressed frustration over this]....

Or if open error and heresy is proudly posted....I feel that to not call the poster into question would be sinful neglect...like watching a mugger assault an old lady and do nothing !

I enjoy J.C.Ryle.....even though he had a different view of the atonement.
Richard Baxter is very convicting to read on the christian life[a christian directory] if you just read the table of contents you get convicted of sin !...but many in the Reformed camp can find fault with his views of grace.

All of us are defective in many ways:thumbs: that is why God has promised to work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure....if left to our own devices we would muff it up worse than we do.

I was sincere, in that I felt you were being gracious in your response, I am grateful. I do realize that both (you and I) are rather adamant and convinced as to our respective, but differing positions.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Clearly this is where we differ, and I suppose we could go back and forth over the same verses that have been debated ad nauseum, but you've been around long enough to know them so I don't see the point...

We'll just agree to disagree. Blessings!

ok :) sounds good to me
 

Winman

Active Member
If Calvinism is true, then people do not go to hell because of sin or unbelief, they go to hell because God chose to pass them by.

You can try to explain this away, but this is the logical conclusion of Calvinism.

If God has elected a person before the foundation of the world, then that person will be regenerated by God and irresistably believe in Christ and will have their sins forgiven and go to heaven.

If God has passed over a person, this person is dead before they even commit sin and cannot possibly be forgiven for this original sin or any actual sins they commit later and will go to hell.

If we have no control over whether we can believe or not, and if we are born dead in sin, not because of anything we have done, but because God caused us to inherit Adam's sin, then the only one who determines whether we go to heaven or hell is God himself.
 

Winman

Active Member
If Calvinism is true, then people do not go to hell because of sin or unbelief, they go to hell because God chose to pass them by.

You can try to explain this away, but this is the logical conclusion of Calvinism.

If God has elected a person before the foundation of the world, then that person will be regenerated by God and irresistably believe in Christ and will have their sins forgiven and go to heaven.

If God has passed over a person, this person is dead before they even commit sin and cannot possibly be forgiven for this original sin or any actual sins they commit later and will go to hell.

If we have no control over whether we can believe or not, and if we are born dead in sin, not because of anything we have done, but because God caused us to inherit Adam's sin, then the only one who determines whether we go to heaven or hell is God himself.

If salvation is all of God, then so is damnation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
Can't you just discuss a topic?

I answered the OP question. If a person holds to free will and believes all persons have the ability to believe the gospel, then unbelief is the answer. Sin cannot be the answer because everyone sins, including those who trust Christ and go to heaven.

But in your system only God determines who goes to hell.
 

jbh28

Active Member
I answered the OP question. If a person holds to free will and believes all persons have the ability to believe the gospel, then unbelief is the answer. Sin cannot be the answer because everyone sins, including those who trust Christ and go to heaven.

[off topic]
Then just answer the question. you attempt to make everything into a Calvinist thread instead of just discussing the topic.

Now, you are correct that both believers and unbelievers are sinners. What i stated was that sin is the primary reason people go to hell. The secondary reason is their rejection of Christ. So when they stand at the Great White Throne Judgment and what they have done is judged, they will be condemned because of their sin. A believer will have the blood of Christ covering their sins and will be presented faultless before God. So we will be justified and be able to be with God in heaven. The unbeliever will have to go to hell because of his sins and rejection of the Savior.
 
Top