2 opposing questions:

[12strings]

1. For the Cal: How do you reconcile God's love for sinners with the fact that He damns millions to hell who he has apparently created as "vessels of wrath" and who were doomed from eternity never to believe? In other words, does God love his plan of election more than he loves sinners?

2. For the non-cal: Why Doesn't God love us enough to overcome our free will and save us? If my son was running out into the street in front of a truck, I would call after him, preaching "repentance" and begging him to stop, but if he didn't, I would simply grab him and pull him back, against his will, because my love for his life is stronger than my love for allowing him to exercise his free will?
Does God love the idea of free will more than he loves sinners?

 

[Crabtownboy]

1. For the Cal: How do you reconcile God's love for sinners with the fact that He damns millions to hell who he has apparently created as "vessels of wrath" and who were doomed from eternity never to believe? In other words, does God love his plan of election more than he loves sinners?

It cannot be reconciled.

2. For the non-cal: Why Doesn't God love us enough to overcome our free will and save us? If my son was running out into the street in front of a truck, I would call after him, preaching "repentance" and begging him to stop, but if he didn't, I would simply grab him and pull him back, against his will, because my love for his life is stronger than my love for allowing him to exercise his free will?
Does God love the idea of free will more than he loves sinners?

1. Perhaps God does pull us out of the path of the truck more often than we realize.

2. As you child matures you allow them more and more freedom. They have to learn from their own mistakes.

God loves the sinner, they are also his children, but just like some children they rebel. Can a parent stop one of their children from rebelling? Perhaps that parent can temper the rebellion when the child is young, but when that child matures into adulthood they cannot stop the rebellion ... much as they would like to. IMHO God did not create mankind to be puppets on his string.

 

[The Archangel]

1. For the Cal: How do you reconcile God's love for sinners with the fact that He damns millions to hell who he has apparently created as "vessels of wrath" and who were doomed from eternity never to believe? In other words, does God love his plan of election more than he loves sinners?

This question is flawed. Although, I have to admit, it rightly, I think, captures the Arminian caricature of Calvinism.

This particular caricature would have us believe there are millions clambering to get into heaven and God is standing there saying "no, not you." This simply isn't the case. As an article by Mark Altrogge states: Election Keeps No One Out of Heaven. (BTW, I will post this article and start a new thread so as not to derail this one).

Suffice it to say, in response to the question of the OP, God loves His glory more than He loves sinners. It is precisely because God loves and is jealous for His glory that He saves sinners. It is precisely because He loves His glory that He chooses to save some while choosing not to save others.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

It cannot be reconciled.

Sure it can. The challenge is that people react against a caricature of Calvinism, not the actual picture. Now, of course, there are, indeed, Calvinists who add to the caricature. So, that you are reacting to the caricature is understandable.

1. Perhaps God does pull us out of the path of the truck more often than we realize.

2. As you child matures you allow them more and more freedom. They have to learn from their own mistakes.

God loves the sinner, they are also his children, but just like some children they rebel. Can a parent stop one of their children from rebelling? Perhaps that parent can temper the rebellion when the child is young, but when that child matures into adulthood they cannot stop the rebellion ... much as they would like to. IMHO God did not create mankind to be puppets on his string.

It seems that you, by asking the question "can a parent stop one of their children from rebelling" that you are saying God cannot stop us from rebelling. Perhaps it is not what you intend to say.

While I agree that God did not create mankind to be puppets, it is clear throughout the pages of Scripture that God most certainly can and does overcome our rebellion.

If I have understood what you are saying correctly, you would have us think God is standing there pleading with us like the orphan Oliver: "Please, won't you come to me???"

If I have understood you correctly, this view of God is absolutely vapid and deficient and it doesn't comport with the God portrayed in the Bible.

I pray that I have, indeed, misunderstood you.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[InTheLight]

If I have understood what you are saying correctly, you would have us think God is standing there pleading with us like the orphan Oliver: "Please, won't you come to me???"

I see that creating caricatures happens on both sides of this issue.

 

[HankD]

If I have understood what you are saying correctly, you would have us think God is standing there pleading with us like the orphan Oliver: "Please, won't you come to me???"

Right archangel, it's the opposite of a plea, it's a command...

NKJV Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.

HankD​

 

[The Archangel]

I see that creating caricatures happens on both sides of this issue.

Yes, caricatures are made on both sides. But, you would do well to note that I was not making a caricature. I was merely stating what it seemed like CrabtownBoy was saying. You should further note, that the very paragraph you referenced began with the phrase "If I have understood what you are saying correctly."

So, as it is plain to see, I was not creating any type of caricature, though, again, you are correct that there are caricatures on both sides.

The Archangel

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, caricatures are made on both sides. But, you would do well to note that I was not making a caricature.

So, as it is plain to see, I was not creating any type of caricature, though, again, you are correct that there are caricatures on both sides.

The Archangel

A caricature, by definition, is a gross distortion of a representation so as to make it ludicrous. I think your statement fits the bill perfectly.

 

[The Archangel]

A caricature, by definition, is a gross distortion of a representation so as to make it ludicrous. I think your statement fits the bill perfectly.

It's unfortunate that you didn't read my words in either posting. Of course, you are free to think what you will...even in spite of overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary.

The Archangel

 

[J.D.]

This question is flawed. Although, I have to admit, it rightly, I think, captures the Arminian caricature of Calvinism.

This particular caricature would have us believe there are millions clambering to get into heaven and God is standing there saying "no, not you." This simply isn't the case. As an article by Mark Altrogge states: Election Keeps No One Out of Heaven. (BTW, I will post this article and start a new thread so as not to derail this one).

Suffice it to say, in response to the question of the OP, God loves His glory more than He loves sinners. It is precisely because God loves and is jealous for His glory that He saves sinners. It is precisely because He loves His glory that He chooses to save some while choosing not to save others.

The Archangel

Excellent reply!

 

[Benjamin]

Suffice it to say, in response to the question of the OP, God loves His glory more than He loves sinners. It is precisely because God loves and is jealous for His glory that He saves sinners. It is precisely because He loves His glory that He chooses to save some while choosing not to save others.

The Archangel

God sacrificed His Son for sinners; I think He took glory in that act of unmerited love for undeserving sinners, all of them.

 

[Don]

This question is flawed. Although, I have to admit, it rightly, I think, captures the Arminian caricature of Calvinism.

This particular caricature would have us believe there are millions clambering to get into heaven and God is standing there saying "no, not you." This simply isn't the case. As an article by Mark Altrogge states: Election Keeps No One Out of Heaven. (BTW, I will post this article and start a new thread so as not to derail this one).

Suffice it to say, in response to the question of the OP, God loves His glory more than He loves sinners. It is precisely because God loves and is jealous for His glory that He saves sinners. It is precisely because He loves His glory that He chooses to save some while choosing not to save others.

The Archangel

The correct caricature is not people clamoring to get in, but shambling along unaware there's some place to get into; then being surprised when God says "You; come over here" while ignoring the others.

Of course, the further extension of that analogy is the person who was chosen hollering out to the others passing by that there's this really cool place; but of course, calvinism indicates that they ignore or disbelieve that person. Meanwhile, God chooses some who the saved/elected person is hollering at, and some who the saved/elected person didn't holler at.

Whether this caricature is more accurate or not, you decide.

And of course the arminian *should* throw out the chant of "whosoever." It was God Himself that made the statement "whosoever believeth on me" in multiple verses; and since God is not a liar nor the author of confusion, the calvinist must satisfactorily answer why "whosoever" doesn't mean "whosoever."

 

[12strings]

Well this is fun.

In the interest of full disclosure, I simply wrote both questions to see what kind of comments they would invoke. I myself am much more in line with the calvinists than the arminians.

1 further question...

Would any arminians disagree that God loves his glory more than he loves sinners. A calvinist would say that God does not choose to save everyone not because he wants to uphold free will, but because he is glorified in the judgement of sin. Would an arminian say that God chooses not to overcome our free will to save us because he is glorified when sinners turn to him of their own free choice? ...so in either situation, God is glorified, AND not all are saved?

 

[Don]

Well this is fun.

In the interest of full disclosure, I simply wrote both questions to see what kind of comments they would invoke. I myself am much more in line with the calvinists than the arminians.

1 further question...

Would any arminians disagree that God loves his glory more than he loves sinners. A calvinist would say that God does not choose to save everyone not because he wants to uphold free will, but because he is glorified in the judgement of sin. Would an arminian say that God chooses not to overcome our free will to save us because he is glorified when sinners turn to him of their own free choice? ...so in either situation, God is glorified, AND not all are saved?

What does Arminius himself say about your question?

 

[InTheLight]

It's unfortunate that you didn't read my words in either posting. Of course, you are free to think what you will...even in spite of overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary.

Ditto, right back at you.

 

[Amy.G]

What does Arminius himself say about your question?

Who cares? What does the bible say?

It doesn't matter what Arminius says or what Calvin says. They are only men.

 

[Don]

Who cares? What does the bible say?

It doesn't matter what Arminius says or what Calvin says. They are only men.

(I agree with you; my point is that the calvinists state their belief of Arminius' position based on what they read other calvinists writing about Arminius, rather than Arminius' own writings (see "Declaration of the Sentiments"); if they did read it, they would find several statements where Arminius is opposed to the pelagian view--which is in direct opposition to the typical calvinist view that arminianism is, basically, pelagianism...along with other examples of the mistakes of calvinistic review of arminianism)

----- Edited to add:

In other words, the term "caricature" was used to identify a misunderstanding of the calvinist viewpoint. My intent was to point out a very common misunderstanding of the arminian viewpoint.

But as Amy points out: How wonderful it might be if we simply discussed what Scripture says....

 

[JesusFan]

This question is flawed. Although, I have to admit, it rightly, I think, captures the Arminian caricature of Calvinism.

This particular caricature would have us believe there are millions clambering to get into heaven and God is standing there saying "no, not you." This simply isn't the case. As an article by Mark Altrogge states: Election Keeps No One Out of Heaven. (BTW, I will post this article and start a new thread so as not to derail this one).

NONE would even desire to come unto Christ and be saved by Him apart from rthe work of God on our behalf, so indeed a flawed question in that extent!

Suffice it to say, in response to the question of the OP, God loves His glory more than He loves sinners. It is precisely because God loves and is jealous for His glory that He saves sinners. It is precisely because He loves His glory that He chooses to save some while choosing not to save others.

The Archangel

God is Holy in the Ultimate sense of that term, so he will do what best allows His holiness to be put on display, to bring Himself glory, what better way than having sinful man forever redeemed by direct act of love and mercy, but also appeasing His wrath, that was in display in the Cross of Christ!

 

[JesusFan]

Well this is fun.

In the interest of full disclosure, I simply wrote both questions to see what kind of comments they would invoke. I myself am much more in line with the calvinists than the arminians.

1 further question...

Would any arminians disagree that God loves his glory more than he loves sinners. A calvinist would say that God does not choose to save everyone not because he wants to uphold free will, but because he is glorified in the judgement of sin. Would an arminian say that God chooses not to overcome our free will to save us because he is glorified when sinners turn to him of their own free choice? ...so in either situation, God is glorified, AND not all are saved?

have to realise here though that there are NONE who claim to be Arninians in Sotierology, but say 'non Cals"

As such, would even deny that God has to provide any 'additional grace" being applied towards us as both Cals/Arms say, but that we will freely decide to receive jesus, or reject him...

Ends up being a Gospel that states that jesus died for sinners , who will freely accept/reject Him, and that God will elect us based solely based just how we respond to his offer to receive Jesus...

Does NOT seem to offer much security/certainity that there will be a large numbers saved , nor bring glory to God as much...

 

[Amy.G]

(I agree with you; my point is that the calvinists state their belief of Arminius' position based on what they read other calvinists writing about Arminius, rather than Arminius' own writings (see "Declaration of the Sentiments"); if they did read it, they would find several statements where Arminius is opposed to the pelagian view--which is in direct opposition to the typical calvinist view that arminianism is, basically, pelagianism...along with other examples of the mistakes of calvinistic review of arminianism)

----- Edited to add:

In other words, the term "caricature" was used to identify a misunderstanding of the calvinist viewpoint. My intent was to point out a very common misunderstanding of the arminian viewpoint.

But as Amy points out: How wonderful it might be if we simply discussed what Scripture says....

I know what you meant and I hope I didn't come across as rude with my "who cares" comment. It wasn't meant that way. :flower: