Question About Cals/Non Cals

[AresMan]

Because they believe that freedom is essential to God's character, that He bestowed freedom on man and all his sentient beings, and never removed that freedom. They believe that man has free will before and after conversion. God compels no one to come to Him, and compels no one to stay once they have come to Him.

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?

 

[glfredrick]

I would say that verse is descriptive of God's interactions with his highest earthly creation in general. I don't think we are limited to post resurrection verses to ascertain God's character in this area.

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

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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?

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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?

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.

 

[AresMan]

Problem is that Christ bought even those who deny him and this in itself nullifies both limited atonement and irresistible grace in one fell swoop.

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?

 

[glfredrick]

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.

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.

 

[AresMan]

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.

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.

 

[AresMan]

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.

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?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Very well.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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?

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

 

[jbh28]

And how would you say that irresistible grace and limited atonement are essential to the person and work of Christ? Some would say that LA and IG impugn his work!

Matt. 23:37 ¶ “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

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

The difference is that we're right and they're wrong! :laugh:

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

 

[jbh28]

No, that is often the point raised and debated, but the discussion actually runs much deeper than that.

The main point of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists on the board is whether or not people are actually born-again-from-above or merely religiously zealous. THAT is what is actually being fought about, but it is seldom couched in those terms, for to actually insinuate that one is not really a Spirit-filled believer and that they may have trusted their own works to become a "Christian" is tantamount to drawing a sword, and so the argument continues around side issues with barbs tossed both ways.

In FACT, the reason there are two points of view is because BOTH are found in Scripture, which means that there IS some resolution between the two camps if only people would stop using logic as a weapon instead of just exegeting what the Scriptures actually say in context, as is a proper hermeneutic.

We have no real need to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free moral agency because they both exist and to cite Spurgeon, friends do not need to be reconciled. IF the battle were not about the core of salvation, it would not be a battle at all, but because each side RIGHTLY understands that the other side is calling them apostate, the battle rages on. Sad, really, for God would have us believe otherwise and so have said the experts on the Scriptures since the inception of the church. Virtually every true biblical scholar has made some statement at one time or another to the effect that God's providence includes both His exhaustive knowlege of EVERYTHING before it happens AND His provisions to bring about His will, AND that we have yet human free moral agency. I can cite virtually every major scholar of the church to this effect, and yet their work is un-heeded for the most part.

Rather, the Manichian, Pelagian, Socinian, and other heretical teachers with heterodox doctrines are often the ones cited -- or their positions held, or used as "Strawman" arguments by the opposing group. What about a positive statement that is biblical and that reconciles for once... High time we get about a SOLUTION instead of doing the devil's work and ripping each other up constantly!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[AresMan]

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

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.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

 

[AresMan]

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.

 

[Aaron]

Problem is that Christ bought even those who deny him and this in itself nullifies both limited atonement and irresistible grace in one fell swoop.

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.

 

[Arbo]

To those of you who answered my question, thanks.

...And now I'll leave it to you all to figure it out.

 

[mandym]

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?

 

[JonC]

And how Calvinistic do you need to be to be saved? (Are those who hold to Amyraldianism saved or is the difference minor enough for it to still be the gospel?)