Question for non-Calvinists

In another thread, I suggested that if God foreknows someone will reject Him, He could still save that person by bringing them to heaven (ending their physical life) before they reach the age of accountability and make the wrong decision. I got the most fascinating answer to that suggestion. To paraphrase:

"That would make them robots."

To which I replied, then does that mean everyone who dies before the age of accountability will be a robot in heaven?

The answer was:

"No, they still had free will, they simply couldn't exercise it."

To which I replied, then you're saying those people God brought to heaven early wouldn't be robots either. To which he answered:

"No, they would be robots."

The Arminian mind at work.

 

The arminian mind at "work". There is an oxy-moron.

 

Sometimes I fear that our Arminian brethren are more interested in defending their idea of people being in hell by exercising their "free will" instead of hoping that people will be in heaven whether they got there by exercising their "free will" or not. I know they don't believe this but it's almost like they proclaim "better for someone to be in hell by their free will than to be in heaven by God's sovereign power alone".

 

The funny thing is, that if they truly beleived all that, they should (and I am speaking foolishness here) support abortion. Let's kill them before they send themselves to Hell.

I, as a calvinist, believe that if babies go to heaven (and I believe they do) it is not because of their innocense, it is because of Gods mercy. I tell my little boy every day, that God loves him, and then I say, you know why God loves you? Because God is good.

 

i think there is a misapplication of love that prolifirates within these combination of statements. and surprisingly, nobody's questioning it, even the Calvinists. and with that, God's love seemed to be not love at all. and yes it isn't, but under the premise of love that is brought by the statements above.

i have some arguments to give, but not now. meanwhile, i would like to know if the Calvinists in this particular thread are those who believe that:

1. God loved the world that Christ for the world, but since none will accept His salvation, He elected some and made an effectual call

or

2. God loved the elect that Christ died only for the elect.

i see it quite necessary to know which, for though both sides are Calvinists, they can have different - and maybe opposing - answers to this topic.

 

I believe that God loved the world, and I believe that CHrist died for the elect. I have a trouble seperating these. What we do as humans sometimes is say that "if God loved the world then he would have to die for everyone in it." That is not the case. Who says what love is? God does. 1 John 3:16 "FOR THIS IS HOW WE KNOW WHAT LOVE IS, that Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." First of all, was this written to unbelievers? No, to believers. Secondly, we have to answer what he did on the cross to find out what love is. What he did on the cross was, 1. Make much of God - Romans 3:25,25, Jesus made him just and the one who justifies. 2. He delighted himself in God. Hebrews 12:2 He Endured the cross with Joy. What Joy? The joy of obedience. And 3, He made it possible for us, to delight ourselves in God and make much of Him.
So what is love in a nutshell? It is all wrapped up in the glorification of God. So to say that he loved the world or he died for the elect is wrong. He loved the world and died for the elect, for everyone will glorify God. Some for his justice, and some for his mercy.

 

I wasn't suggesting that God did any such thing - I was asking Arminians why -- if God really was not willing that any should perish, and "any" meant "any who ever lived or ever will live" -- why doesn't God bring home early those He foreknows will make the wrong decision? According to Arminian standards, that would satisfy both justice and mercy.

Even the above was part of a larger point about why it is unwise to base theology on emotions, which is really little more than "what God would do if He were as smart as I am."

 

boy, you could see in some threads Calvinist who say that they are misunderstood because they believe Christ died for everybody. who among you Calvinists misunderstood John Calvin?

going to the topic at hand now. if God loves the whole world yet there are those who go to hell, why is that?

well, a complete consideration of all of God's attributes is necessary. first, God will not compromise His righteousness nor His justice even though He does not want any to perish. that is, God's love can move only within the bounds which His rigtheousness and justice allow. it is love that will adjust!

thus, there will be those who go to hell though God loves them and it is for the reason that they do not pass His standard for righteousness. with that, Christ, due to God's love, did everything for all sinners but nevertheless did not violate righteousness and justice. thus the requirement, that whosoever believeth!

how about those souls which go to hell? why did not God simply took them before the age of accountability? well, with that, still they are part of God's love and Christ's death. but then they do not pass God's righteousness. so still there is no problem with that. we just have to know where (or until where) God's love applies! the original question at the first post simply unnocticeably told us that if God loves everybody and does not want any to perish, nobody should be in hell. the first post simply misguide into focusing only on love, and forget other else of God's attributes, though may not be intentionally.

 

boy, you could see in some threads Calvinist who say that they are misunderstood because they believe Christ died for everybody. who among you Calvinists misunderstood John Calvin?</font>[/QUOTE]I think it is appropriate to say here that clavinist do not get there doctrine from John Calvin, but from the word. My statement holds true despite what you said. The fact is God can be completely loving and allow people in Hell. Where is it in spripture that says God must save any? And if God did not save one man, would that make him unloving? I believe that love is an "attribute" of God and therefore no matter what his actions were he would remain loving, for God is the standard of Love.

 

i made a mistake in thinking that Calvinists are Calvinists because they cling to the teachings of Calvin which is based upon the scriptures. but the way you put it, Calvinists are so because they also use the scriptures even if they teach something which contradicts that of John Calvin. maybe you should call youselves biblicists, so that you will not misrepresent John Calvin at times when you believe differently from him. for, when he is right and you are wrong, or when he is wrong and you are right, you will be misinterpreted. and that simply because you claim to be Calvinists.

i did not put that to ask you, but rather to recall the issue at hand.

clearly you misunderstood me, as your answer applies to a different issue, which is far from the real one. why not read my post again? of course man's will does not limit God's. but in terms of God's attributes, He will not apply His love up to the point of violating His righteousness. His love is limited to His rigtheousness and justice - and not to man's will. that's my point!

i know that, but you sure did not know that you replied to a wrong issue.

and where did i say that it is of works that men will be saved? do you make effort to change an issue and make an opponent look like saying another thing when he doesn't? or is it a gift? (i got that from the movie "In the line of fire". if it's offensive, tell me and i'll delete it.).

God has a standard for accepting a soul. and that would His own righteousness, which is perfect. anyone who does not possess that kind of righteousness is to receive the second death. and how do we get that righteousness? well, by justification, which is through faith. again, i did not say that men should strive to be rigtheous in the sight of God to be accepted of God. that would be impossible to attain!

and like i said previously, you answered to a differently incorrect issue - again.

at last, a reply in line with the issue! my point here is that God's love will extend only until His righteousness and justice is not violated. when a man does not accept Christ, God's righteousness and justice will prevail in condemning Him, although in God's love he does not want that person to perish. God's love will not go beyond his righteousness.

 

Are you an Open Theist?

Certainly for Arminian - with divine foreknowledge, and Calvinist - with foreordaining, there is the question that hangs over the fact of God creating Adam and Eve with an actual possibility of them sinning, and taking the whole human race with them. Unless, as an OVT, you hold to the idea that God was completely taken by surprise, and didn't even foresee the remotest possiblity of it happening.

But, anyway, since this sin was wilful & unmotivated by anything on God's part, he does not partake of the blame for that sin, or the resultant situation. What he did do is not leave himself without a witness; but men surpressed the knowlege even of that, wilfully also.

Why he would do it that way is a mystery, but there you have it, and here we are.

What he had intended to do about it is known to us. Christ was crucified from the foundation of the world. How that salvation was to come to men, and turn men to God is the dispute amongst Calvinists and Arminians, who too oftenare shooting past each other, because they see different issues as of primary importance.

As a Calvinist, I see Arminians as playing down the noetic effects of sin, and playing up the so-called Free Will (that God is not supposed to overrule). That, to my mind, reaches back the the effects of Greek philosophical humanism. Arminians see it differently, and accuse Calvinists of being affected by Stoicism and determinism.

D A Carson in his book, the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God addresses the issues of what the Love of God means in different contexts. Again, Calvinists would say that Arminians confuse God's general benevolence to mankind for his salvific love and will, and that this has resulted in Inclusivism gaining ground amongst those touched by OVT.

 

Thanks for completely misrepresenting my post. Just shows where the mind of the Calvinist lies.

 

Aki, clearly you have a very limited view of sin. If you saw sin as being what it really was you would not have such a low view of gace.

Also, calvinist are calvinist because they line up with the five basic tenets of Calvinism. Not because they follow everything that John Calvin taught. If we did that, we would probably burn guys like you att the stake.

I addressed every issue you gave, but you have done the trick of trying to mis direct what I have said to make it seem like I am misinformed and therefore you must be right. You never answered by problems with your line of thought.

When you are prepared to answer the whole of scripture that I gave you, then I will be willing to proceed. Until then I willl leave you to roll in your arogance of your foolishness.

 

no! you are wrong, based on the calvinists on this board, for there are different teachings specifically on who did Christ died for. read other posts. while you said that Christ died only for the elect and i refute you for saying that while you claim to be a Calvinist, another Calvinist will answer that i misinterpreted calvinism because he believe Calvinism teach that Christ died for everybody yet nobody with God's general call will accept Christ's salvation.

no you did not address the issues i gave, for you answered an issue you thought i was saying yet i do not. you are answering things that i did not say so that it look like what you're answering is what i said, and with that you are the one who misdirected! i simply responded to your out-of-the-issue answers. indeed, you are either misinformed or you simply do not try to understand what i say and you too quick to speak yet without much analysis or thiniking.

the scriptures you gave me focused on God's love in relation to man's will. but the issue i raised was God's love in relation to his other attributes, particularly His righteousness and Justice. you are incorrectly implying that it is to man's will that i relate God's love when in fact i do not (as it is another issue, to which i will give a different reply), and which you are blind of seeing that makes you look informed.

 

Mark 10:21-22, "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

Jesus loved one who rejected Him. Jesus took the little children up in His arms and blessed them in Mark 10:16. According to Calvinism, I suppose all those children must be among the elect. A moderator needs to do something about some of the comments being posted on this thread. For example, "precious daughter in hell:laugh" and burning people at the stake. We should never take delight in such thoughts as sinners being cast into hell. We would all be there if it were not for the mercy of God.

 

You say I am wrong, but how am I wrong?

Calvinist today say they ae calvinist because they believe in the five tenets of Calvinism. They may have different views of those points, but they still believe in those points.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverence of the Saints

I am sorry if you didn't know that.