A strict 5-point Calvinist God is not worthy of worship...

[johnp.]

Hello Southern.

We are to love all people...[/B]

That love is taking care of peoples basic needs such as food and shelter. It is a choice to help those in need. There is no need for affection to be involved, but it might have compassion.
I say 'might have compassion' because I do not necessarily see that compassion is necessary in that kind of love. Since He loves us so much there is much evidence that the reverse is true towards those He does not wish to save.
In His command to us to love our fellow man is the idea that we must all see ourselves as the same, regardless of syptoms. This must not be reflected back onto Him, as if He was like us. He is something else.
The reason He treats the reprobate nicely maybe because He is patient and wishing all His Children born, and born again, before He sends the damned to the place allocated. I cannot see compassion there. I cannot see compassion in the way Pharaoh was treated. I can however see my Sovereign God doing as He sees fit without regard to my sensibilties. He has not called Himself a Rock for nothing.

Dt 4:24 God is a consuming fire.
PS 7:11 God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.

There is no getting away from it. God can be a nasty bit of work, in our definition of nasty. And that is judging God. We must accept without question the description of God as related by God. Anything else is a judgement on Him.

On the other hand our God has a deep, infinite, affection for us. He is crazy about us. We are the bride of Christ. We are one with Him. We are His body and He is our very great reward. It makes me want to skip!
How could I skip if I thought that others He loved like me went to Hell? Arminians must answer this. Is this love or is it still fear? How does love and fear come to the same place?

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by rufus:
Matt Black said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A G/g*od who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned and subject to eternal punishment is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared.

That statement is utterly false and is not the 5 Point Calvinist Position!

Rufus </font>[/QUOTE]Then would you care to elaborate the TULIP position in the light of the OP?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by PaulwasaCalvinist:

John says God is love meaning God defines love it does not (especially our own definition) define HIm. ANd why is it not possible that there is a differenciation in God's love for some people?

Are you saying that Scripture does not define and describe God? On your final sentence, deliberately refusing to save someone from Hell knowing you have the power to do it is not merely a 'differentiation' in love, but a negation of it and thus a negation of God

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rufus]

Then would you care to elaborate the TULIP position...

I don't have time to do that right now.

I merely tried to point out that the 5 Point Position was mischaracterized by you.

Perhaps God elected beforehand those already in sin, so that, therefore, none deserved anything but God's wrath, rather than His grace and mercy!

Rufus

 

[Matt Black]

But to elect to damn someone to Hell I submit is cruel and wrong; a being who did this therefore could not be God

I look forward to your expansion on how I have misrepresented the moral worth of TULIP

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rufus]

Let me allow John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church to explain.

Note: I generally agree with almost everything posted by the above sources; but I do have "problems" in some areas, probably because of my ignorance.

What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP)

See the following:

http://www.bbcmpls.org/aboutus/tulip.htm

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...they do seem rather muddled on whether the atonement is limited or what they mean by unconditional election. Nowhere do they tackle the issue of the justice of it all...

Next?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[johnp.]

But to elect to damn someone to Hell I submit is cruel and wrong; a being who did this therefore could not be God

Your language is wrong Matt. The scriptures do not say 'elect to damn'.
If you want to insult Him it is better to stick with the truth.
He does create people, all are created by Him. None are the result of nature except as He determined that nature. We is what we are because of Him.
Some of us are 'elect' which you know the meaning of. Some of us are not 'elect' and He knows the difference between us. Those who are not elect are not loved. Vice versa with the elect.
Those that are not elect are dead meat. This is regardless of anything they do. Those who are elect are saved regardless of behaviour.
He creates us in a condition that leaves us helpless to resist our hatred of Him and our love of ourselves.
Our condemnation is the result of Adam. Our own personal sins which we are powerless to resist dig a deeper hole for us. Better to die young.

He does His own publicity I see.

On your final sentence, deliberately refusing to save someone from Hell knowing you have the power to do it is not merely a 'differentiation' in love, but a negation of it and thus a negation of God

It can't be from love. No love can be theirs. Love never fails. ...God is God... Dt 7:9.
For God to lose one He loved would negate love. For God to lose one He loved would negate God. God is not just love then. I often hear people saying that we should not base our understanding of doctrine on one or two verses. Here people define the whole character of God on two verses in John. That must be dangerous because God is just. If love is everything then justice must be less. This must be proved. That would be dividing God but He is One.

rufus.

...but I do have "problems" in some areas, probably because of my ignorance.

I should not be too hasty about your confusion. That website you gave was confusing from the word go.

A G/g*od who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned and subject to eternal punishment is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared.

That statement is utterly false and is not the 5 Point Calvinist Position!

A fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
I will rephrase it Matt; God, who deliberately creates some humans willing that they be damned by Him and subject to eternal punishment, is a cruel and wicked tyrannical deity who is not worthy of any worship but rather is to be feared, in man's opinion.
That statement is utterly false and is not the 5 Point Calvinist Position!
It's a shocking thing to say about God but God says it about Himself. It was not false except in opinion only.

This is a hard place to stand.

God is Sovereign.

johnp.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi John P;
I assume you are a Calvinist based on your post if I'm wrong in that assumption I apologize.

God is Sovereign.

I believe God is Sovereign as well but it's the definition and The Calvinist interpretation that bothers me.
One Calvinist will say; "nothing happens unless God causes it to happen." This is why He is in complete control which would seem to be there interpretation of God's Sovereignty.

How ever the Calvinist view of election is not allowing God to be Sovereign. You see if election is a random occurrence where God chooses some totally unaided by anything in man to be His elect. ("Random and unaided so that He maintains his non respect of certain men for that election") In this God has no Sovereignty because he turns it over to chance. If election is left to chance this would be the total destruction of God's Sovereignty. There is no longer predestination ("being unalterable") as claimed by Calvinist because He admittedly defends God's Sovereignty against man having anything to do with his own Salvation Which I agree that man cannot save himself if it weren't for the acceptance of faith from God's word.

Plainly put the Calvinist God has no Sovereignty. He has no control but leaves mans Salvation to chance. If it is left to Chance and since man is within his ability to be a respecter of God ("because there is nothing that says man can't respect God and he does") then yes he can make that choice.

I have always found it hard to believe that man is incapable of deciding what is best for man when a choice is presented. God's commandment to Love him implies that man can do other wise, if he so chooses, otherwise why would God command something that is going to happen anyway.

Further proof that God's commandment to love Him is resistible is the rejection of Christ by His own.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[johnp.]

Hello ILUVLIGHT.

Do you believe in chance?

johnp.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi John P;

Hello ILUVLIGHT.

Do you believe in chance?

johnp.

I know this isn't the answer your looking for but here goes anyway.
I believe in God And by that I mean I also believe in His character. How about you do you believe in Chance.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[johnp.]

Hello ILUVLIGHT.

Your assumption is correct. What gave it away?

God is Sovereign.

("Random and unaided so that He maintains his non respect of certain men for that election"

Where does it say it is left to chance? You are saying that it comes down to a random choice or a choice made on what we are, something in us.

You see if election is a random occurrence...

But who has said that it was random and unaided but you?

My answer to this is;
I think I'd stick to 'just because' because we are dealing with God's will and we cannot know why He decides a thing unless He tells us. The reason is in Him as to why He chose those He chose.

There never was a time in God when He did not love me.

There can be no randomness with God. He knows all things. A choice based on what, that's the question. The answer is in God's will. The answer must be 'just because'.

God is Sovereign.

He means it. "nothing happens unless God causes it to happen."

Plainly put the Calvinist God has no Sovereignty.

If you have a God that plays with chance your God is not up to much. He is lacking in foreknowledge at the least. If you do not believe in chance why do you think I do?

Your last two paragraphs do not hold water. the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Rom 8:7.
How then can you say it comes down to our choice? Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
Paul is actually saying that even if a man wills to be saved and does everything a man can do to be saved, that will not save him. It must come from God.

johnp.

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...they do seem rather muddled on whether the atonement is limited or what they mean by unconditional election. Nowhere do they tackle the issue of the justice of it all...

Next?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Muddled to whom? Friend.

We tend to conclude with what we began with, don't you think?

Rufus

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by johnp.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But to elect to damn someone to Hell I submit is cruel and wrong; a being who did this therefore could not be God

Your language is wrong Matt. The scriptures do not say 'elect to damn'...
He does create people, all are created by Him. None are the result of nature except as He determined that nature. We is what we are because of Him.
Some of us are 'elect' which you know the meaning of. Some of us are not 'elect' and He knows the difference between us. Those who are not elect are not loved. Vice versa with the elect.
Those that are not elect are dead meat. This is regardless of anything they do. Those who are elect are saved regardless of behaviour.
He creates us in a condition that leaves us helpless to resist our hatred of Him and our love of ourselves.
</font>[/QUOTE]So you agree with my proposition that God deliberately creates some people who, regardless of anything they do, are destined for Hell; they can do nothing about that but he can and chooses to do nothing about it, just lets them burn. Thanks - that's exactly the picture of 'God' I described in the OP. Is that not cruel and tyrannical?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by rufus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hmmm...they do seem rather muddled on whether the atonement is limited or what they mean by unconditional election. Nowhere do they tackle the issue of the justice of it all...

Next?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Muddled to whom? Friend.


Rufus </font>[/QUOTE]Muddled to them. They can't seem to work out what they believe

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[johnp.]

Hello Matt.

So you agree with my proposition that God deliberately creates some people who, regardless of anything they do, are destined for Hell...

Yes.

...they can do nothing about that...

That's the way it reads.

...but he can and chooses to do nothing about it...

For all you mean? He certainly can and not only does He do nothing about it but is active in the punishment of those He has not chosen to save.

Is that not cruel and tyrannical?

Cruel must be a wrong word to use.

There is a sufficiency in the death of Christ to cover the sins of all men. Judas behaved in the same way Peter did. Peter was let off and Judas, so the scriptures could be fulfilled, John 17:12, will be a resident of Hell.

Is that not cruel and tyrannical?

I understand why you say this. I am not in a position to judge God. He does as He pleases. What He says is right is right. He makes the rules.
He cannot enjoy causing pain. If He did He could have created a universe of creatures and made their lives unbearable continuously. Yet He produces butterflies and talks of love. I don't think it can be any other way than this. I don't believe He had an infinite choice in creation and achieve what was in His mind. This must be the best way and I have put my trust in Him.

Ok? Stinks a bit to us 'a'?

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

It certainly does stink. The 'God' you thus describe is no different from one of my teachers at school who would arbitrarily be nice to some boys and utterly vicious to others for no reason whatsoever despite the fact that we were pretty much all equally well- and badly-behaved. We all ended up hating him - even the boys he was nice to. There's no way you can love such an individual.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi JohnP;

Where does it say it is left to chance? You are saying that it comes down to a random choice or a choice made on what we are, something in us.

No. You'd be wrong in your assumption here. It has nothing to do with anything in us at all. I've never believed that God choose us because of anything we've done or are going to do. I believe we are all chosen.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

If we are Jew or Gentile we are all chosen for Salvation. God chose all of us. Anything less then this, then God would be a respecter of men.

The reason men aren't saved is because of the same reason the Jews branches were broken out of the tree because of unbelief because of rejection.

But who has said that it was random and unaided but you?

Several Calvinist right here at Baptist Board. They don't have any better explanation. If He chose man because of something special in man then He is a respecter of men

My answer to this is;
I think I'd stick to 'just because' because we are dealing with God's will and we cannot know why He decides a thing unless He tells us. The reason is in Him as to why He chose those He chose.

Your right: it's just that He choose us all. And he did tell us His reason read Rom. 11:11. He choose to die for the sins of the whole world.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

There never was a time in God when He did not love me.

I agree totally He has always Loved us.

There can be no randomness with God. He knows all things. A choice based on what, that's the question. The answer is in God's will. The answer must be 'just because'.

Then why do most Calvinist deny God's will is to save the whole world?
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

If you do not believe in chance why do you think I do?

If you believe that God is responsible for everything that happens and yet he is not a respecter of persons. Then you have to believe God choose us randomly. In order for Him not to be a respecter of men. The Bible says;
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
If God chooses any man because He likes there quality of person then God respects that man. So there is no particular reason that God chooses a man. Then if He only chooses some then it can only be random. How ever if He choose everyone He maintains His non respect of men and makes man responsible for his own ultimate destination. God is not responsible because man doesn't believe in Him. Man is.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Many Calvinist make this mistake. In order to understand verse seven we have to place it in context with verse 6;

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Paul isn't talking about not being able to understand, but about where our mind is focused. Of course if we are focused on evil we can't see the spiritual. Being spiritually minded as what this scripture is about is instruction to the saved not to those who aren't. In fact it has nothing to do with the non saved but the saved.
Paul is simply telling his followers to keep there minds focused on the spiritual.

How then can you say it comes down to our choice? Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
Paul is actually saying that even if a man wills to be saved and does everything a man can do to be saved, that will not save him. It must come from God.

I agree and it did come from God it's called a choice to choose good over evil.
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
If Salvation isn't a good thing that brings life then your right we don't have a choice.
If you have Salvation then you have to be willing. If your not willing then you don't believe in God you reject Him. Calvinist claim irresistible Grace. That we cannot refuse if God chooses us. This isn't true if it were then How did the Jews reject Christ.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
His own were His sheep they belong to Him yet they rejected Him. No such thing as irresistabile Grace. What happens when we resist?
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
If it were not impossible to resist God then who would the whosoever be?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[rufus]

Matt Black said:

Muddled to them. They can't seem to work out what they believe

Perhaps, good brother, they "see" something you cannot "see!"

 

[johnp.]

ILUVLIGHT

From the very first chapters of Genesis we have the testimony that there are two groups of people in this world. One has a likeness to Satan the other has taken the likeness of God.
From the very first words God tell the rebellion that He Himself will hide the way to the tree of life. Gen 3:22 and then He placed guards on it, Gen 3:24, just to make sure we could not find it.

The Jews were in unbelief because God blinded them.

JN 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: JN 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

But not all of them. That's a pretty straight forward scripture, where's the problem? He did that so that He could get me. Praise His name. That's love. Nothing stands between me and my lover. Nothing will ever get in between us. The curtain was torn apart.

But who has said that it was random and unaided but you?

Several Calvinist right here at Baptist Board. They don't have any better explanation. If He chose man because of something special in man then He is a respecter of men

You nearly tripped me with the point. I had not heard it before.

Your right: it's just that He choose us all.

In your dreams.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And this is a point that causes strife. Why? Because we both think God is good. I know you don't believe in a good God more than I do.
If I go along with you and say that God died for all men in the way you mean it. Like God loves His humans why don't He love those spirits He created in the same way? Are they considered nothing? If God is such a lovely person, as seen by your eyes, then why did He do nothing for them? God is love after all? Or is it, Love is god?
You might like to take a look at Eli's sons, Isaiah 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " So He did not die for everyone did He? Do you make the exception?
There is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for all men. He calls many but rejects many. He choses who He loves and they love Him. They can do nothing else but love Him and they have no desire to do anything else. Forever and ever, forever getting closer to the one we love. What's it got to do with us what He decides to do to them? We judge God when we get it wrong. Our job is to call the sheep in. Only the sheep hear His voice. The others cannot hear because they are not His sheep, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." John 10:25.
It's a simple message but hard to swollow.

If you believe that God is responsible for everything that happens and yet he is not a respecter of persons. Then you have to believe God choose us randomly. In order for Him not to be a respecter of men.

The reason is in the will of God. Your view of God differs from my view somewhat I must say.

What you think of that then? I'll leave it here for now. Bed time.

johnp.