But God Is Love!

[37818]

I am asking how you reconcile that view WITHOUT being universalist.

Easy. The Bible does not teach universalism.

 

[Reformed1689]

Easy. The Bible does not teach universalism.

You are missing the point of the post. Try answering the question in its entirety and not focusing on the universalism but rather take it in the context of the entire post.

 

[Reformed1689]

Were does the notion of universalism come from. It is not Biblical.

It is asking how do you reconcile your view of a loving God who wouldn't automatically condemn people to hell without being a universalist since your view doesn't solve the problem of God created them in the first place knowing they would end up in hell.

 

[Reynolds]

Still no takers?

Because it's a stupid premise. All non-Cal positions must be universalism. You can play that game by yourself.

 

[Reformed1689]

Because it's a stupid premise. All non-Cal positions must be universalism. You can play that game by yourself.

I did not say that. I'm asking people who have specifically made the argument that Calvinism can't be true because God is a loving God. You don't have to participate in this thread if you don't want to.

 

[atpollard]

It is asking how do you reconcile your view of a loving God who wouldn't automatically condemn people to hell without being a universalist since your view doesn't solve the problem of God created them in the first place knowing they would end up in hell.

I agree ... THAT PARTICULAR argument against Reformed Sotieriology (best summarized as "God is mean for making people He knows will go to hell") applies equally to a monergistic "God of Calvinism" as a synergistic "God of Arminianism". The "LOGICAL" solution is the unBiblical love "god of Universalism" ... which every true Christian (and Scotsman ... and Christian Scotsman) denies.

As a point of logic, it is actually a variation on "the Problem of Evil" ("If God is good, how can He allow bad things to happen?")

There are still lots of other arguments against "Calvinism" that do not involve an all loving God that could never be so mean.

 

[atpollard]

Because it's a stupid premise. All non-Cal positions must be universalism. You can play that game by yourself.

So you admit that God is NOT ALL LOVING!

 

[canadyjd]

Sure, I'll take it just give me a second ...

[Places pipe in case. Folds 'Synod of Dort' robes. Shaves Reformer Beard. ... hides Martin Luther tankard for later ... dusts off suitcase from the back of closet and places 'Wesleyean Holiness' cap on head]

Now I am ready ...

Under the injustice of the Reformed theological paradigm, God created all men with no hope of heaven ... drowning, if you will permit me the analogy. Then God chose to drag some lifeless corpses out of the water and by an act of supreme, sovereign grace, breathe life into that most fortuitous handful. Is that not a fair appraisal of Reformed Monergistic Salvation and the innate human condition. My Arminian brothers are correct to question the "love" of a Creator that walks on the water by standing upon the corpses that He Himself created to select the few while blaming the many for drowning in the ocean that God created for them (The Adamic Curse and Original Sin).​

Fortunately, that is not the God we have come to know and love. Yes, men are born in an ocean and all men quickly drown in our sinful watery world. However, we have a God of LOVE. A love demonstrated by His Prevenient Grace. THE ROCK OF AGES rose out of this ocean of sin and death. The water is powerless against the Rock. The Rock became a Lighthouse that shone out on the sea of corpses and wherever the Light of the Gospel shines, corpses revive and gain a "second wind". They are not yet safe, they merely have the choice to swim towards the light or away from it. Sadly most will still choose to swim away from the light and sink into the depths of the ocean. But those that reach the lighthouse are transformed into little lighthouses. pushing back the ocean and spreading His Light further. Some stand on this shore and call out to encourage others to join The PEOPLE of the ROCK on His growing Island. With each new soul, the light shines further, and the shore gets closer and more corpses animate by His loving Grace.​

With the GOD OF SOVEREIGNTY, nobody has a chance and God loves some.
With the GOD OF LOVE, everyone has a chance and God reached all who are willing.​

[Removes the cap of 'Wesleyean Holiness' ... and goes looking for that Tankard of Lutheran Ale.]

But in this analogy, the “loving” God still puts them in an ocean where most of them drown. He gives them “a chance”, by putting a lighthouse on the rock, but still leaves their fate completely up to them as to whether they will be able to swim to the lighthouse or drown in the attempt.

That seems just as “cruel” as the accusations against reformed theology that God created mankind knowing they would drown in a sea of sin, but chose to save some and passing over all others.

Let me ask this. Does God know who will be saved? He is omniscient, so yes, He knows everything.

How is the “God of Love” not acting with cruelty
if He throws people into the water, puts a lighthouse in place to draw them, knowing that most will drown in sin?

Isn’t that a false declaration of hope? Isn’t that a false offer of salvation? God knows they will drown in their sins, and yet, He bids them follow the lighthouse and swim to the rock.

peace to you

 

[Reformed1689]

I agree ... THAT PARTICULAR argument against Reformed Sotieriology (best summarized as "God is mean for making people He knows will go to hell") applies equally to a monergistic "God of Calvinism" as a synergistic "God of Arminianism". The "LOGICAL" solution is the unBiblical love "god of Universalism" ... which every true Christian (and Scotsman ... and Christian Scotsman) denies.

As a point of logic, it is actually a variation on "the Problem of Evil" ("If God is good, how can He allow bad things to happen?")

There are still lots of other arguments against "Calvinism" that do not involve an all loving God that could never be so mean.

Exactly, this is the reality I want answered about that argument from those that put that argument.

 

[atpollard]

Try making it simpler:

1. God cannot predestine people to Hell because he is love.

2. God must give them absolute free will because he is love.

Does anyone believe that Statement 1 is true?
Does anyone believe that Statement 2 is true?

If you do, then:

QUESTION: If people are going to Hell and God knew that they would not accept Him but created them anyway, then how does this support the view of a loving God? Should a loving God not have saved everyone (universalism)?

(If you do not believe Statement 1 or 2, then the question is moot.)

 

[atpollard]

But in this analogy, the “loving” God still puts them in an ocean where most of them drown. He gives them “a chance”, by putting a lighthouse on the rock, but still leaves their fate completely up to them as to whether they will be able to swim to the lighthouse or drown in the attempt.

That seems just as “cruel” as the accusations against reformed theology that God created mankind knowing they would drown in a sea of sin, but chose to save some and passing over all others.

Let me ask this. Does God know who will be saved? He is omniscient, so yes, He knows everything.

How is the “God of Love” not acting with cruelty
if He throws people into the water, puts a lighthouse in place to draw them, knowing that most will drown in sin?

Isn’t that a false declaration of hope? Isn’t that a false offer of salvation? God knows they will drown in their sins, and yet, He bids them follow the lighthouse and swim to the rock.

peace to you

The alternative to men being in the ocean drowning is PELAGIANISM. The people can swim to the rock without needing any help from God at all ... we can save ourselves. The ocean acknowledges the scripture that we are all slaves to sin in need of a savior, dead in our sins in need of God to give us life. The issue is:

• Does God half-save all?
• Does God fully save some?
• (if God fully saves all, you have universalism)

 

[canadyjd]

The alternative to men being in the ocean drowning is PELAGIANISM. The people can swim to the rock without needing any help from God at all ... we can save ourselves. The ocean acknowledges the scripture that we are all slaves to sin in need of a savior, dead in our sins in need of God to give us life. The issue is:

• Does God half-save all?
• Does God fully save some?
• (if God fully saves all, you have universalism)

I guess I’m trying to ask if there is really any difference in the positions of those critical of the doctrines of grace.

God is omniscient. He knows who will come to Him for salvation from the foundation of the world.

How is “they are unable because of sin” different from “they are unable because God has already seen they will not come”?

How is “they are children of God because God has chosen them and gave them faith to believe” different from “they are children of God because God has seen from the foundation of the world they would believe”

In both cases, the people are doomed or saved and their fate cannot be altered. It is certain.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

Were does the notion of universalism come from. It is not Biblical.

That may be true. However i read what he posted snd there was no actual accusation. I could just as easily assert much of Augustinian Determinism is rooted in gnosticism. Or i could ask them how is their position on depravity of man not based on gnostic beliefs? See what im saying?

 

[Reynolds]

So you admit that God is NOT ALL LOVING!

I don't know who would argue that He is.

 

[AustinC]

That may be true. However i read what he posted snd there was no actual accusation. I could just as easily assert much of Augustinian Determinism is rooted in gnosticism. Or i could ask them how is their position on depravity of man not based on gnostic beliefs? See what im saying?

No, I don't.
How is Augustinian soteriology, gnostic?
How is the wretchedness of man gnostic?

 

[37818]

It is asking how do you reconcile your view of a loving God who wouldn't automatically condemn people to hell without being a universalist since your view doesn't solve the problem of God created them in the first place knowing they would end up in hell.

My view does. You do not know my view.

 

[Reformed1689]

My view does. You do not know my view.

Great so please explain which is the whole purpose of this thread.

 

[37818]

That may be true. However i read what he posted snd there was no actual accusation. I could just as easily assert much of Augustinian Determinism is rooted in gnosticism. Or i could ask them how is their position on depravity of man not based on gnostic beliefs? See what im saying?

I took both questions as loaded questions. I take loaded questions as being accusatory.

 

[atpollard]

In both cases, the people are doomed or saved and their fate cannot be altered. It is certain.

The issue for those that Calvinism rubs the wrong way, imho, is placing the blame on God. If men have free will and CHOOSE, then the fault for those that land in Hell is not with God that offered salvation to all, but with the individuals that rejected “so great a salvation”. If men are all powerless and those damned are damned rather than saved because God chose not to save them, then the “blame” for their damnation rests on God (an unacceptable thought).

The issue seems to be one of a human sense of “fair”. Humans believe that God should offer ‘equal opportunity’ for salvation to all … “that is only fair.” It requires a change in human thinking to realize that God SHOULD damn all because all are guilty … mercy is owed by God to none, GRACE is given to whom God chooses to give it. That is a divine prerogative.

I have heard non-Calvinists say that it is hubris for us to think that we are “the elect”, that Calvinism makes us think we are better than other sinners. I cannot speak for other ‘Calvinists’, but the knowledge that God saved me “just because” and I fully deserved eternal damnation is both terrifying and humbling and fills me with confused awe. There was so much lower-hanging fruit … why would God pass by those so much closer to choose me? No, pride is the last thing that I feel.

 

[37818]

Great so please explain which is the whole purpose of this thread.

It is a complaint against supposing the Calvinist view of the lost makes God out to be an unloving God. Since.my view of particular redemption is the purpose of the general redemption, that supposed problem cannot exist. Without the general redemption it is impossible for anyone to know Christ died for anyone beyond those mentioned in the Bible.