• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

But God Is Love!

Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
In the last few weeks I have seen an increase in the argument that Calvinism must be wrong because God is a loving God. The argument, as I understand it, is God cannot predestine people to Hell because he is love. He must give them absolute free will because he is love. My question is this, how does the anti-Calvinistic free will position solve the problem without adhering to universalism? If people are still going to Hell, and they are not elect because God knew that they would not accept Him and they go to Hell but he created them anyway. How, in the opposing view does this support your view of a loving God without going deep into universalism?

It has been said that Calvinism is inconsistent, but this seems like a GLARING inconsistency in the opposing view to me.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed1689 said:
In the last few weeks I have seen an increase in the argument that Calvinism must be wrong because God is a loving God. The argument, as I understand it, is God cannot predestine people to Hell because he is love. He must give them absolute free will because he is love. My question is this, how does the anti-Calvinistic free will position solve the problem without adhering to universalism? If people are still going to Hell, and they are not elect because God knew that they would not accept Him and they go to Hell but he created them anyway. How, in the opposing view does this support your view of a loving God without going deep into universalism?

It has been said that Calvinism is inconsistent, but this seems like a GLARING inconsistency in the opposing view to me.
Click to expand...
How in the world does non-Calvinism equal universalism?
There is a massive difference between predestination and foreknowledge due to omnipotence.
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
"The dominant American religion can be summed up in one sentence. 'I like sinning and God likes forgiving.' So the world is very well set up."
~ W Robert Godfrey
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Reformed1689 said:
@AustinC don't you find it interesting we are hearing crickets on this?
Click to expand...
It's a quandry.
If God has lovingly ransomed all sinners at the cross, having atoned for their sins, how do you avoid universalism?
Even if a person, by free will, rejects Jesus as Lord, does that rejection annul the atonement and ransom paid? If rejection of Jesus as Lord annuls the atonement, does that not limit the atonement and therefore remove the universal all that is claimed by free will proponents? There seems to be glaring inconsistencies that free will proponents want to smooth over by ignoring the issue.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
A loving God who is willing to show His wrath and to make His power known?
His love has a context, my friends, as does His wrath.

He loves some and is patient towards them, and hates others and is angry and wrathful towards them...
He is merciful and compassionate towards His people, and the opposite towards those that are not.

Please see Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18.


Also, please see Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, etc. to see who He loves, and Psalms 5, Psalms 11 etc for those whom He hates.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Dave G said:
A loving God who is willing to show His wrath and to make His power known?
His love has a context, my friends, as does His wrath.

He loves some and is patient towards them, and hates others and is angry and wrathful towards them...
He is merciful and compassionate towards His people, and the opposite towards those that are not.

Please see Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Reformed1689 said:
That is not what I said.
Click to expand...
Reformed1689 said:
My question is this, how does the anti-Calvinistic free will position solve the problem without adhering to universalism?
Click to expand...
How is that not a false assertion?
Reformed1689 said:
How, in the opposing view does this support your view of a loving God without going deep into universalism?
Click to expand...
Again, how this also not a false assertion?

It is simple, the Biblical view does not teach universalism.
Those are false accusations by reason they amount to accusations of not being Biblical.
 
Last edited:
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
How is that not a false assertion?
Again, how this also not a false assertion?

It is simple, the Biblical view does not teach universalism.
Those are false accusations by reason they amount to accusations of not being Biblical.
Click to expand...
I didn't assert or accuse anything, Read my post again.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Reformed1689 said:
Still no takers?
Click to expand...
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.]
 
Last edited:
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed1689 said:
In the last few weeks I have seen an increase in the argument that Calvinism must be wrong because God is a loving God. The argument, as I understand it, is God cannot predestine people to Hell because he is love. He must give them absolute free will because he is love. My question is this, how does the anti-Calvinistic free will position solve the problem without adhering to universalism? If people are still going to Hell, and they are not elect because God knew that they would not accept Him and they go to Hell but he created them anyway. How, in the opposing view does this support your view of a loving God without going deep into universalism?

It has been said that Calvinism is inconsistent, but this seems like a GLARING inconsistency in the opposing view to me.
Click to expand...


Reformed1689 said:
In the last few weeks I have seen an increase in the argument that Calvinism must be wrong because God is a loving God. The argument, as I understand it, is God cannot predestine people to Hell because he is love. He must give them absolute free will because he is love. My question is this, how does the anti-Calvinistic free will position solve the problem without adhering to universalism? If people are still going to Hell, and they are not elect because God knew that they would not accept Him and they go to Hell but he created them anyway. How, in the opposing view does this support your view of a loving God without going deep into universalism?

It has been said that Calvinism is inconsistent, but this seems like a GLARING inconsistency in the opposing view to me.
Click to expand...

Both of those arguments are bad arguments. The issue isnt that God is love or that He pre chose individuals based on His foreknowledge. Scripture doesnt make that argument. Neither does scripture support the Augustinian Determinism definition of election. Its just not what God did and not supported by scripture.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Revmitchell said:
Both of those arguments are bad arguments. The issue isnt that God is love or that He pre chose individuals based on His foreknowledge. Scripture doesnt make that argument. Neither does scripture support the Augustinian Determinism definition of election. Its just not what God did and not supported by scripture.
Click to expand...
We disagree, and thank you for responding. Now I wish someone who has been making those arguments would respond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top