Calvanism and Hell

Well this is a common misunderstanding of Calvinism. True there are some Calvinists who believe in double predestindation, but there are many, IMO the majority, who do not.

Man is already on his way to hell because of his sin. That anybody would be elect is an amazing act of God's grace since every sinner both saved and unsaved is deserving of hell.

God does not elect men to go hell, He elelcts men to NOT go to hell since they are already on their way. Does that make sense?

 

Still double predestination by default. If God withholds his grace from some then he has in effect predestined them to hell.

 

Exactly. If God "elects" you and not someone else, the non elect are automatically "elected" to hell. There is no way around double predestination in calvinism. Some on here will say by "choosing one thing you are not automatically choosing the opposite for the other person". If there are only two choices, this is wrong.
Example:
Everyone is going to "A"
I step in and choose half to go to "B"
Everyone else I didn't choose is still going to "A"
Those I didn't choose were created to go to "A".
Those I did choose were created to go to "B".

 

It appears that Calvin viewed eternal punishment for the non-elect as "just punishment."

If anyone has access to the entire quote in its context, I would be interested to see it.

 

Agree that if God doesn't 'elect' one to heaven, he 'selects' them for everlasting damnation.

No way around it!

(I'm NOT a Calvinist)

 

You're presuming that God's mind is linear on a timeline. It is not. God's will is not limited by the dimentions of time and space that we are limited to. God exists/existed/will exist at all places at all times. God is/was/will be aware of whether someone will embrace the gift of salvation before time began, and those persons are what we know as the elect (this has nothing to do with the Arminian view of a decision based on foreknowlege, since that implies an if/then linear scenario, something God does not adhere to).

 

It appears that Calvin viewed eternal punishment for the non-elect as "just punishment."

If anyone has access to the entire quote in its context, I would be interested to see it. </font>[/QUOTE]Wouldn't eternal punishment be "just punishment" for the elect as well? These people (elect)were created, even without any merit on their own, to NOT receive eternal punishment? This flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches! This would give one a reason to boast!

 

You're presuming that God's mind is linear on a timeline. It is not. God's will is not limited by the dimentions of time and space that we are limited to. God exists/existed/will exist at all places at all times. God is/was/will be aware of whether someone will embrace the gift of salvation before time began, and those persons are what we know as the elect (this has nothing to do with the Arminian view of a decision based on foreknowlege, since that implies an if/then linear scenario, something God does not adhere to). </font>[/QUOTE]So do you believe there is a day, time and hour God knows He will return?

 

Not so-called double predestination. As has been said, all men have sinned, in Adam, and hence, alienated from God. By His grace He chose some, for reasons known only to Him. The rest He passes by, not pre-selects, which is His prerogative.

Whilst God allowed sin to happen, does not make God the author of sin. It was the natural outcome of a sinful nature, and not causative.

Foreknowledge is the natural attribute of an infinite Spirit called God, and not a driving force governing that Spirit. Yes God knew beforehand that some would choose redemption.

Early on, john Calvin, who wrote his Institutes in his youth, did suggest a form of double predestination, but changed his views especially in his commentary on Romans.

One must no more frame Calvinism by Calvin's early thoughts anymore than they should form my philosophy from my pre-redemptive years.

Before developing any theory on redemptive graces, one must develop a clear understanding of the Divine nature and the decrees of God. Otherwise, one ends up with half-baked ideas of human origin, and completely misses the Divine purpose.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The Father knows, but the Son does not. So says scripture. How exactly that works is a complete mystery to me. But that's what scripture says, so that's what I'll accept.

 

The Father knows, but the Son does not. So says scripture. How exactly that works is a complete mystery to me. But that's what scripture says, so that's what I'll accept. </font>[/QUOTE]So God's mind is linear to some extent, with bearings on time.

 

Man's timetable is linear because that is all we understand; a straight line.

God's timetable is eternal, circular and meets in infinity; it has no timeline as man understands it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is still double predestination by default. This statement is totally false. All of the hundreds if not thousands of verses taling about God's love, mercy and patience to ALL mankind were "tongue-in-cheek"? God wishes "none" (wink, wink) perish but ALL (wink, wink) repent. This is an insult to our Lord.

 

So you don't believe God the Father has a specific day and time for Jesus' triumphant return? Jesus seemed to believe so.

 

Consider the following possible state of affairs:

1. People are born with a sinful nature and this nature cannot be resisted by acts of the will. In other words, people cannot help but sin - there is no possibility for a person to not sin, no matter how hard s/he tries to act rightly.

2. God pre-selects a subset of people for salvation, the rest will necessarily go to hell (in virtue of the certainty that they will sin as established in (1)).

I cannot see how such a state of affairs is reconcilable with any reasonable notion of a loving God. Why? Simply because the notion of punishment is simply unintelligible to us if the agent to be punished does not have at least the conceptual possibility to act rightly (i.e. not sin).

On the other hand, if condition (1) does not really apply - if people can freely choose to "do right" (i.e. are not irrestistably destined to sin by virtue of a sinful nature that they have no choice but to be born with), then at least one might argue that they "deserve" punishment. The idea that God then sovereignly saves some of the guilty (but only guilty because they could have chosen to not sin) still seems a little hard to understand, but at least it is not as violently counter-intuitive as the case where both (1) and (2) apply.

 

Webdog, your understanding, not mine. That logic denies the absolute sovereignty of God. I am not willing that any should perish, but if two people are drowing, I must choose whom I will save. I am limited by human parameters. God is not limited by human surroundings. God is NOT willing that ANY should perish,,,this does not preclude that man has already decided in Adam. He chose some...the Israel of God...and passed by others...the enemies of His chosen. The scripture is not a textbook on God, but the story of redemption from beginning to end.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is still double predestination by default. This statement is totally false. All of the hundreds if not thousands of verses taling about God's love, mercy and patience to ALL mankind were "tongue-in-cheek"? God wishes "none" (wink, wink) perish but ALL (wink, wink) repent. This is an insult to our Lord. </font>[/QUOTE]I definitely agree that if man has no choice but to sin, then the argument that God "passes some by" clearly amounts to double-predestination. This seems really obvious to me. If Jones is born into this world with a nature that forces him to sin, and if Jones is not part of the "elect" that are saved from their sins, then clearly Jones has been pre-destined for Hell.

Let's think carefully about what it means to be pre-destined for a specific fate. In order for Jones to be pre-destined for some fate X, it simply needs to be the case that Jones will necessarily wind up with fate X, despite any actions that Jones (or anyone other than the agent that does the "pre-destining") might otherwise take. This seems to be what some are arguing. And I cannot see how this can be the will of a loving God (if fate X = Hell).

 

See, this is where you are mistaken. You see it as having a choice between "either/or". God says He "so loved the world". He threw both people drowning rope. They can "choose life", or do nothing and die.

So man's will overruled God's?!? Your statement sounds as God really does want noone to perish, but man had the deciding factor. This limits God's sovereignty, and ultimately makes man's one time sin superior to Christ's atonement on the cross!

 

I have a circular clock on the wall in my office. Does that meet the description?