Calvanism and Hell

The truth is God says, "I place before you life and death, CHOOSE LIFE". So it is not as the Calvinists believe, a matter of God's election of individuals, it is a matter of individual's choosing one of the Options that God ELECTED to give to man.

 

I would not use webdog's argument about limiting God's sovereignty. Instead, I would appeal to the non-intelligibility of the idea that people born today are culpable for an act of sin performed by Adam. I know that some will argue that this is what the Bible teaches. Maybe so.

In any event, it stretches my innate sense of justice too far to buy into the notion that I am responsible for the actions of someone born in the distant past - I am responsible for my own actions to the extent that I can exercise control over them.

I think we Christians want it both ways - we accept the inarguably bizarre notion that we deserve the punishment for another man's(Adam)actions, yet we also live by the principle that each man is responsible for his own actions (we certainly don't advocate for sending Fred to jail if Joe commits a murder).

 

Adam did not have a sinful nature.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

 

Man does have a choice. He exercises that choice to rebel against God. This is the result of his free will operating within the bounds of his sinful nature. He does this even as nature itself points to God (Romans 1). Man is without excuse.

The premise for your question seems to be that somehow if one person who doesn't deserve salvation gets it then God is unfair for not giving it to another person... who still doesn't deserve it no matter what God did for the other person.

If someone robs your home and for a reason that you choose to keep to yourself you decide to drop the charges... does that mean that you must drop the charges against the next thief who breaks in... or the next?

Of course not. Your's was an act of grace. No thief deserves to be let off the hook and your forgiveness of the first one in no way entitles the second one to like treatment.

 

Your what?

So your "innate sense of justice" is the rule to which God's Word must be conformed?

Well then again... thanks for at least being honest. Most non-calvinists won't admit openly that it is their "innate sense of justice" that won't let them accept that God is perfectly within His rights to choose some but allow others to follow their own sinful wills into eternal destruction.

 

Actually we all deserve Hell. Salvation is not about God being fair (Fair means no one goes to Heaven). God owes no one Salvation and would be right and just to have condemned the entire human race to Hell. Salvation is all about Grace.

Even an orthodox Arminian must confess that many never get a "choice" to trust Christ. The man in Mongolia who has never heard the name of Jesus, the millions that have died without hearing thev Gospel over the centuries, the American Indians who lived in North America for centuries without hearing the Gospel etc.. all are guilty of sin before God and stand condemned. Man is not lost and a rebel because he has not heard the Gospel BUT because he is a depraved sinner from conception.

 

The truth is God says, "I place before you life and death, CHOOSE LIFE". So it is not as the Calvinists believe, a matter of God's election of individuals, it is a matter of individual's choosing one of the Options that God ELECTED to give to man. </font>[/QUOTE]Wes, Really... how many times do you have to be corrected before you stop mischaracterizing the beliefs of others?

Election doesn't have anything to do with whether man faces a choice or not. It has everything to do with why men that choose to follow God ultimately do so.

If you want to believe that it is by the merit of man's own will then feel free to be wrong. But do not distort the views of us who believe it is because God first performs the miracle of spiritual regeneration upon us.

 

Kiffen, this of course, is your assumption that millions have died without hearing the Gospel. We really have no way of knowing if they did or did not until we get to heaven.

 

Because they were predestined to be the elect, ELIMINATING choice! Election (becoming children of God) has everything to do with man facing a choice, and not God choosing for man!

Why do men ultimately choose to follow God? Because the Holy Spirit draws ALL men, but not all men will have faith.

 

Still double predestination by default. If God withholds his grace from some then he has in effect predestined them to hell. </font>[/QUOTE]No its not. Men were ALREADY condemned to hell because of their sin. God elects some out humanity to be saved. He does not predestine the others to hell, they were all ready destined there in the first place because of their sin. I don't see why it is so hard for some of you to understand.

Does God give His saving grace on everyone? No He doesn't, so only some are choosen for salvation.

 

The Bible doen't speak of God electing men to hell only to salvation. Man is ALREADY condemned to hell because of his sin.

 

Because they were predestined to be the elect, ELIMINATING choice!</font>[/QUOTE] Under Arminianism, once God foreknows that someone will be saved, can it be any different without destroying the omniscience of God? If not then you don't escape this dilemna at all.

BTW, God "elected" me to be born to my parents. That gave me a nature and choices not available to the millions of other sperm that God did not elect.

I didn't say that man didn't face a choice. All men do.

Some choose good. Others choose evil. Why?

Is it: a) God quickened their dead-in-sin nature making it natural for them to believe?
b) They had some innate goodness of their own that caused them to decide to believe?

You cannot simply say that they made a decision without an ultimate cause.

Why? Where does that faith ultimately come from? When you ask "Why?" seven times, what is the prime cause for man's faith?

If it ultimately comes down to a decision that a natural, carnal human being makes then you simply cannot escape the fact that this decision has merit... meaning that salvation is in fact not by grace nor is hell the just punishment for all sinful men.

 

Two addicts go into a house, do drugs, and pass out.

The house catches on fire.

A fireman comes and saves one man but the other perishes.

Did the fireman cause either man to use drugs?

Is the second man's plight because of his own destructive choice or the fireman's?

Did the first man deserve to be saved more than the other?

Did the fireman do anything wrong by saving one while not saving the other at the expense of his own person?

An affirmative choice of one thing is not the same as the rejection of another thing. Saving one person from destruction is not the same as causing the destruction of another.

 

The Bible doen't speak of God electing men to hell only to salvation. Man is ALREADY condemned to hell because of his sin. </font>[/QUOTE]According to Calvinism man is born in a state of total inability. Born already condemed to hell.
Calvinism states that God predestined those he would save before the foundation of the world. Therefore by default God predestined those who would be damned.

 

Where does the bible teach that the exercise of faith is a work?

 

Hello Scott J:

Two points:

1. I think it is an unavoidable feature of the way that the world is constructed that we have no choice but to interpret the Scriptures in accordance with an "interpretive framework" that we more or less bring to the Scriptures. In short, the Bible does not really "stand on its own" - there is an unavoidable element of "subjectivity" in using the Scriptures to inform our beliefs. This is a huge topic and is probably a tangent, but I believe I need to at least express this view.

2. Your phrase "follow their own sinful wills into eternal destruction" is at least suggestive of the possibility that sin is indeed a choice, not a necessity. If so, then I do not have a big problem with the notion of punishment - it is truly deserved in such a case. However, I suspect you believe that the sinful nature cannot be resisted. Since we are born with this nature, I can see how we can be any more culpable for our sin than for, say, being born with nine toes.

 

They are addicts as a result of there own choices. They were not born addicts.
If a baby is born addicted to crack do you blame baby?
The analogy does not work

 

Where does the bible teach that the exercise of faith is a work? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]This is where they pull out Ephesians 2. You are correct, faith is in no way a work, because if it were, we would have reason to boast.

The claim that if man were to have faith on his own, he would earn salvation, is ridiculous. It is no different if God did indeed give faith to certain individuals. Man would still have to exercise faith, making it a work STILL. This falls flat on it's face. If I cut a tree down with a chain saw, it makes no difference if I use my own saw or my neighbor gave me his saw to use. A work is a work. Faith is NOT a work, as one does not earn a gift, being the Christ's death, "the gift of God".

 

Sure it does. Regardless of how they came to be addicts, they chose to engage in behavior that made them guilty.

If following natural impulses against the commands of God is not rightly punishable sin then we need to erase all of the scriptures concerning fornication.

I was once very addicted to nicotene. Without regard to how I became addicted, I made a choice each and every time a purchase and used tobacco.

 

BTW, I never said that a man didn't have a choice. I did say that man will exercise that choice according to his nature... not that he is forced to, it is simply an ironclad prediction that he will.