Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If you mean it in the way it appears, yes.
-
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!
Could God just save EVERYONE!?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
preacher4truth
Active Member
No, He couldn't do all those things, as it is obviously not in His plan to do so. So to clarify this OP, it would be better stated that He WOULD not do them, i.e. it is not in His Will to do so. I think you've attempted to say this in a sense, although your OP is feeble in essence and quite ambiguous.
If it were His Will to save all, He would have done so, but obviously it is not the purposed outcome of His plan, and even if He did do all of the things you suggest to all unbelievers, it would not be enough to save them anyway.
Belief alone is not salvific, and He appearing to some would only further expose their wretched hatred of and for God in many cases. The Gospel accounts for example?
Preaching the Gospel exposes both those who are His and who are not His sheep, just as it did in His day. By the way, salvation is applied by grace, not faith. Faith being a state, not an action, and is in itself the gift of God. Justification is applied because of this state, salvation by grace.
Believing God has determined all things does not lead to your illogical points in 1 and 2. That is an unfortunate and pejorative misrepresentation of DoG brothers.
That one doesn't believe He has predetermined all things in whichever will He has done so undermines His Sovereignty. This is what you have done and it is a fails to separate His Holiness from what He has determined. I believe you are looking at God in how we would look at a man (not that you believe God is man, just pointing out an error in your lens). For instance:
God = Holy + controls/determines all things = God is Holy still because He is Immutable, Perfect, Holy, Just and Incorruptible. None of this effects His perfect nature, it cannot, He is incorruptible, thus it is impossible, and thus He and He alone is capable of accomplishing all His purpose and will by His determinitive counsel and yet remain Holy, Just and Perfect.
Hitler = Evil + controls/determines all things in his power = He is evil, sinful in nature, and is a corrupt being, thus he is capable of becoming even more corrupt and evil by his very sin nature.
That He has determined all things does nothing to His character, He is Immutable, Perfect, Holy.
Your objective in the OP is to take a persons view of Gods predetermined will and Sovereignty, and caste it as demeaning to the character of God. I believe the secondary objective is to be somewhat demeaning toward those who hold this position.
I believe actually the opposite is happening as you appear to hold a very deficient view of His determinitive will and Sovereignty, and of His incorruptible nature in all of these things.
Last edited by a moderator:
Our brother seems to have a wee problem doing the "juggling' act trying to keep God Will and man Will on "equal terms" in the salvation process!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Who said God's will and man's will are on equal terms? Why don't you all just stick with responding to what I actually say rather than making up new concepts and attacking them?
preacher4truth
Active Member
quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Yes, seems like "making things up" is a common strategy of debate here. Change the words, then plant the victory flag. Case closed.
You are feeble. I win.
quantumfaith
Active Member
BTW, let me add, yes God most certainly COULD have chosen to save everyone, but alas from the scriptures we get the rather clear picture that He has not chosen to do so.
I would disagree here, God can only do what is perfectly right and just. I do not believe God could create moral creatures without free will.
An analogy, no parent desires that their teenager drink or take drugs. You could lock them in a room and prevent that. Would this be good or right? I do not think it moral or right to forcibly constrain someone like this. So, we train our kids as best we can, but then we must allow them freedom to make their own decisions.
Likewise, God must allow us to be free moral creatures. This freedom of will makes the possibility of rebellion and sin necessary.
Jesus said that offences "must needs be". God does not desire or condone sin, but the possibility of sin is necessary.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Tell me about it. In the other thread someone started attacking me for believing the premise that man initiates salvation, something I have vehemently taught against over and over again. The really strange thing was that wasn't even the subject of the thread or something I had even said anything about.
It's like, if someone can't deal with the actual subject they just redefine or redirect the subject to fit their fancy. Some just spend all their time telling everyone what they think of you personally, as if that is relevant or necessary. I've just started trying to ignore those types of posts. I think divisive people just feed off the conflict, so I'm just going to "stop feeding the trolls," as they say. :type:
quantumfaith
Active Member
I am with you with regards to free will, however, I am confident that God could make creatures without free will, if that is what He desired.
Not to be argumentive, but I disagree. If God could have made man without free will, then it could not be said that sin is necessary.
Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it musts needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
You don't see many exclamation points in scripture, you see two in one verse here.
Jesus said offences (sins) are necessary. They must happen. Why? Because God has given every man free will. Free will is necessary to be a moral creature. Yes, we have the ability to choose rebellion and sin, but we also have the ability to choose obedience and good. We could not be moral creatures without choice, there is no merit or virtue in doing good by necessity, and there can be no just condemnation of those who do evil by necessity.
Also note that Jesus clearly states that sin originates with the man (by whom) and not God. The doctrine that says evil is intended by God is error. He does not condone or intend sin, it is necessary.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Yeah, that is his backup, remember: "I tell you, if they were to keep silent, the stones would cry out!"
So, I guess we could say that "Calvinism" is God's backup plan if the Arminian plan fails due to free will. :laugh:
If the stones could cry out, then they could also believe.
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for seed.
The children of Abraham are those that believe.
Note that John the Baptist said "raise up" (resurrection), not create or make.
Last edited by a moderator:
WHAT?! I am sorry, that is blasphemous and sick. How on earth are you posting in the Baptist section? You have just denied God's omnipotence!
Yes, God COULD have done things ANY way He wanted. He is all powerful, and is able to do WHATEVER He wishes.
Can God tell a lie?
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
See, you think God can do whatever, but the scriptures say it is impossible for God to lie.
The problem is your concept of God is unscriptural.
Jesus said that it "must needs be that offences come". He said it is NECESSARY that sins come. If it is necessary, then he could not create a world where sin is not possible, that is the definition of "must needs be" or "necessary".
Necessary because it was God's plan! Not necessary because God was incapable of doing otherwise. Your view is the unscriptural one! You are declaring God less than all-powerful!
And God cannot lie, because #1 His mere words create, not because He is unable. If God were to say that down were up, nature would rearrange itself at His command. #2 He is Holy, and would never choose to sin. But this is not inability.
Clever use of words, down and up are perspectives. You'll have to get up a little earlier to fool me.
You are denying that absolute truth exists. We know that 2 plus 2 equals 4, are you trying to argue God could say 2 plus 2 equals 5 and it would be so? If so, I disagree with you. Absolute truth is just what it is, absolute. God is absolute truth and cannot change. You may not realize this, but your view denies this. God cannot deny himself.
2 Tim 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
Again, Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
makes for 'spirited" discussions!
Think main problem is that you do tend to set up your OP in a way that attempts to discredit Calvinism, but seem to use it to "attack" straw men of cal theology. and once your points get biblically shot down, keep jumping "track to track" so to speak!
Havensdad said:
Note the double talk necessary to make this doctrine work.Havensdad said:
Havensdad, what is...as you would say..."blasphemous and sick" is to imply God is ABLE to lie. This kind of garbage has no business in Baptist doctrine or any doctrine in the life of a child of God!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Blanket accusations about perceptions of others serve no purpose but to inflame and derail. If you have a specific instance, with a quote and a reasoned argument, bring it. Then I'll have something with which to engage, but this is a nebulous unfounded accusation.
A "Straw-man" is logical fallacy of debate and thus is very clearly definable and able to be proven as such. You simply copy and paste my statement that you believe is a "Straw-man" and then show me how my statement is misrepresentative of Calvinism.
For example, if I said, 'Calvinists are anti-evangelistic." (which, BTW, I don't believe is true)
They you could quote me, like this:
And then you might say, "Skan, this is a straw-man, because we don't believe this! In fact, Calvin himself says, " ...insert pro-evangelism quote here.... "
Then you would be engaging me in debate and proving your claims. I then could evaluate your statement and agree or rebut. See how that works?