Fatalism Bites The Dust

And specifically who are the Fatalists you are referring to ?

 

Perhaps someone can open the new and improved Fatalism/Open Theism Debate Forum? :laugh:

 

I assume, since you are focusing on verse 4, you are saying that election is fatalism. Well you are wrong. God's will is never fatalistic. But, by all means, keep on hitting the brick wall :BangHead: .

:thumbs:

 

True -- but man's belief in regards to God's will often IS fatalistic. :tonofbricks:

skypair

 

Why would anybody who knows they are wrong persist in their error? I do not understand you. How do you know they know they are wrong?

Ask a Bhuddist Gordonslocum. I have it on good authority that most Calvinists are not even determinists let alone fatalists. You are in error if this post is aimed there.

If He wants everybody saved why does He keep creating those He knows are going to Hell, in fact why did He create Hell if He doesn't want anyone going there. Not constrained is He? If He wants all to hear why don't all hear, He is not constrained is He? Those without the law perish. Why does God want a thing He knows He can't have? If He wants all men saved why didn't He give an atonement for Eli's kids? He swore an oath that He wouldn't give them an atonement. Limited atonement is proved by scripture. 1 Sam 3:14.

What bible are you using?

john.

 

Nebuchadnezzar found out the very hard and humiliating way that God does what He wills in the army of heaven and in earth.
If He wants everybody saved, then everybody is saved, not will be, not soon to be, but IS saved, and that is because Jesus Christ already went to the cross, the grave, and now is in Heaven.

 

Gordon, Let Gill explain it for you:

 

I don't want to take away from the OP but this caught my eye and I wanted to have a little fun. This is for fun now but it will get you to thinking.

I noted you stated in the "Why" question above a specific group designated by the word 'anyone' and not 'anything'. I know that you are speaking of people because of the context of this OP and your post.

Here is my question: Who does the scriptures state 'Hell' was prepared or created for??

Even wonder why if all things in creation were determinded why Hell of all things was not determindedly created for all those who oppose God??
Scripture only speaks of Satan (the first to fall) and his angels (those who rebelled with him - 2nd), what about the other who WILL be in Hell. Why was hell not created for ALL their benifit if God desired some to go Heaven and the rest to Hell?

Now we have no clue when Hell was created as the scriptures only talk God creating the Heavens and the earth. But in the statement of Jesus we KNOW that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels. If God determinded or predestined all things in the Calvinistic sense (choosing before they had sinned at all) this would place election or God choosing some and not others (or for those not deterministic - passed over them) where exactly??

 

So then no person who WILL be a beleiver but is not a believer has ever been a reprobate or a sinner seperated from God and under His divine wrath??

 

Gill was good and godly man who (just like the rest of us) is wrong at times.
Here is a place where theology determines what scripture *should* mean rather let scripture 'determine' what our thoelogy speaks to.

He unfortunately tears this 'piece' of the scripture from it context and expounds his superimposed theology into THIS peice. Context speaks contrary to his discourse.

But then again we can all find some commentary that agrees with what we believe is scriptural:
This is Commentary by A. R. FAUSSET

 

then explain why they aren't.
a fatalist is one who believes in fate, not God.

 

Seems to me Gill is more thorough in his exposition. That's what has drawn me to his commentaries. But I'm no expert on commentaries, Gill, Wesley's Notes, and Henry's is the only one's I'm familiar with.

But notice how Gill compares scripture with scripture and comes to his understanding based on the greater context. For example, he shows how salvation must be done by Gods' infallable Will alone, for if salvation comes by man's will, then it renders the passage in Rom 9 which says "it is not of him that willeth" to be false.

The method that Gill uses to interpret scripture is one that takes not only scriptures that are in apparent agreement, but also takes scripture which is in apparent contradiction and makes an argument based on the idea that the opposing scriptures can not be actually contradictory, but different aspects of the same truth. When all the elements of truth are put together, then we have the "whole" truth.

Welseyian/freewill theology is faulty in that it will not do this. It will take passages which seem to contradict each other, and let the contradiction stand, declaring them to be irresovlable, and a perpetual mystery.

I've seen many times in many places, including BB, where those who stand for freewill can not positively give any sense to certain passages. Such responses like "I don't know what it means, but I do know what it doesn't mean" is representative of a hermenuetic which can not be trusted.

I was recently told by a pastor that I was trying to know things that God does not want me to know. The "proof text" was 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Now go read 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Now let's assume you've read the verse. Did you come to the same conclusion that he did? What in that verse tells us to NOT study Paul's epistles? I would think that if unlearned and unstable people are wresting scriptures to their own destruction, then what they need is LEARNING and STABILITY, NOT IGNORANCE.

But hay, as long as we have a proof text, who can argue against it? Just ask the Jehova's Witnesses. They can proof text you to death.

 

And I see Donna is doing the same thing Gill did. She is exactly right. You can't just string together a bunch of verses that seems to say what you want them to. You've got to explain why a seemingly opposite truth is still true.

If God WANTS all people without exception to be saved, then why doesn't he just save them? Do you deny that he posseses the power to do it? Why, oh why, would a loving God let someone burn forever just because He refused to save them against their will?

The freewiller's answer is that there is some high principle which even God must answer to - the principle of human choice - human self-determination - humanism!

Freewill theology unintentionally leads us to a God that is not Supreme. He must not only respect and honor the "decisions" of men, but he must answer to some higher authority, some "law", outside of His own character, which He can not violate - one of them being: the supremacy of human will.

If God does not determine everything (as says scripture), then He determines nothing. His Kingdom is NOT a democracy.

 

J.D. -- Gill got it some right. :laugh: God willed that all be saved from sin by His Son and that is certainly true. EVERYONE will be resurrected to stand before Jesus as a result, most saved from sheol and resurrected from this earth to the GWT to do so.

Where Gill misses the mark is that he does not consider the book of life (Rev 20:12). See, that is the book where faith is registered and despite ALL sin being forgiven at the cross, those at the GWT will be condemned to the 2nd death on account of rejecting God/Christ/Holy Spirit. One just CANNOT get into that book without believing -- without partaking of the "new life in Christ!" That's why it is called "the book of life."

Your theology apparently ignores that God doesn't care about the book of works. He looks to the book of life regarding eternal destinies!

skypair

 

AMEN! Been tryin' to pin that on Calvinists for the longest time now! :laugh:

God does just what He says He will do in forgiving everyone of ALL their sin. The fatalist says that is untrue -- and yet EVERYONE is taken out of sheol. It's EMPTIED OUT because ALL sin was paid for. BUT -- unbelief is not paid for. God looks into "the book of works" and shows and tells that none of the unbelievers names are found -- i.e. they are condemned to the "2nd death" by their own unbelief.

skypair

 

Sky, are you talking about this:

It says the dead (I take that to mean the lost) will be judged according to their WORKS.


And this:

WHEN were names written/not written in the book of life?

Hint:

 

strange doctrine you have for a Baptist.

 

the book of works, a record of wrongs and a God of love skypair?

If God loves those that reject Him and He sends them to Hell for their sins then His love has failed. Yet we read in Corinthians love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8.
If God sends a person He loves to Hell then He keeps a record of wrongs, this is not love because love does not keep a record of wrongs. 1 Cor 13:5.
If God sends a person He loves to Hell then He is far from protecting them yet love always protects. 1 Cor 13:7.

The fatalist is one who believes in fate, not God.

Jesus did not die for everyman's sin. Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14. Deal with the scripture and correct my error please. As far as I see no atonement, on oath, was given for the house of Eli. This verse alone destroys the pretence that God loves everybody. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." And that was before they had done right or wrong. Rom 9:13.

john.

 

The reason why you cannot pin it on an Calvinist, is clear. Reason:..what you just said is not Calvinism. I really have no idea what you just said. Its not even found in the Bible. BTW...works do not save you.

Thank God for grace...