Fatalism Bites The Dust

[johnp.]

Hello Alan.

Even wonder why if all things in creation were determinded...

'If'? You mean since?

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??

No.

Why was hell not created for ALL their benifit if God desired some to go Heaven and the rest to Hell?

He worked in order with creation producing the fish after the water and the birds after the air and the prison after the prisoner.
Maybe He did not want to give the Devil and those who fell with him a clue. Maybe Satan would have hung back if he knew there was a place for him if he got it wrong.
"What's that place over there Lord?" "That's Hell where I am going to send you Satan."

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??

There you go with the 'if' again. I see no reason to think that election took place anywhere but in eternity and I don't normally try to sort any order out of eternity as God has always known everything.
Since He has why does He keep creating people for Hell?

...a reprobate...

The word means one that cannot be saved. A Christian was never a reprobate. We were separated from God - we went astray and the Good Shepherd was sent to find us.

john.

 

[Allan]

Hello Alan.




'If'? You mean since?



No.



He worked in order with creation producing the fish after the water and the birds after the air and the prison after the prisoner.
Maybe He did not want to give the Devil and those who fell with him a clue. Maybe Satan would have hung back if he knew there was a place for him if he got it wrong.
"What's that place over there Lord?" "That's Hell where I am going to send you Satan."



There you go with the 'if' again. I see no reason to think that election took place anywhere but in eternity and I don't normally try to sort any order out of eternity as God has always known everything.
Since He has why does He keep creating people for Hell?



The word means one that cannot be saved. A Christian was never a reprobate. We were separated from God - we went astray and the Good Shepherd was sent to find us.

john.

And this is my point John. If you aren't trying to figure out some order to which God did what He did in eternity (to which I agree) and the when and how He did it, then how do you maintain when and how election took place. It could be before, during or after anytime in God knowledge dispite the fact we know nothing about Gods knowledge or what He knew at that time.

But you still didn't answer the question? Why does Jesus state Hell was created for the Devil and his angels when God knew every person whom He would ever cast in there. Especially when you contend that God created some as vessels for destruction which are specifically designed to be cast into hell.

But as I said it was only a peice for fun and thought. Thanks for playing. Now back to the OP.

 

[Jarthur001]

And this is my point John. If you aren't trying to figure out some order to which God did what He did in eternity (to which I agree) and the when and how He did it, then how do you maintain when and how election took place. It could be before, during or after anytime in God knowledge dispite the fact we know nothing about Gods knowledge or what He knew at that time.

This statement always makes me smile.

When men were lead my the Holy Spirit to pen the words...."Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"...what time frame do you feel God wanted us to think this took place?

1) Was it before the world and time?
2) Was it yesterday?
Or was the goal here just to trick us?

If we do not know..then are all words of time found in the Bible to be taken the same way? Like "day of the Lord. Can we believe the Bible when it says this will come some day, or is this just another time frame we can not believe? Was Christ in the tomb 3 days, or was this too a trick? "One day is like a 1000 years", does it mean this, or is this just anough trick? Could we say that "one day is like 2 hours" and it be the same?

I for one believe the Bible when it says, before. Before means before, not after.

 

[Allan]

This statement always makes me smile.

When men were lead my the Holy Spirit to pen the words...."Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world"...what time frame do you feel God wanted us to think this took place?

1) Was it before the world and time?
2) Was it yesterday?
Or was the goal here just to trick us?

If we do not know..then are all words of time found in the Bible to be taken the same way? Like "day of the Lord. Can we believe the Bible when it says this will come some day, or is this just another time frame we can not believe? Was Christ in the tomb 3 days, or was this too a trick? "One day is like a 1000 years", does it mean this, or is this just anough trick? Could we say that "one day is like 2 hours" and it be the same?

I for one believe the Bible when it says, before. Before means before, not after.

James, you know very well how I meant it. And IF you didn't then sit back, get comfy and I'll explain once again.

We ALL know (or at least should know) All things were known to God before He began anything (before the foundation or creation of the world), otherwise He would be playing catch-up all the time and fixing He distasters He didn't account for.

I am stating and have repeatedly stated - No one knows the order of How God decided ANYTHING. It is purely philosophical to set up a chronology or 'our' apparent logical order of what and when God decided what He decided upon. All we know is that He knew it all and not when He knew anything. To set up a logical construct (In our opinion) is not bad but when it becomes the bed rock of a theological belief system you have a huge problem of making God in mans image.

The part about Hell being created for the Devil and his angels should make one wonder why God did not make it for everyone whom God created for such. If God choose Satan to fall and to decieve man, who in turn also fell BECAUSE God predeterminded them to be vessels of wrath before EITHER (angels or man) WERE CREATED BEINGS. So the question still stands at the words of Jesus, If all things were established in which every entity has a predesigned course. Then Why was hell created for the Devil and his angels? So then when did election take place...with regard to what God knew when hell was created (or thought of being created) Did God determine man to fall that some will be forever damned? Then it would stand that hell was created for them as well.

Anyhoo... Before this goes much further (if I actaully get responces back) I will move this to a thread of its own since I ony brought it to prove thought on the Op. I don't really desire it to take on a life of its own in THIS thread so if you want I can place it up on another

 

[Allan]

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.

That is EXACTLY what Gill did! He doesn't explain why the verses of scripture that ARE contrary actually mean the same thing. He states them and then does the jig all around them and never speaks to the issue of their non-conformity. You also seem to neglect that Fauset used more scripute to actually establish what he was showing the Context stating. The big difference I saw between Gill and Fauset is that Fauset established contexually his point while Gill expounded his presupposition to the single aspect of the text making it nothing more than a pre-text. He expounding would have worked in other places of scripture but the context kept his discertation outside the context at hand. IMO

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?

Because (though it is hard for you to hear this truth) God's plan is that man choose according to the truth He reveals to them - they can accept it or reject it. Of course He has the power to save everyone, but why save those who reject that which you reveal to them since it is was God how decreed that men can either beleive or reject His revealed truth. Even you as a Calvinist believe man has a free will - so that makes you a free willer just as much as me. You state that man freely stays in their condemned path. You are also correct in that man of himself and by himself will never, and I do mean not ever, will ever seek after God. But God is the difference in man free will. Jesus is the light that enlightens ALL men that come into the world, and the Holy Spirit has come to convict the WORLD (mankind) of sin, of righteousness, and of the Judgment to come. By these a man does not say I want to be saved now, but cries out for mercy KNOWING he deserves None but begging for some display thereof IF possible. And we know that it is, for none but those He foreknew would call upon His name in such a way.

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!

You REALLY need to study more on the Baptistic doctrine concerning mans choice. Please share with us some of those who teach that God is answerable to man choice. How is that even possible when man can not be saved unless God reveals truth via the Holy Spirit concerning His son the Lord Jesus Christ. It is all of God and forever will be. And please, keep the ad hominems at home. It has nothing to do with 'human self-determination' for no man seeks after God of or by himself. Salvation COMES to man, man does not call it down from God. As I said, study more or find someone that actually understands their doctrines or understands the doctrines they are trying to deride.

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.

Again false due to complete unsubstantiated claims of 'freewill theology leads to a God (sic) that is not supreme. Your issue it that you do not understand the concept of actual freewill theology. Wesleys God was supreme, Moodys God was supreme, Sundays God was supreme, Sankeys God was supreme, the early church fathers such as Cleament of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory the Naziazen, Prosper and many other whos God was not inferior but Supreme. Present day freewiller luminaries such as Kittle, Vines, Vincent, Souters, Hastings, Walter Martin just to name a few whos God is total and supreme. The list continues and goes down throught the ages back to Paul, Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, disciples, Jesus, and futher still to the OT prophets and Priests who God is supreme.

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

Your right and God determind that man has the resposiblity to accept or reject the truth that God will reveal to them. Your biggest issue as I see it, is that you (nor anyone else for that matter) have no idea how God determind anything nor the extent of His determining except for that IN His determining all thing work together for His purpose, plan, and good pleasure. We can see little snips or small fuzy shapshots at best. From there doctrines are established upon principles that can not be co-oberated nor substantiated via scripture but in them mind of finite man making God what into what man best guesses

 

[Allan]

oops, a double posting

 

[GordonSlocum]

I think the real issue is that we let "them" think for "us"

Do the work yourself and leave them out of it.

Have you read books where every other paragraph is a quote. That drives me up a wall. Do the authors not think for themselves? There are times when the writing necessitates the quoting of the author. That is called a review or critique of the person's work. But if you are supporting a view that you have accepted - do the work yourself. We all know what Jack and John wrote, but what do you say apart form them?

Do it yourself. Read the Bible and tell us what you see the text saying. You don't have to lock yourself into a particular view.

You might say that "on the surface it looks like it says this". However, later in the text you see other information that looks like a contradiction. Now you doubt and you wonder. What are your thoughts? You don't have to lock yourself in simply by expressing your thoughts and what you observe. Always reserve the right to re-consider and change your view. But stop letting these so call commentators dictate to you what to believe.

Write your own commentary. You can. Lay it out and define it based on what you observe. Yes, you will re-write and revise and re visit but in the end it is your work.

You might say, but they are smarter than me. Hog wash. if their smartness equals right then we are in deep trouble. Look at all the very intelligent people in the world and look how many view they hold.

I see a heart that pumps blood. They see the same heart and they can tell about all the different parts, but in the end it is still a pump weather I know the names and function of the individual parts. I don't want to over simplify it but - Do the work yourself. Study to show yourself approved. That means you do the studying of God's work and stop letting Calvin or Arminus think for you.

 

[skypair]

Johnny --

You misconstrue what I said.

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

The book of works is the book of GOOD works, man.

If God loves those that reject Him and He sends them to Hell for their sins then His love has failed.

No, He doesn't send them to hell for their sins. He sends them for UNBELIEF, johnny. What did the "rich man" say to Abraham, Luke 16:28-29? "For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."

Two things, john: 1) They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." How's that gonna happen unless they are "elect?" "regenerated?" 2) Lazarus can tell them and they will BELIEVE and not come here. Did Abraham deny any of this? Did Abraham tell the rich man, "No, it's beyond that. They aren't elect?"

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.

Do you see your error yet? God has forgiven everything. But He won't make anyone love Him. How can He? By coddling them? spoiling them? By requiring nothing of them? Think about it, john.

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

You said it! If you think only the elect are saved rather than that the saved are elect, you're a fatalist, right?

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.

True, they could not be restored to their temporal positions on account of sin. Sn follows you all your life unless God has mercy.

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.

Do you know when that was actually said? Mal 1:2, john. Hundreds of years AFTER they were dead. John, God hated Esau's ANCESTORS. He "FOREKNEW" from before their births that He would. He DIDN'T hate Esau personally -- nor any of us individually. You are making inappropriate application in this instance.

skypair

 

[skypair]

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

GOOD works! That book of GOOD works will be there are EVERY judgment -- even the Bema (1Cor 3). It's the "record" of our "gold, silver, precious stones."

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

FOREKNOWN, right? God didn't write them down "sight unseen," did He? Putting names of folks who would never believe in with folks who do.

Besides, there is intriguing evidence that ALL are written in the book of life and that those who die in unbelief are "erased!" Whatdaya think of that?

skypair

 

[J.D.]

GOOD works! That book of GOOD works will be there are EVERY judgment -- even the Bema (1Cor 3). It's the "record" of our "gold, silver, precious stones."

I'm sure God will be impressed with your good works at the GWT. I'm hoping for grace.

 

[J.D.]

J.D. reply is in bold.

That is EXACTLY what Gill did! He doesn't explain why the verses of scripture that ARE contrary actually mean the same thing. He states them and then does the jig all around them and never speaks to the issue of their non-conformity. You also seem to neglect that Fauset used more scripute to actually establish what he was showing the Context stating. The big difference I saw between Gill and Fauset is that Fauset established contexually his point while Gill expounded his presupposition to the single aspect of the text making it nothing more than a pre-text. He expounding would have worked in other places of scripture but the context kept his discertation outside the context at hand. IMO

You must not have read it, or you can't be serious, or, you're blind.


Because (though it is hard for you to hear this truth) God's plan is that man choose according to the truth He reveals to them - they can accept it or reject it. Of course He has the power to save everyone, but why save those who reject that which you reveal to them since it is was God how decreed that men can either beleive or reject His revealed truth. Even you as a Calvinist believe man has a free will - so that makes you a free willer just as much as me. You state that man freely stays in their condemned path. You are also correct in that man of himself and by himself will never, and I do mean not ever, will ever seek after God. But God is the difference in man free will. Jesus is the light that enlightens ALL men that come into the world, and the Holy Spirit has come to convict the WORLD (mankind) of sin, of righteousness, and of the Judgment to come. By these a man does not say I want to be saved now, but cries out for mercy KNOWING he deserves None but begging for some display thereof IF possible. And we know that it is, for none but those He foreknew would call upon His name in such a way.

I don't believe in human free will. Only God's will is free.

You REALLY need to study more on the Baptistic doctrine concerning mans choice. Please share with us some of those who teach that God is answerable to man choice. How is that even possible when man can not be saved unless God reveals truth via the Holy Spirit concerning His son the Lord Jesus Christ. It is all of God and forever will be. And please, keep the ad hominems at home. It has nothing to do with 'human self-determination' for no man seeks after God of or by himself. Salvation COMES to man, man does not call it down from God. As I said, study more or find someone that actually understands their doctrines or understands the doctrines they are trying to deride.

What is "Baptistic" doctrine? You don't say it with your mouth because you know better, so why do you teach it in your theology? How many times has it been said on BB "YOUR salvation depends on YOUR choice"?

Again false due to complete unsubstantiated claims of 'freewill theology leads to a God (sic) that is not supreme. Your issue it that you do not understand the concept of actual freewill theology. Wesleys God was supreme, Moodys God was supreme, Sundays God was supreme, Sankeys God was supreme, the early church fathers such as Cleament of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory the Naziazen, Prosper and many other whos God was not inferior but Supreme. Present day freewiller luminaries such as Kittle, Vines, Vincent, Souters, Hastings, Walter Martin just to name a few whos God is total and supreme. The list continues and goes down throught the ages back to Paul, Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, disciples, Jesus, and futher still to the OT prophets and Priests who God is supreme.

I was a freewiller for 23 years as a deacon, pastor, teacher, and preacher. All in an IFB church. Don't tell me I don't understand freewill theology. I know what the conclusions are. You can call them strawmen if you want, but they're still there. Wesley, Moody, etc., said that God is supreme, and in their heart they probably did believe it because that's why they knew better than to say that He isn't, but their theology says differently.

Your right and God determind that man has the resposiblity to accept or reject the truth that God will reveal to them. Your biggest issue as I see it, is that you (nor anyone else for that matter) have no idea how God determind anything nor the extent of His determining except for that IN His determining all thing work together for His purpose, plan, and good pleasure. We can see little snips or small fuzy shapshots at best. From there doctrines are established upon principles that can not be co-oberated nor substantiated via scripture but in them mind of finite man making God what into what man best guesses

You said "His determining all thing work together for His purpose, plan, and good pleasure", so I see we agree on something.

 

[johnp.]

He DIDN'T hate Esau personally -- nor any of us individually. You are making inappropriate application in this instance.

The scripture clearly states that God chose to hate Esau and the word used is detested. He detested Esau and He detested Edom because they came from Esau. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Rom 9:13.

He DIDN'T hate Esau personally -- nor any of us individually. You are making inappropriate application in this instance.

God says one thing and you back-chat Him? Cool.

Do you know when that was actually said? Mal 1:2, john. Hundreds of years AFTER they were dead.

God says one thing and you correct Him. Rom 9:12 ...she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Wrong again.

Do you see your error yet? God has forgiven everything. But He won't make anyone love Him. How can He? By coddling them? spoiling them? By requiring nothing of them? Think about it, john.

Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Go and read the parable where the seed fell into good soil and then come back and tell me where you got your heart of flesh from. Mk 4:1-8.

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

You said it! If you think only the elect are saved rather than that the saved are elect, you're a fatalist, right?

No, and donnA said it, I like repeating the truth. Go and find out the difference between fate and determinism, but since you called God the would be King I shouldn't think you care much about the truth skypair.

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.

True, they could not be restored to their temporal positions on account of sin. Sn follows you all your life unless God has mercy.

You agree then, limited atonement is proved.

john.

 

[skypair]

I'm sure God will be impressed with your good works at the GWT. I'm hoping for grace.

Huh? YOU'RE going to the GWT?? Not me.

And I hope you are not merely "hoping" for grace. That would indicate you don't know you are "elect," J.D. Do you know whether you are saved or not? :tear:

J.D. -- even the "saved so as by fire" do not have bad works to account for. They have to be cleared of the thoughts of men (wood), the wisdom of men (hay) and the glory of men (stubble) that they still believe, 1Cor 3! Read and underline the words thoughts, wisdom, and glory that appear after the "saved so as by fire," J.D.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Why didn't you...

...respond to the first part of my post? on God's love and unbelief?

The scripture clearly states that God chose to hate Esau and the word used is detested. He detested Esau and He detested Edom because they came from Esau. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Rom 9:13.

Yes, it clearly states it. The Bible clearly gives in Job bad advice from his 3 friends. One said Job would be saved by santimonious ritual. Do you also do as they suggest? Or do you first consider the context of what they said?

God says one thing and you correct Him. Rom 9:12 ...she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Let's get your accusations straight -- I am correcting YOU, not God. God FOREKNEW all this stuff lay in the line of Esau. But when Jacob returned to Esau, God had blessed Esau the man just as much as Jacob.

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

And apparently, you look to fate, not God, just like Calvin did. "Unconditional Election" (TULIP) is, quite clearly, a FATE with which YOU had nothing to do, isn't it. :laugh:

Go and find out the difference between fate and determinism,...

Fate IS determinism, john. Fate is when some outside agency DETERMINES your fate and not you yourself.

You agree then, limited atonement is proved.

Ah! I never looked at is as applying temporally before, but yes -- if you want to say there are still consequences of sin that Jesus did not pay for -- yes, TEMPORALLY that would appear to hold true. But I don't think any of us thought otherwise (re: Heb 10:26).

skypair