If a person cannot come to God unless God draws him does this mean that....

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by StefanM:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Calvinists are right, then my major problem with that is that it doesn't square with God being Love - if God has the power to save all men, and yet chooses to save only some, knowing that the remainder will go to eternal punishment as a result of no decision they've made then that makes Him morally no better than a guy who sees two children drowning, can save both, and yet chooses to only save one.

But the universalist could just as easily reply that it is morally reprehensible for God to refuse to save even those who have willfully rejected the truth, when it would clearly be within his power to do so.

BTW, I'm not a Calvinist. </font>[/QUOTE]And I would disagree with the universalist, because (and this is the critical difference with Calvinism) those who have rejected God have done so of their own free will and are therefore responsible for their actions. The Calvinists would have it that we have no free will and that therefore, whilst Man has no control over his actions, he has nevertheless to bear the consequences of those actions. That to me is manifestly unjust and accordingly against God's nature.

 

[Briguy]

Matt, I, in good faith, answered your question. Yes, I knew what you would say to my answer but I answered anyway. You resonded by making a new point. The new point should have come after you answered my question, even if you feel that you know what I will say after you answer the question. I will respond to what you said after you answer my question. That would be the correct order of our conversation. Your points in this are very good and I understand your perspective and sometimes I feel like I want to lean that way. Anyway, in all fairness you need to answer my question and then we can proceed. You should not have asked me a question if you did not intend to answer mine. Thanks much!

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Matt Black]

My question in response to yours was in order to clarify what you meant by 'unjust' and 'unloving'. It was necessary for me to have that clarification from you in order for me to answer your question.

Yes it is unloving to refuse to save someone even if they deserve the predicament they are in (see my example of the children - it's their fault they're in the water but it is still right and proper to save them and wrong to let them drown), particularly if you claim to be Love itself. It is also unjust to save one and not the other. I would also question your use of the word 'deserve': if, as in the Calvinist scheme of things, an individual is born into a state of sin or depravity, then that individual has done nothing to deserve punishment.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the Calvinists are right, then my major problem with that is that it doesn't square with God being Love - if God has the power to save all men, and yet chooses to save only some, knowing that the remainder will go to eternal punishment as a result of no decision they've made then that makes Him morally no better than a guy who sees two children drowning, can save both, and yet chooses to only save one.

True -

But that is just 4 and 5 point Calvinists. 3 point Calvinists do not fall for the error of "limited atonement" as in "limited Gospel - limited Grace limited Sacrifice of Christ" the way the others do.

But also consider this - Christ "WINS" by suffering and dying for our sins. that is how Satan is defeated.

The ONLY WAY that getting stomped on and crushed and dying for others is "WINNING" is in a system that needs "MORE INFORMATION" as in the case of Job 1 and 2. ONLY in a free will system where non-God beings are SEEKING to understand via experiments and lessons learned here - does such a thing mean "victory".

BY CONTRAST in a system based on arbitrary force, power, might and selection the STRONGEST simply STOMPS on the opposition - no questions asked! Christ would have ridden the Rev 19 white horse JUST BEFORE Adam was tempted and crushed Satan - DAY ONE ! Enemy wiped out by the bigger and stronger, faster and smarter -- the one who NEEDS no reason and accepts no questions!

THAT would have been "the Calvinist bible" had one been written.

And HAD anyone dared to ask "Why didn't you let Satan tempt Adam and see what would happen and then if mankind falls then agree to die in man's place and suffer all that Satan can hurl against you to stop you from saving mankind" the answer would be "did I say you could speak? Why in the world would I want to put us ALL through such a thing!!"


In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BriGuy
To be elected to Heaven people can't vote, only God can. If God votes for me I win and I go to Heaven. If He doesn't vote for me I do not go to Heaven. Could it be that basic?? It is very much worth studying
Is it un-loving or un-just for a person to be allowed to get what they deserve

Hi Brian,
In your illustration to vote, you arrive at the necessitated conclusion of Calvinism. God predestines some to election and some to damnation. You cannot escape that conclusion. Calvin himself admitted to this double predestination. Scripture tells us that God is NOT a respecter of persons. If what your conclusion implies is true, how could He not be?

There is not really enough background on your other statement to be absolutely sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the one that did not get a vote by God to salvation, and consequently of necessity got a vote to damnation, ‘deserved such a vote? ‘If’ in fact that is what you are implying, tell me why anyone, in which no other possibility existed other than to end up with the fate of God’s choosing, can ‘deserve’ such a fate. One would have to have been damned before he was born. What else could he have done? It would appear to me that you must believe that one, having absolutely no possible choice to be anything other than what God has ordained, deserves his fate due to the fact the individual cannot do something God Himself cannot do, overcome necessitated fate.