Is God a Failure?

[OldRegular]

So from such a statement, let me be the first to congratulate you on your "arrival" of unwavering truth :applause:

I'm glad you now have it all figured out!

I haven't got your remark all figured out. Don't plan to spend any time on it. Perhaps you could enlighten me just a little; that is if you are trying to make a point.

 

[ray Marshall]

I could give an answer to each of your questions which you may or may not accept. I suggest you answer each of them in the context of the Scripture you presented. Other Scripture that may be helpful are as follows:

John 6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

The 6th chapter of the Gospel of John can provide the answer to your questions.

This question will never be resolved by us little worms, at least that is what JOB called us all. I believe John 6:37 and 6:44 , and EPHESIANS 2:1 And You hath HE Quickened...... Who does the quickening, I don't see Mans name mentioned there. CAN A MAN QUICKEN HIMSELF? No where in the Bible.

 

[Rippon]

So from such a statement, let me be the first to congratulate you on your "arrival" of unwavering truth :applause:

I'm glad you now have it all figured out!

OldRegular was responding to a confusing post by M4Him supposedly on the sovereignty of God.OldRegular wasn't saying he knows everything -- but I guarantee that he knows more than you and I.

I see you're still doing your drive-by sniper fire Wd.

 

[webdog]

OldRegular was responding to a confusing post by M4Him supposedly on the sovereignty of God.OldRegular wasn't saying he knows everything -- but I guarantee that he knows more than you and I.

I see you're still doing your drive-by sniper fire Wd.

No, just pointing out things as I go along...kinda like you just did here. This is a public forum you know...

 

[Andy T.]

I don't think Noel Smith's view is the mainstream non-Calvinist view on this. I think the more widely held view among non-Calvinists is not that God failed or is less than omnipotent; rather, it's that God is not willing to save people against their "free will." So it is not a matter of God's failure to save people, it's simply that He doesn't want to save people who don't want to be saved. I haven't taken a poll or anything, but I think this is the more common view among non-Calvinists. I welcome correction, though, and would be interested in hearing about other possible non-Calvinist views besides these two.

 

[Reformer]

And here I was thinking the noncals were the ones who thought God was a failure, after all if He died for ALL the sins of ALL the people, why are there people in hell?

I think it would help people understand this particular subject if they READ THIS, I know nobody will, but it would greatly help you understand how a cal views II Peter 3:9

Reformer

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

My guess is that this is the same Noel Smith who was part of the founding of the BBF. He served as the first editor of the Baptist Bible Tribune, and if one wants to find the context of his statements their archives would be the best place to start. Unfortunately, the portion of their archives that is available online only go back a year or so, but if you contact someone on their staff they might be able to assist you.

BJ

 

[webdog]

And here I was thinking the noncals were the ones who thought God was a failure, after all if He died for ALL the sins of ALL the people, why are there people in hell?

I think it would help people understand this particular subject if they READ THIS, I know nobody will, but it would greatly help you understand how a cal views II Peter 3:9

Reformer

I have read that before...and your conclusion is a strawman. Man is in hell for not believing (John 3:18). Atonement is not salvation.

 

[OldRegular]

This question will never be resolved by us little worms, at least that is what JOB called us all. I believe John 6:37 and 6:44 , and EPHESIANS 2:1 And You hath HE Quickened...... Who does the quickening, I don't see Mans name mentioned there. CAN A MAN QUICKEN HIMSELF? No where in the Bible.

You are correct, unregenerate man is spiritually dead and cannot resuscitate himself. That man JOB was very perceptive, also a littly earthy when it came to worms.

 

[Steven2006]

And here I was thinking the noncals were the ones who thought God was a failure, after all if He died for ALL the sins of ALL the people, why are there people in hell?

Using that logic does this verse make God a failure in the eyes of Calvinists?

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Since Hell was prepared by God for the devil and his angels, and not for man did God fail in that millions of men end up there?

 

[swaimj]

My guess is that this is the same Noel Smith who was part of the founding of the BBF.

Yes, and while it was quite complimentary of Reisinger to call Smith a theologian, it is probably an exaggeration. Smith was not, I don't think, primarily known as a theologian. His statement is, from the sound of it, taken from a sermon, not a theological lecture and is a purposeful sermonic overstatement, made for effect. It seems to have sucked Tom Butler right in, just as Tom Butler has sucked some non-calvinists into a rather sillly debate. It is very easy, in a theological debate, to overstate your oponent's position and draw them into defending the indefensible. Congrats, Tom. You succeeded! Now perhaps you can explain how God loves all men yet condemns most men to hell while either never letting them hear the gospel or letting them hear it, yet not giving them the faith to receive it. You see how easy it is to do? What fun!

Here's a suggestion, Tom. Take a poll and ask how many people on the BB think God has ever failed at anything. My guess is no one on the BB thinks God has failed. So, why does anyone feel compelled to defend what Smith said?

 

[pinoybaptist]

[/size][/size][/font]

this has nothing to do with the OP, frankly I don't get into Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but how is it one can be considered godly and hate other Christians? I just don't get it...

1027 posts and you haven't figure it out yet ? (just joking :laugh: ).

Stick around the A v C debates, and you'll get to know the "personalities", and wade thru the couched lingo and figure out who really loves brethren.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes, and while it was quite complimentary of Reisinger to call Smith a theologian, it is probably an exaggeration. Smith was not, I don't think, primarily known as a theologian. His statement is, from the sound of it, taken from a sermon, not a theological lecture and is a purposeful sermonic overstatement, made for effect. It seems to have sucked Tom Butler right in, just as Tom Butler has sucked some non-calvinists into a rather sillly debate. It is very easy, in a theological debate, to overstate your oponent's position and draw them into defending the indefensible. Congrats, Tom. You succeeded! Now perhaps you can explain how God loves all men yet condemns most men to hell while either never letting them hear the gospel or letting them hear it, yet not giving them the faith to receive it. You see how easy it is to do? What fun!

Here's a suggestion, Tom. Take a poll and ask how many people on the BB think God has ever failed at anything. My guess is no one on the BB thinks God has failed. So, why does anyone feel compelled to defend what Smith said?

Yeah, I guess I did get sucked in. When I read a statement by an anti-Calvinist that doesn't follow the normal arguments, I'm hooked.

So I posted the quote and asked did God fail? Boy did that suck everybody in. It was so easy. What fun, indeed. All I had to do was juxtapose "God is not willing that any should perish" with "yet some perish" and we were off and running. Few if any of you sought to resolve those statements. All you said was, God didn't fail.

At least Andy T made the effort:

So it is not a matter of God's failure to save people, it's simply that He doesn't want to save people who don't want to be saved.

Saying God wants to save all , but doesn't want to save some? Nice try, but no cigar.

After reading those redundant and interminable C/A debate threads, I honestly thought this was a fairly fresh way to approach it.

Now this question: why is it okay for non-Cals to find some differences among Spurgeon, Piper, Mohler, Sproul, etc., and try to pit them against each other, and it's not okay for me to do the same?

Now, I don't believe anybody here on the Baptist Board thinks God failed in this instance, or in any other instance. Calvinists and Non-Cals agree on this. However, the Cals' reasons for believing so are a bit more coherent that the non-Cals' reasons.

Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intends to save, and will lose none of them.

Non-Cals: God didn't fail. He intends to save all who repent and believe. He will save all those folks, and won't lose a one of them. If some of those he wants to save don't get saved, it's not his fault.

You don't like the way I put the non-Cal argument? Okay, set me straight. Far be it from me to misrepresent that position.

Just remember, anybody who replies to this post can't say they were sucked in. You came in of your own, uh, free will.

Sorry, that was snotty. I take it back.

 

[Allan]

Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intends to save, and will lose none of them.

Non-Cals: God didn't fail. He intends to save all who repent and believe. He will save all those folks, and won't lose a one of them. If some of those he wants to save don't get saved, it's not his fault.

You don't like the way I put the non-Cal argument? Okay, set me straight. Far be it from me to misrepresent that position.

Ok.

Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intends to save, and will lose none of them.

Non-Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intended to save (all who repent and believe), and will lose none of them. Those who wont believe are damned because they rejected His offer of and to salvation. (2 Thes 2:11-12)


BTW - wipe your nose Mr. Snotty :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Let me just add this because I KNOW what you would state next regarding not accepting Christ (what about those who never heard - was I right? )

This aspect also is encompassed in that statement but more in a general form. The reason is because those who reject the truths which God has revealed to them are rejecting still those truths which must be believed even in the gospel and it is due to their rection that God gives them over to their sin and thus His judgment (Rom 1). All truth that God reveals centers on and around Christ though it is not fully manifested to them specifically as the gospel is. But the rejection of such truths is also a rejection of Christ becuase He is Truth.

 

[Andy T.]

At least Andy T made the effort:
Saying God wants to save all , but doesn't want to save some? Nice try, but no cigar.

The non-Cal always has a qualifier to their general statement "God wants to save all," and that qualifier is that He only saves those who want to be saved. Allan expressed this view in his post.

Note, that I don't agree with that argument, but I was trying to present what I think most non-Cals believe on the matter.

 

[Allan]

The non-Cal always has a qualifier to their general statement "God wants to save all," and that qualifier is that He only saves those who want to be saved. Allan expressed this view in his post.

Note, that I don't agree with that argument, but I was trying to present what I think most non-Cals believe on the matter.

Actaully you are incorrect in this:
There is no 'qualifier' that is any different than Cals.
Their view is much the same. God desires to save his elect but it must be through faith. The only difference in either view is that the Non-Cal believes like the early reformers that God does indeed give them, the non-elect, a gospel 'offer' just as valid as He does for His elect. You can find this in the Purtins writings, Presby and early Reformers writings.

The fact remain that God saves exactly whom He intended - those who are of faith (regardless of how this is transpired). Thus God has not failed in any manner.

Also we can not just pretend that scripture is misinformed when it states that God wills/desires all men to be saved and to come the knowledge of truth.

His desire is not the same thing as His decreative will. God does indeed love His creation and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Yet that does not mean He will not judge them not only rightously but eternally in hell. If the scripture stated that God desires "to save all men" THEN one can say that God has indeed failed. But the scripture does not state this; it states He desires all men to be saved and come.. (not forcablely - no insinuation AT ALL - just text) to the knowledge (or full knowledge) of truth.

God will not force His truth upon any man - meaning simply that man must receive/believe ( also known as the responsibility of man). It remains truth regardless of what the man thinks but not that the man has to receive it. Thus we find in 2 Tim 3 it states that in the last day perilous times shall come.. where men will lovers of themselves (and every other sin under sun) leading away those who will listen, seemingly godly but having no power... ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of truth. IOW - They will look at everything and spit out the seed and chaff.

I have read many a theologian who has lopped of limb and bow of scripture to try to make this passage fit into their theology. The problem they have is that it means just what it says and says just what it means. If you will not the context of the surrounding passages you will find that Paul is speaking of men (mankind) in general and thus this passage is to be read regarding all men, exclusively, not inclusively.


ALRIGHT TOM, see ... you sucked me in ...uuuuuuuug!

 

[Andy T.]

The fact remain that God saves exactly whom He intended - those who are of faith (regardless of how this is transpired). Thus God has not failed in any manner.

I agree. But you have to also agree that if God desires to save all men - then that desire has to have a qualifier, since we know that (a) God is omnipotent and omniscient and (b) not all men are saved. So the only other option is that God may desire all men to be saved, but His desire for men to have their "free will" is greater than His desire for them to be saved. Otherwise, He would circumvent their free will (however that may occur) and save them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

While Allen's reply was more reasonable than most, no one has really addressed Tom's question properly.

When you agree that God desires all men to saved, what do you mean by desire?

When you say God wants all men saved, what do you mean by all men?

After you have defined your terms, then please explain to us how it is that some are not saved. Now please...stop with the focus on man...that is not the object of the text of Scripture...the object is God and the adjectives are desire, the action is salvation.

Proceed...

 

[Tom Butler]

Ok.

Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intends to save, and will lose none of them.

Non-Cals: God didn't fail because he saved and will save all whom he intended to save (all who repent and believe), and will lose none of them. Those who wont believe are damned because they rejected His offer of and to salvation. (2 Thes 2:11-12)
BTW - wipe your nose Mr. Snotty :laugh:

There's nothing untrue in your non-Cal revision. It's another way of saying what I said, that if anybody is not saved, it's not God's fault.

Am wiping nose as I write.