Is God a Failure?

[webdog]

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.

...except you left off the rejection.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Allan, you know me too well. We've discussed this before, so I'd rather not chase this rabbit right now. But I confess it did occur to me.

 

[Tom Butler]

...except you left off the rejection.

Then let me add it. Non-Cals: If anyone rejects Christ and is not saved, it's not God's fault.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Sorry Andy. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[webdog]

Then let me add it. Non-Cals: If anyone rejects Christ and is not saved, it's not God's fault.

Better if by rejection we mean (Websters):
1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit :

 

[Tom Butler]

Allan, let me cherry-pick through this post:

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.

Not only must be through faith, but it will 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 Puritins writings, Presby and early Reformers writings

Agreed. The gospel call is valid and sincere to all to whom it is preached.

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.

Hmm, I don't understand. Here we are agreeing again.

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 decretive will.

Agree again. You sure you're not a closet Calvinist? Or maybe I'm a closet non-Cal.
The rest of your post covers ground we've covered before, so I won't repeat it.

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

You are so easy.

 

[Tom Butler]

Better if by rejection we mean (Websters):
1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use <rejected the suggestion> <reject a manuscript> b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit :

Since I think non-Cals ought to be able to define the terms of their position, whatever definition you pick is fine with me. You saw what happened when I tried to define it for them.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allan, you know me too well. We've discussed this before, so I'd rather not chase this rabbit right now. But I confess it did occur to me.

My son and I will be chasing some rabbits in January...hopefully all the way to the stew pot!

Carry on.

 

[Steven2006]

Since my question was never answered, I'lll ask it again and open it up to everyone.


Quote:
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?

 

[MB]

Since my question was never answered, I'lll ask it again and open it up to everyone.


Quote:
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?

Though I'm not a Calvinist you certainly have a point here. Since Calvinism holds to a particular view of who will be saved and who won't by limiting election and atonement it would certainly seems as if God must have failed in there eyes.
MB

 

[Salamander]

John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So then, can it be said that those who will not come are those whom God has not given to the Son?

Or,asked another way, all those whom God has not given to the Son will not come?

Another question: If God does not give them to the Son, can they come anyway?

God gives all to the Son who come to Him for rest for their weary souls.

The fact remains that all sinners don't get weary of the burden of sin, they tend to flaunt it instead.

All who come to him shall not ever be cast out as those he never knew. God never knew anyone who has not come to Him for forgiveness. This "knowledge" deals expressly with rekationship that first must be established through coming to God in a broken will.

A broken will speaks of weariness due to the complications of sin.

No one has ever limited who can come or how many will come or even how many can come who get weary of the burden that sin places on everyone, inclusive of all of mankind.

God's grace never excludes, it is found to be inclusive of all who come and anyone can, it's just everyone won't.

From my "vile mouth".:godisgood: and I'm vile.

 

[Salamander]

Since my question was never answered, I'lll ask it again and open it up to everyone.


Quote:
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?

My previous post answers your question

From my "vile mouth":godisgood: and I'm vile.

 

[Rippon]

From my "vile mouth":godisgood: and I'm vile.

Confession is good for the soul.

 

[Rippon]

Though I'm not a Calvinist you certainly have a point here. Since Calvinism holds to a particular view of who will be saved and who won't by limiting election and atonement it would certainly seems as if God must have failed in there eyes.
MB

Calvinists have insisted that God had a particular design of the atonement whereby certain ones would be saved.That was the Lord's specific intention.How you can possibly construe this as failure on God's part is puzzling as well as blasphemous.

 

[Steven2006]

My previous post answers your question

From my "vile mouth":godisgood: and I'm vile.

Sorry if I missed it, but I don't see how that addressed my question.

 

[Steven2006]

Calvinists have insisted that God had a particular design of the atonement whereby certain ones would be saved.That was the Lord's specific intention.How you can possibly construe this as failure on God's part is puzzling as well as blasphemous.

In fairness to MB, I think you misunderstood the point he was making. He was responding to my post.

This was posted earlier in the thread.
Quote:
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?


In response to that, I posed this question:


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?

MB was just reponding to my question.

 

[Tom Butler]

God gives all to the Son who come to Him for rest for their weary souls.

The fact remains that all sinners don't get weary of the burden of sin, they tend to flaunt it instead.

All who come to him shall not ever be cast out as those he never knew. God never knew anyone who has not come to Him for forgiveness. This "knowledge" deals expressly with rekationship that first must be established through coming to God in a broken will.

A broken will speaks of weariness due to the complications of sin.

No one has ever limited who can come or how many will come or even how many can come who get weary of the burden that sin places on everyone, inclusive of all of mankind.

God's grace never excludes, it is found to be inclusive of all who come and anyone can, it's just everyone won't.

From my "vile mouth".:godisgood: and I'm vile.

John 6:37 has an order. God gives to the Son, the given will come, not vice versa.