Justice: God's perspective vs. man's perspective

[The Archangel]

Consider this analogy:

Suppose everyone in the world was born with a disease and every person in the world was offered the antidote. Thus, only those who refused to take the antidote died of the disease. What would you say is the reason for dying in this scenario? Is the Disease the real reason? No, because they were offered the antidote, they didn't have to die of the disease, thus the disease is NOT the real reason they died. The real reason they died was because they refused the antidote. Now, if the antidote had never been provided, then yes, the reason for dying would be the disease. But once the solution has been purchased, once the antidote has been paid for then there is NO other reason for dying except for refusing to accept the antidote.

The reason you all have a problem with this is because you don't believe God is really providing the antidote to all men, he is just pretending to offer it to everyone thus the issue of divine culpability and injustice. This is what creates theological inconsistencies and biblical contradictions.

The disease would be the reason for death. Though your analogy is hopelessly flawed (more on that later), the disease is the cause of the death.

Your aberrant theology is really showing here. In your analogy, the cause of death is failure to take the antidote. In the Bible the cause of the disease is sin. Sin causes death, the disease causes death. The antidote can stop the disease, but it does not give life...it just stops death. Christ releases us from the power of sin (including death) by giving us life--something an antidote cannot do.

This shows that you think man isn't bad, sin isn't bad and because of this misunderstanding, grace is not amazing. Moreover, this shows that--regardless what you pay lip-service to--you think that God owes redemption to everyone. The truth of the matter is this: God owes redemption to no one. He would have been perfectly just in letting us all go to Hell.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Clearly he is addressing Christians, of course, but he is OBVIOUSLY doing so in such a way to show that they (the believers) have been given the "ministry of reconciliation" so as take the "appeal to be reconciled to the whole world." The very first sentence of this paragraph sums Paul's intent up pretty well, "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the LORD, we try to persuade men." Something a Calvinist would NEVER SAY.

And he sums it up even more clearly in his final sentence describing this ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

You know, you claim to have been a Calvinist yet you continuously misrepresent what we say. Almost any Calvinist would affirm a general Gospel invitation and a "pleading" to come to Christ. Paul pleaded and so do we (after all, Paul was the first "Calvinist," so to speak).

The truth of the matter is that many Calvinist evangelists, pastors, and missionaries plead with people to accept Christ and in that there is nothing that goes against our theology. You simply do not understand that which you supposedly held.

But according to your theology those who "refuse to love the truth and so be saved" were never provided this so-called "antidote" so as to be "released from the condemnation." Thus, you negate the very reason Paul lists for why they are perishing, "because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" when from you perspective they "couldn't love the truth" because salvation was never provided for them. The TRUTH for them is that they are non-elect and destined to eternal hell...there is nothing for them to refuse because nothing has been offered to them.

Again, you are suggesting that for God to be just He has to offer salvation to all. Nothing in the Bible suggests this.

You are putting man in the middle-ground--neither good nor bad. You think condemnation is forthcoming when we are condemned already. That belief in Christ is the ticket out of this condemnation does not change that the default position is condemnation and a condemnation for our sins.

Again, those with faith and those without faith use careless words, yet somehow they are different, both are not condemned. I wonder what makes them different? FAITH.

Again, you and I both know that there will be murders, liars, sorcerers and all these in heaven one day. Why? FAITH. Those who are condemned are NOT condemned because they were a murder, liar or whatever, they are condemned because they REFUSE TO BELIEVE!

Because of belief you say? Really?! What does Paul say?

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)
​

Notice who will not inherit the kingdom of God--The "unrighteous." Now this word, in Greek, refers to one who violates the divine law. So, it is not the "unbeliever." How does one violate the divine law? By being sexually immoral, idolatrous, committing adultery, practicing homosexuality, being a thief, being greedy, being a drunk, being a reviler, being a swindler. Anyone one of these things means that--by our action--we have violated God's law.

Unbelief isn't even listed in this representative list. Why didn't Paul say "do you not know that the unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Because it is not unbelief but our sin that condemns us.

Now, all of us violate God's law, even you will agree to this. What then is the difference between the "murders, liars, sorcerers" who will one day be in heaven and those who will be in hell. Is it belief? Not according to Paul.
Paul addresses the believers saying "such were some of you." What is the difference in the present from the past? "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" All of the verbs, by the way, are passive--You were washed (though it is middle in form, it has a passive meaning), you were sanctified, and you were justified. The work is not our "belief" but Christ's work. That is the difference--Christ's work performed on the believer's behalf.

Sin (breaking the law) has been taken care of once and for all, that is the heart of the good news. Otherwise, its only good news for a select few, and really really bad news for the mass of humanity. What makes the "gospel," the "good news," is that there is a way out, there is reconciliation, there is hope, but YOU deny that hope for most people thus redefining the word gospel to mean "good new for some and really terrible news for the rest of you."

Good news for whom? For everyone? No. For only those who believe. Again, belief is required and it is important. But, belief is not the cause of our salvation and unbelief is not the cause of condemnation.

I don't deny hope to anyone. Watch yourself here. You are coming dangerously close to challenging whether or not I am a Christian, since all Christians are to be involved in missions and evangelism. This is tantamount to saying that I am not engaged in such efforts thereby demonstrating I am not a Christian.

Again, as you seem to have forgotten, if you knew it in the first place, Calvinists make a general gospel call to anyone and everyone. We have no clue whom the elect are and, therefore, we must preach to everyone and let the seed of the Gospel take root in the rich soil that God has already prepared.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Those who have never heard the gospel go to hell not because of the sin of unbelief but due to sin against the light God gives them (Rom. 1:19-20).

Why did Rahab get listed among the great cloud of witnesses in Heb 11? Wasn't it her faith that pleased God and by which she was declared righteous, even though she never heard the "gospel?" So, yes, even those who never hear the gospel are judged for their lack of belief of the "light God gives them." Unbelief is the ONLY thing that seperates those going to hell from those going to heaven. They are both rule breakers, they are both born with the effects of the fall, they are both born into a fallen world...the difference is FAITH.

John 3:18 in its context refers only to those who have heard the gospel, the Jews unto whom Christ was sent. This is the light that came into the world in the context and the audiance he is speaking directly to is the JEWS who rejected Him.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Thank you for adding verse 19 because I think that strengthen my position all the more. Notice that the condemnation is NOT about what they had done prior to the light coming. In other words, the condemnation is NOT about Adam and Law. It is about the LIGHT, who is Christ, coming and men choosing to love darkness...choosing to not believe. While I don't dispute the fact that if Christ had not come that we would all still be under the condemnation of the law, my argument is that CHRIST did come and that changed everything!!! You must deal with what Christ accomplished for the world, rather than try to limit that effect to a small group of people.

Jesus is telling Nicodemus and his Jewish friends (use of the plural "ye" in John 3:3,5) that God has sent His Son - THIS LIGHT into the world THROUGH ISRAEL and those who reject THIS LIGHT are condemned but those who receive THIS LIGHT are not condemned.

Those who never see or hear THIS LIGHT are not condemned to hell for rejecting what they never heard or saw but are condemned to hell for rejecting whatever light God has given them (light of conscience, light of God in creation, light of God's Word, etc.).

I don't disagree with any of this??? You have just argued my point which is that they are condemned for rejecting the light they have received, rather than the idea of being condemned for Adam's sin. That is what I've been saying. Thank you for supporting it.

Paul claims there is none righteous, no not one, because all have been condemned under the law in chapter three of Romans because you don't need to hear the gospel to be condemned to hell

.Never said you did. I agree with you, they are condemned for rejecting the revelation/light given to them. In short, they are condemned for unbelief, period.

I'm glad we have come to common ground. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

No, the difference is the blood of Christ shed on the behalf of the believer. Believing in no way pays for sin. Believing merely appropriates for the believer (or credits to the believer) what has already been accomplished by Christ.

I don't disagree with this caveat, but I think you know that I meant that the difference between the choice of those two sinners is faith, not the list of their sins as you seem to suggest by your Rev. quote.

Even those Calvinistic 4-Pointers (those that reject Limited Atonement) get this concept. They believe in a universal atonement but the appropriation of that atonement only comes when we believe. While I do not agree with this position (as I agree with limited or particular atonement) this position is far better theologically and far more defensible than the one you are holding to.

You have just revealed that you don't know what I hold to. Go back and re-read my posts and you will see that I believe in the "imputation" of righteousness through faith, just as you have explained it.

Do you want more proof? Let me use you own words:

People sin because they don't believe, thus unbelief is the reason for their bad behavior. Unbelief is the primary cause, while the sin is the effect.
​

This simply cannot be. If you were correct, believers (ie. Christians) would not sin because they believe. So you are left with unsavory task of trying to explain why believers still sin when you say sin is due to unbelief.

But that is exactly why Christians sin, their lack of faith. That is not saying they are not saved, but that their faith is weak in a particular area of life. Why else should we, as believers, pray, "Lord help my unbelief." Why else would Jesus rebuke his own believing disciples for their lack of faith? Without faith it is impossible to please God because anything NOT done is faith is SIN. That is scripture's words, not mine.

What does that mean? That means I can do something that would not normally be considered "sinful," such as go to a church and preach a message. But if I do that without faith, that act itself can be sin. Likewise, Abraham can tie up his son and with the intent to kill him raise his hand to strike him dead but that NOT be a sin because he is doing it in faith according to God's instructions. The act itself is not what is wrong, it's the unbelief or lack of faith in God.

When Adam ate the fruit he did so because he didn't believe what God had said. Do you really think the fruit was magic or special? Who cares about some fruit? It's all about believing God! It's all about faith expressing itself through love.

 

[Skandelon]

You know, you claim to have been a Calvinist yet you continuously misrepresent what we say. Almost any Calvinist would affirm a general Gospel invitation and a "pleading" to come to Christ. Paul pleaded and so do we (after all, Paul was the first "Calvinist," so to speak).

The truth of the matter is that many Calvinist evangelists, pastors, and missionaries plead with people to accept Christ and in that there is nothing that goes against our theology. You simply do not understand that which you supposedly held.

No, I understand that point quite well and even defended it for years. But, my point is that you rarely, if ever, hear a Calvinist today speak of trying to persuade men. In fact, you usually hear rebukes from Calvinists for those who are more "persuasive" as being manipulative and overbearing.

This is a generalization about Calvinists, I agree, but one that can be clearly seen and measured by a simple survey of popular Calvinistic books on the market today.

Again, you are suggesting that for God to be just He has to offer salvation to all. Nothing in the Bible suggests this

When did I say that? God owes us nothing. This IS NOT about what God could have done, it is about what scripture teaches us that HE IS DOING!!! And I pointed out that the very words "because they refused the truth and so be saved" prove that there IS something to be refused....which means that there has been something offered. As 2 Cor 5 says, there is an appeal being made to the world! Your dogma suggests that the appeal and offer is really only intended for a select few and thus all the rest have nothing to refuse...its not for them in the first place.

Because of belief you say? Really?! What does Paul say?

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)
​

Notice who will not inherit the kingdom of God--The "unrighteous." Now this word, in Greek, refers to one who violates the divine law. So, it is not the "unbeliever." How does one violate the divine law? By being sexually immoral, idolatrous, committing adultery, practicing homosexuality, being a thief, being greedy, being a drunk, being a reviler, being a swindler. Anyone one of these things means that--by our action--we have violated God's law.

Righteous by which standard? The standard of the law (by which no one would be saved) or the standard of faith in the one who fulfilled the law?

Unbelief isn't even listed in this representative list. Why didn't Paul say "do you not know that the unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Because it is not unbelief but our sin that condemns us.

He did. Remember all those verses I already presented that you dismissed as being "selective?"

You really don't believe that Christ fulfilled the law of sin and shame once and for all, do you? Paul did,

10 For in that He died, He died to sin once for all; but in that He lives, He lives to God.

Now, all of us violate God's law, even you will agree to this. What then is the difference between the "murders, liars, sorcerers" who will one day be in heaven and those who will be in hell. Is it belief? Not according to Paul.
Paul addresses the believers saying "such were some of you." What is the difference in the present from the past? "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" All of the verbs, by the way, are passive--You were washed (though it is middle in form, it has a passive meaning), you were sanctified, and you were justified. The work is not our "belief" but Christ's work. That is the difference--Christ's work performed on the believer's behalf.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Surely you aren't saying that believers become sinless are you? A believe my lie just like an unbeliever, but why would one of them be washed and un-condemned? FAITH!!!

Good news for whom? For everyone? No. For only those who believe.

Again, belief is required and it is important. But, belief is not the cause of our salvation and unbelief is not the cause of condemnation.

I don't deny hope to anyone. Watch yourself here. You are coming dangerously close to challenging whether or not I am a Christian, since all Christians are to be involved in missions and evangelism. This is tantamount to saying that I am not engaged in such efforts thereby demonstrating I am not a Christian.

Again, as you seem to have forgotten, if you knew it in the first place, Calvinists make a general gospel call to anyone and everyone. We have no clue whom the elect are and, therefore, we must preach to everyone and let the seed of the Gospel take root in the rich soil that God has already prepared.

The Archangel

Let's suppose you were the warden of a death row prison and you decide, for reasons only known to you, that you want to free all the english speaking prisoners. Now, suppose you purposefully send only english speaking messengers into the prison telling them to announce to all the prisoners that they can go free if they simply come to the warden and apologize for their crimes. You don't allow any interpretation of this message into any language except english, but you say repeatedly that the message is for all the prisoners and the appeal is to be made to everyone. When all the english speaking prisoner have been released and its time for the non-english speaking prisoner to be put to death and someone from the press hears about this and questions your justice, what will you say?

1. I made the offer to all the prisoners. It's their own fault for refusing.

2. He was going to die anyway for his crime, so what if I didn't offer him pardon in a language he could understand.

3. I'm the warden and I can do as I please and I'm pleased to pardon english speaking prisoner and not the rest. To bad. If you don't like it, go to hell...literally.

I think you can see by this analogy that I am not questioning the justice of God in condemning the guilty. Just as I would not have questioned the justice of a warden allowing all his inmates to be put to death for their crimes. I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few.

Imagine that warden writing books about himself where he was patient with these rebellious non-english speaking prisoners and longing for them to come to repentance....knowing full well that if he simply provided an interpreter they could also be pardon. That doesn't strike you the least been disingenuous or unjust? Be objective and honest just this one time and really deal with that question.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Of course "rejection of the light given to them" is unbelief. But as you admit by your last words

I agree with you, they are condemned for rejecting the revelation/light given to them. In short, they are condemned for unbelief, period. I'm glad we have come to common ground. :smilewinkgrin:

Rahab confessed that she had already heard about the great acts of God and becasue of what they heard the whole city was trembling in fear. God sent her two witnesses who stayed there and we have a recorded conversation between them with her. There is no such thing as "faith" in vacuum.

Look, it is obvious that this discussion is getting nowhere. I will just let you two beat your heads against each other.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't disagree with this caveat, but I think you know that I meant that the difference between the choice of those two sinners is faith, not the list of their sins as you seem to suggest by your Rev. quote.

You are jumping the shark here. We have been discussing condemnation of unbelievers. The Revelation passage shows, unequivocally, that unbelievers will be judged and subsequently condemned by their sinful deeds, not unbelief. Unbelief may be one of those sinful deed, but it is not the whole enchilada.

The difference between believers and unbelievers at the judgment is that the believer's sins have already been paid for and the unbeliever's have not. The difference is God's grace.

You have just revealed that you don't know what I hold to. Go back and re-read my posts and you will see that I believe in the "imputation" of righteousness through faith, just as you have explained it.

The imputation of righteousness to whom? Believers only or believers and non-believers?

But that is exactly why Christians sin, their lack of faith. That is not saying they are not saved, but that their faith is weak in a particular area of life. Why else should we, as believers, pray, "Lord help my unbelief." Why else would Jesus rebuke his own believing disciples for their lack of faith? Without faith it is impossible to please God because anything NOT done is faith is SIN. That is scripture's words, not mine.

What does that mean? That means I can do something that would not normally be considered "sinful," such as go to a church and preach a message. But if I do that without faith, that act itself can be sin. Likewise, Abraham can tie up his son and with the intent to kill him raise his hand to strike him dead but that NOT be a sin because he is doing it in faith according to God's instructions. The act itself is not what is wrong, it's the unbelief or lack of faith in God.

You are conflating two separate things: Having faith in Christ (or God Himself in the OT) for salvation and living daily the life of faith.

What you were saying in the previous posts is that unbelievers are condemned for unbelief and that unbelief produces sin. But, again, this cannot be since, then, a believer should not sin--if unbelief is the first cause of sin, as you have been arguing.

Now, of course, believers will still sin, but that isn't because unbelief is a first cause--it is because we are still sinners, though we are redeemed.

When Adam ate the fruit he did so because he didn't believe what God had said. Do you really think the fruit was magic or special? Who cares about some fruit? It's all about believing God! It's all about faith expressing itself through love.

No, of course the fruit itself was not magic. The issues is not unbelief--as in Adam didn't believe what God sad. Rather, the issue--as it always has been--is obedience.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Rahab confessed that she had already heard about the great acts of God and becasue of what they heard the whole city was trembling in fear. God sent her two witnesses who stayed there and we have a recorded conversation between them with her. There is no such thing as "faith" in vacuum.

Excellent and little-known point.

Look, it is obvious that this discussion is getting nowhere. I will just let you two beat your heads against each other.

Don't take your marbles and go!

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

No, I understand that point quite well and even defended it for years. But, my point is that you rarely, if ever, hear a Calvinist today speak of trying to persuade men. In fact, you usually hear rebukes from Calvinists for those who are more "persuasive" as being manipulative and overbearing.

This is a generalization about Calvinists, I agree, but one that can be clearly seen and measured by a simple survey of popular Calvinistic books on the market today.

No, I don't think you understand. What you have written above is demonstrably false, wrong, and downright insulting. You demonstrate your lack of understanding by railing against the popular (yet hopelessly wrong) caricature of Calvinists and not the reality of Calvinists.

You have not demonstrated your understanding and this is a place where lip-service simply will not work. Your lack of understanding is further demonstrated below.

When did I say that? God owes us nothing. This IS NOT about what God could have done, it is about what scripture teaches us that HE IS DOING!!! And I pointed out that the very words "because they refused the truth and so be saved" prove that there IS something to be refused....which means that there has been something offered. As 2 Cor 5 says, there is an appeal being made to the world! Your dogma suggests that the appeal and offer is really only intended for a select few and thus all the rest have nothing to refuse...its not for them in the first place.

Certainly there is something to be refused. But you further demonstrate your misunderstanding by saying "your dogma suggests that the appeal and offer is really only intended for a select few..." This is ridiculous. Does not Christ say to go into all the world (ie to everyone?)? Sure, so we go to all knowing that not all will accept the gospel.

Your misunderstanding of the Calvinist position is frighteningly bad! We don't say the offer is not for the non-elect and only for the elect. We say the offer is for everyone and the rejection of the offer only serves to further condemn the non-believer.

The fact is that everyone--elect and non-elect--is unwilling to believe, to accept the Gospel, to make God king in our lives as we de-throne ourselves. The difference between the believer and the non-believer is that God in the elect believer has made the unwilling willing. That is the very meaning of grace.

You would have everyone believe that the non-elect are standing and screaming for God to save them as God flippantly says "Nah" and walks away. If you understood the Calvinist position, you'd know we do not hold to this. This is why I said if you were a Calvinist at one point (and I'm not convinced) you probably were not a very good one.

Righteous by which standard? The standard of the law (by which no one would be saved) or the standard of faith in the one who fulfilled the law?

He did. Remember all those verses I already presented that you dismissed as being "selective?"

You really don't believe that Christ fulfilled the law of sin and shame once and for all, do you? Paul did,

10 For in that He died, He died to sin once for all; but in that He lives, He lives to God.

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the law and paid for sin and imputes His righteousness. BUT ONLY FOR/TO BELIEVERS.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Surely you aren't saying that believers become sinless are you? A believe my lie just like an unbeliever, but why would one of them be washed and un-condemned? FAITH!!!

No, believers don't become sinless. The difference is not faith. The difference is the Grace of God as shown in the death of Christ. God's grace is the first cause.

Let's suppose you were the warden of a death row prison and you decide, for reasons only known to you, that you want to free all the english speaking prisoners. Now, suppose you purposefully send only english speaking messengers into the prison telling them to announce to all the prisoners that they can go free if they simply come to the warden and apologize for their crimes. You don't allow any interpretation of this message into any language except english, but you say repeatedly that the message is for all the prisoners and the appeal is to be made to everyone. When all the english speaking prisoner have been released and its time for the non-english speaking prisoner to be put to death and someone from the press hears about this and questions your justice, what will you say?

1. I made the offer to all the prisoners. It's their own fault for refusing.

2. He was going to die anyway for his crime, so what if I didn't offer him pardon in a language he could understand.

3. I'm the warden and I can do as I please and I'm pleased to pardon english speaking prisoner and not the rest. To bad. If you don't like it, go to hell...literally.

I think you can see by this analogy that I am not questioning the justice of God in condemning the guilty. Just as I would not have questioned the justice of a warden allowing all his inmates to be put to death for their crimes. I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few.

Imagine that warden writing books about himself where he was patient with these rebellious non-english speaking prisoners and longing for them to come to repentance....knowing full well that if he simply provided an interpreter they could also be pardon. That doesn't strike you the least been disingenuous or unjust? Be objective and honest just this one time and really deal with that question.

You and your pathetic analogies! Again, not using the modern "pathetic" word, I'm meaning pathos as in Greek.

Why don't you just deal with the text of scripture?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Let's suppose you were the warden of a death row prison and you decide, for reasons only known to you, that you want to free all the english speaking prisoners. Now, suppose you purposefully send only english speaking messengers into the prison telling them to announce to all the prisoners that they can go free if they simply come to the warden and apologize for their crimes. You don't allow any interpretation of this message into any language except english, but you say repeatedly that the message is for all the prisoners and the appeal is to be made to everyone. When all the english speaking prisoner have been released and its time for the non-english speaking prisoner to be put to death and someone from the press hears about this and questions your justice, what will you say?

1. I made the offer to all the prisoners. It's their own fault for refusing.

2. He was going to die anyway for his crime, so what if I didn't offer him pardon in a language he could understand.

3. I'm the warden and I can do as I please and I'm pleased to pardon english speaking prisoner and not the rest. To bad. If you don't like it, go to hell...literally.

I think you can see by this analogy that I am not questioning the justice of God in condemning the guilty. Just as I would not have questioned the justice of a warden allowing all his inmates to be put to death for their crimes. I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few.

Imagine that warden writing books about himself where he was patient with these rebellious non-english speaking prisoners and longing for them to come to repentance....knowing full well that if he simply provided an interpreter they could also be pardon. That doesn't strike you the least been disingenuous or unjust? Be objective and honest just this one time and really deal with that question.

Your analogy is flawed at many, many levels.

1. You assume two or more classes of people--English speakers and speakers of other languages.

2. You assume something about the English speakers makes me want to free them.

3. An apology for a crime (especially at a death-row facility) is not sufficient. For this to be a good analogy, the warden would need to serve out the sentence of anyone released.

4. The Gospel goes out, not to a select few, but to the masses and it goes out in many languages.

To reformulate this analogy into something more closely resembling the biblical story-line, it would go something like this:

Me, as the warden, offers convicted inmates (who were convicted for their deeds, buy the way) to serve their sentences for them, thereby offering them freedom. The one opportunity to gain this freedom is to come to the warden and express your desire to be freed, but you must do it in English and no inmate knows English. So, knowing this, I go to several inmates and begin to teach them English. Why did I to the group I went to and not the other inmates? Because I am the warden it is was my own good pleasure to choose whom I chose. So, the selected inmates learn English, come to me and express their desire to be freed, which I grant, and they go free singing my praises all the more for offering them freedom and giving them the means to express their desire for freedom.

What you don't seem to grasp is this: God may do with us as He pleases. If he decided to save one person through Christ's death or one million, He is still perfectly just.

This statement shows a vast and grave misunderstanding "I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few."

Again, it is not the appearance of an offer, it is a real offer. In our natural state, we are unwilling to and do not desire to take hold of the offer. Again, God makes the unwilling and unable both willing and able.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Your analogy is flawed at many, many levels.

I had a feeling you would nit-pick the analogy instead of allowing it to clarify the obvious point that it was intended to make.

1. You assume two or more classes of people--English speakers and speakers of other languages.

Funny, so do Calvinists: Elect individuals and non-elect individuals.

2. You assume something about the English speakers makes me want to free them.

Actually I specifically said, "for reasons only known to you," which is consistent with Calvinism's claims about God in regard to his choices. There is NO assumption mentioned or implied for why you would want to free them rather than others, which is the same as with God's choice of the elect.

3. An apology for a crime (especially at a death-row facility) is not sufficient. For this to be a good analogy, the warden would need to serve out the sentence of anyone released.

Not relevant to the point of the analogy. All analogies fall short in that they don't fully represent every aspect. Even Christ's analogies don't meet the standard of being fully representative on every aspect. I was assuming the Warden's ability to set his prisoners free because that wasn't the issue being addressed. Nit-picking

4. The Gospel goes out, not to a select few, but to the masses and it goes out in many languages.

Oh brother! You really think that the analogy was addressing languages? Come on, you are smarter than that. The language was representative of the ability for the hearers to understand the message. The elect can understand the gospel while the non-elect cannot understand it because it's not "spiritually discerned." The english language was merely an analogy representing that spiritual discernment giving to the elect. I think you know this and are just being difficult.

Me, as the warden, offers convicted inmates (who were convicted for their deeds, buy the way) to serve their sentences for them, thereby offering them freedom. The one opportunity to gain this freedom is to come to the warden and express your desire to be freed, but you must do it in English and no inmate knows English. So, knowing this, I go to several inmates and begin to teach them English. Why did I to the group I went to and not the other inmates? Because I am the warden it is was my own good pleasure to choose whom I chose. So, the selected inmates learn English, come to me and express their desire to be freed, which I grant, and they go free singing my praises all the more for offering them freedom and giving them the means to express their desire for freedom.

What you don't seem to grasp is this: God may do with us as He pleases. If he decided to save one person through Christ's death or one million, He is still perfectly just.

Again, what you don't seem to grasp is that I agree with the fact that God could have only saved one or even no one, but this is NOT about what he could have done. It is about what HE REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. And its about how he presents himself as longing to gather sinners, seeking to save the lost, being patient and long-suffering toward rebellious men, holding out his hands to them all day long, frustrating and angry with them for continued rebellion, and appealing to them all to repent and be saved all the while only choosing to "teach a few of them english," "according to his own pleasure" (as your analogy puts it.)

This statement shows a vast and grave misunderstanding "I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few."

Again, it is not the appearance of an offer, it is a real offer. In our natural state, we are unwilling to and do not desire to take hold of the offer. Again, God makes the unwilling and unable both willing and able.

The Archangel

Going back to your revised analogy as a Warden. Supposing this really happened, can you honestly tell me that the original offer made to all the inmates that you knew you would not choose to teach english too was a real offer? Really?

 

[Skandelon]

No, I don't think you understand. What you have written above is demonstrably false, wrong, and downright insulting. You demonstrate your lack of understanding by railing against the popular (yet hopelessly wrong) caricature of Calvinists and not the reality of Calvinists.

You have not demonstrated your understanding and this is a place where lip-service simply will not work. Your lack of understanding is further demonstrated below.

What? Are you denying that there are many Calvinists who criticize those who are more "persuasive" in their evangelistic methods than others? You have to admit, there really isn't much need for persuasiveness in a Calvinistic system. God does all the convincing so really I can just read the facts of the gospel and move on, right? If not, why not? What is inconsistent about that? Explain it. I'm willing to learn.

Certainly there is something to be refused. But you further demonstrate your misunderstanding by saying "your dogma suggests that the appeal and offer is really only intended for a select few..." This is ridiculous. Does not Christ say to go into all the world (ie to everyone?)? Sure, so we go to all knowing that not all will accept the gospel.

I was referring to the intent of God, not the preacher.

You would have everyone believe that the non-elect are standing and screaming for God to save them as God flippantly says "Nah" and walks away. If you understood the Calvinist position, you'd know we do not hold to this.

Never said, or even implied, that you did. You are the one who clearly doesn't know my position and that leads you to argue against your straw man rather than to try and understand someone else's view.

This is why I said if you were a Calvinist at one point (and I'm not convinced) you probably were not a very good one.

I'll take that as a compliment. :tongue3:

I'll bet you a $1000 (if I were a betting man) that I know and understand more about your view than you do about mine. I think that can be demonstrated in our first conversation very easily. Do we need to bring that back to the top of the page and pick up where you left off? I think we were waiting on your view regarding Romans 11 still...

I do believe that Christ fulfilled the law and paid for sin and imputes His righteousness. BUT ONLY FOR/TO BELIEVERS.

Actually, to be more specific you believe that Christ fulfilled the law for the elect, paid for the elect's sin and imputes His righteousness onto the elect so as to effectually bring them to faith... That is unless you believe a man can be born again (regenerated) without first being declared righteous. So many different Calvinists have differing positions on this I'm not sure which one you are...

You and your pathetic analogies! Again, not using the modern "pathetic" word, I'm meaning pathos as in Greek.

Why don't you just deal with the text of scripture?

I tried that when I quoted, Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." But you dismissed that saying I was being too "selective" remember?

Before that I presents several texts which you briefly addressed but when I rebutted you dropped them. Heb 3 was pretty cut and dry and you dismissed it as "historical," right? Yet I showed how all the context surrounding it was related to those with faith in Christ today. You just ignored the texts about Israel being cut off for unbelief and possibly being grafted back in if they don't persist in unbelief...but that is Romans 11 so I know it may take some more time. :smilewinkgrin:

Can you blame me for moving on to pathetic analogies when you seem to have no regard for the mountains of scripture I threw at you?


:sleep:

 

[Skandelon]

Of course "rejection of the light given to them" is unbelief.

Ok, good, so Dr. Walter and I agree on this point. Now, we just need to convince Archangel of his error.

Rahab confessed that she had already heard about the great acts of God and becasue of what they heard the whole city was trembling in fear. God sent her two witnesses who stayed there and we have a recorded conversation between them with her. There is no such thing as "faith" in vacuum.

Did I ever say there was? I merely pointed out one individual who responded in faith to the light given to her...there are hundreds more. I think we agreed on that point, remember?

Look, it is obvious that this discussion is getting nowhere.

Translation: my last post confirmed your point and I don't want to contradict my Calvinistic buddy so I'll pull out...
:applause:

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend,

The reason I am "pulling out" is not because you have gained any ground in your arguments for you haven't. You are the one that has moved from your original argument not Archangel or me. Your original argument was your interpretation of John 3:18 that you insisted the only sin that condemns any human today is unbelief in Christ. Both Archangel and I have thoroughly debunked that argument. We have demonstrated what condemns a person to hell is ANY WILLFUL SIN or rejection of whatever light/knowledge of righteousness God gives them. It could be the light of conscience where they willfully violated what they knew was right. It could be the light of creation where they willfully rejected the evidence of God and His power. Both of these are described in Romans 1:18-20 as sufficient to condemn them under the wrath of God. It could be the light gained from reading the Word of God in willfully disregarding and violating the Word on any given point. This is Paul's point in Romans 2.

Sooo, condemnation for willfully rejecting the light of the gospel is but one kind of sin or violation of light that can justly condemn a man to hell. The only people that can be condemned for rejecting the gospel are those who are exposed to it and not all men are exposed to the gospel but all men sin against the light God does give them.

The truth is that WILLFUL SIN is what condemns men to hell and for WILLFUL sin to exist there must be light/knowledge of right and wrong. So any WILLFUL sin can justly condemn a person to hell.

This is Paul's argument in Romans 1:18-3:9. The light of conscience because the Law of God is written upon the conscience of every man. The light of revelation of God in nature because the heavens declare the existence, power and Godhead of God. The light of revelation in the written revelation of God and then the light of the Gospel. Willful sin against any kind of light God gives is sufficient to condemn a person to hell.

Sooo, your original position that the ONLY grounds for condemnation today is rejection of the gospel is false. Archangel's position that any WILLFUL sin is sufficient to condemn a person to hell is correct. However, at the bottom of every willful sin is hatred toward God and rejection of His authority which all are manifestations of an unbeleiving heart as well.

Now, my reason for pulling out is that it is clear to me you are not interesting in anything but winning an argument and my time is more valuable than just futile argumentation. Your mind is already made up and nothing but an act of God can change it. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I have placed evidence before you that there are two types of "eternal life" in Scripture - Spiritual life and Judicial life and that regeneration and justification are not one and the same. However, you have simply ignored that evidence and you will continue to do so. So I am not wasting any more of my time with you on this issue. I know where you are because I have been where you are and no one could convince me either. I frustrated my Professors and my Pastor and some friends. However, my wife and I had the custom of reading a chapter of scripture every night before going to bed. At that time we were reading through the gospel of John and purposely because I believed the gospel of John supported my Arminism more than any other book in the Bible and I wanted to confirm my position not only in my own mind but in the mind of my wife. However, the truths that I now hold began jumping off the pages of the gospel of John night after night. I could fight my professors, I could fight my Pastor and I could fight some of my friends but I could not fight God who was bombarding us every night from the very gospel that I had chosen to reinforce my resistance to the unconditional elective grace of God. No one could turn me and no one can turn you but God. So I will leave it to Him to do that in His time if He is pleased to.

Ok, good, so Dr. Walter and I agree on this point. Now, we just need to convince Archangel of his error.




Did I ever say there was? I merely pointed out one individual who responded in faith to the light given to her...there are hundreds more. I think we agreed on that point, remember?


Translation: my last post confirmed your point and I don't want to contradict my Calvinistic buddy so I'll pull out...
:applause:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Translation: my last post confirmed your point and I don't want to contradict my Calvinistic buddy so I'll pull out...
:applause:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

There are two groups of people in this text:

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given him"

To which group "should he give eternal life to"?

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

In the two groups considered above in John 17:2 which group are those "the Father giveth me" in Jn. 6:37?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"

Do any of those given to the Son in John 6:37 fail to come to Christ in faith according to John 6:37-40?

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. .

In John 6:40 those defined as "every one" are of which group in John 17:2?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as the Father giveth me"

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. -Jn. 6:64-65

In John 17:2 which group are the "some" in John 6:64 found ?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"


Does not the words "EXCEPT it were given unto him of my Father" in John 6:65 provide the explanation why those defined as "some" in verse 64 did not come to Christ in saving faith but only in a false profession??? IF NOT THEN WHY WOULD JESUS REFER BACK TO THESE WORDS AT THIS POINT when the very next verse (v. 66) demonstrates they were not true believers:

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Which group in John 17:2 are those in John 6:66 who walked with him "no more"?

1. "All flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"

Can any that the Father give Christ fail to come in saving faith according to John 6:37-40??? Can Christ "lose" any that the Father giveth him according to John 6:39?

Therefore, does not the words "given unto him" in John 6:65 refer to saving faith as the missing ingredient in those identified as "some" in verse 64 and demonstrated as missing in verse 66???

Does not the words "given unto him" in John 6:64 demonstrate that "draw" in John 6:44 is something the Father imparts so that they come to Christ which without no man can come??? - saving faith - or the removal of that specific "ignorance" in the lost man that "alienates them from the life of God"

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: - Eph. 4:18

Isn't this "the knowledge" that Jesus says IS ETRNAL LIFE in John 17:2-3?

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Isn't this the knowledge that is imparted by direct fiat or CREATIVE WORD of God directly in the heart of the lost:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. -2 Cor. 4:6

Isn't this the same revelation that Paul says that is given when it pleases God to do so before it was your consent just as it was BEFORE your consent that you were born of your mother's womb - thus the new birth is like your first birth which occurs BEFORE you give consent:


But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me - Gal. 1:15-16a.

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - Jn. 1:13

No man can come to the Son unless there is an inward change of mind and desire "given unto him" by the Father. This is the NEW HEART given by God IN ORDER TO "cause" them to obey Him:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


This inward change is "given unto him" by a Creative command of God so that "ALL are taught of God" and "EVERY MAN" who has learned and heard this creative command of God cometh unto the Son. Who has learned and heard? "EVERY MAN". Who is "EVERY MAN"?

"They shall ALL be taught of God"

 

[Skandelon]

My friend,

The reason I am "pulling out" is not because you have gained any ground in your arguments for you haven't. You are the one that has moved from your original argument not Archangel or me. Your original argument was your interpretation of John 3:18 that you insisted the only sin that condemns any human today is unbelief in Christ. Both Archangel and I have thoroughly debunked that argument. We have demonstrated what condemns a person to hell is ANY WILLFUL SIN or rejection of whatever light/knowledge of righteousness God gives them.

And I agree with that qualification regarding unbelief meaning, "rejection of whatever light/knowledge of righteousness God gives them," including but not limited to the gospel of Christ. As I said, we are on common ground here. It's okay not to be in lock step with your Calvinistic buddy... :thumbs:

It could be the light of conscience where they willfully violated what they knew was right. It could be the light of creation where they willfully rejected the evidence of God and His power. Both of these are described in Romans 1:18-20 as sufficient to condemn them under the wrath of God. It could be the light gained from reading the Word of God in willfully disregarding and violating the Word on any given point. This is Paul's point in Romans 2.

Sooo, condemnation for willfully rejecting the light of the gospel is but one kind of sin or violation of light that can justly condemn a man to hell. The only people that can be condemned for rejecting the gospel are those who are exposed to it and not all men are exposed to the gospel but all men sin against the light God does give them.

The truth is that WILLFUL SIN is what condemns men to hell and for WILLFUL sin to exist there must be light/knowledge of right and wrong. So any WILLFUL sin can justly condemn a person to hell.

Agreed. Well put.

This is Paul's argument in Romans 1:18-3:9. The light of conscience because the Law of God is written upon the conscience of every man. The light of revelation of God in nature because the heavens declare the existence, power and Godhead of God. The light of revelation in the written revelation of God and then the light of the Gospel. Willful sin against any kind of light God gives is sufficient to condemn a person to hell.

Sooo, your original position that the ONLY grounds for condemnation today is rejection of the gospel is false.

Actually my argument was, and I quote, "The reason mankind is going to be condemned at judgement is because of unbelief (rejection of light/revelation), not because they broke the rules." While I may have mentioned the gospel as one aspect of revelation that mankind refuses, I never remember limiting the scope to the rejection of the gospel alone, do you?

Archangel's position that any WILLFUL sin is sufficient to condemn a person to hell is correct. However, at the bottom of every willful sin is hatred toward God and rejection of His authority which all are manifestations of an unbeleiving heart as well.

Actually it was Winman and Webdog that were making this point while you both were arguing that Adam's sin was sufficient to condemn all mankind as you defended your view of federal headship, remember?

Now, my reason for pulling out is that it is clear to me you are not interesting in anything but winning an argument and my time is more valuable than just futile argumentation. Your mind is already made up and nothing but an act of God can change it.

Why would you want Him to change my mind on this point when we agree? :laugh:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually it was Winman and Webdog that were making this point while you both were arguing that Adam's sin was sufficient to condemn all mankind as you defended your view of federal headship, remember?

The representative headship of Adam condemned the whole race to spiritual death, separation from God, totally depraved nature and that is the argument Paul gives for "ONE MAN'S SIN" in Romans 5:12-21. That argument is fully supported by the fact that Jesus says that "NO MAN CAN COME" of his own free will apart from INTERVENTION by God (Jn. 6:44). If they still had the power of free choice for righteousness no intervention would be necessary and Jesus would not have to say "NO MAN CAN COME" and Paul would never have to say "NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).

The evidence for this natural inclination toward evil is that all men when they are faced with "light" of conscience or "light" of nature or "light" of the Word of God they always react the very same way as Jesus describes in John 3:19-20 and as Paul describes in Romans 3:9-20 and in Romans 7:6-11. Light aggrevates the depraved nature and stirs it up unto open rebellion. Always and every time so that any light that God the Holy Spirit presents to this depraved mind is always resisted (Acts 7:51) in every generation of man.

John 17:2 proves that God allows all the rest of mankind to continue in their free choice to resist, reject and hate God while giving eternal life only to "as many as were given" to Christ. The given, are quickened and come and none are lost.

 

[Skandelon]

The representative headship of Adam condemned the whole race to spiritual death, separation from God, totally depraved nature and that is the argument Paul gives for "ONE MAN'S SIN" in Romans 5:12-21. That argument is fully supported by the fact that Jesus says that "NO MAN CAN COME" of his own free will apart from INTERVENTION by God (Jn. 6:44).

What? You don't believe the "powerful" Holy Spirit wrought gospel being preached by Holy Spirit filled people who make up the bride of Christ, called the church, is a sufficient enough "intervention by God?"