Non-cals have the same problem

[Luke2427]

The Calvinist believes God offers salvation to people he has no intention of saving.

The non-cal believes this exactly as much as the Calvinist does.

The non-cal believes that God never had any intention of saving any person who would refuse his whole life to receive Christ as Savior. God has never intended, regardless of how much he wants to, God has never INTENDED to save people who do not repent.

Both Cals and "non-cals" believe together that there are millions of people God knew would exist that God never intended to save.

Do you see?

The non-cal believes God has no intention of saving a man who dies refusing to receive Christ.

Both Cal and non-cal believe God does not intend to save everybody.

Non-cals pretend that this is just a Calvinist problem. It is not. The non-cal has to deal with the fact that God creates billions of people who he KNOWS will never repent- people who he KNOWS will die in their sins and go to hell- yet he creates them in their mother's wombs anyway. Why? Because God is willing that some should perish. Now, as for the elect, God is patient to USward, not willing that ANY of the elect should perish but that ALL of the elect should come to repentance.

The point is this: this is a problem for us. Why would God offer salvation to people who he has no intention of saving? But it is not any MORE our problem than it is the non-calvinist's problem. The God of the non-calvinist knows he will not save a particular unrepentant sinner. Yet, God makes him anyway. God offers him salvation KNOWING he will never accept it. That is EXACTLY the same problem the Calvinist has.

 

[HisWitness]

The Calvinist believes God offers salvation to people he has no intention of saving.

The non-cal believes this exactly as much as the Calvinist does.

The non-cal believes that God never had any intention of saving any person who would refuse his whole life to receive Christ as Savior. God has never intended, regardless of how much he wants to, God has never INTENDED to save people who do not repent.

Both Cals and "non-cals" believe together that there are millions of people God knew would exist that God never intended to save.

Do you see?

The non-cal believes God has no intention of saving a man who dies refusing to receive Christ.

Both Cal and non-cal believe God does not intend to save everybody.

Non-cals pretend that this is just a Calvinist problem. It is not. The non-cal has to deal with the fact that God creates billions of people who he KNOWS will never repent- people who he KNOWS will die in their sins and go to hell- yet he creates them in their mother's wombs anyway. Why? Because God is willing that some should perish. Now, as for the elect, God is patient to USward, not willing that ANY of the elect should perish but that ALL of the elect should come to repentance.

The point is this: this is a problem for us. Why would God offer salvation to people who he has no intention of saving? But it is not any MORE our problem than it is the non-calvinist's problem. The God of the non-calvinist knows he will not save a particular unrepentant sinner. Yet, God makes him anyway. God offers him salvation KNOWING he will never accept it. That is EXACTLY the same problem the Calvinist has.

Whether you see what im about to say or not---still truth !!!

its complete mockery on BOTH sides to even state a such thing and put the Son of Yah's sacrifice to an open shame---and refute what He has done !!!

 

[Amy.G]

Whether you see what im about to say or not---still truth !!!

its complete mockery on BOTH sides to even state a such thing and put the Son of Yah's sacrifice to an open shame---and refute what He has done !!!

You're a universalist. God is not.

 

[Winman]

I do not agree with you Luke, I believe God indeed INTENDS to save all sinners. But there is only one just way God can save sinners, by belief and trust in his Son Jesus Christ.

I do not believe there is another possible way to save man, even for God.

My view of God's foreknowledge is that God simply knows what men will choose, he does not determine what they will choose. If you choose Jesus, that is what God knew in his foreknowledge, if you reject Jesus, that is what God knew in his foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge does not determine your choice.

In another thread I posted Isaiah 5:4 that says God has done everything he possibly can to save men.

Isa 5:3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

God himself declares he has done everything he possibly could to save men, but if men reject Jesus Christ God cannot save them.

So, our views are not alike whatsoever. In the Calvinist/Reformed view, God passes over billions of men and makes no attempt whatsoever to save them.

This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what scripture says.

I keep telling you and others that Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture really says, one of these days you are going to realize I am correct.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman,

I keep telling you and others that Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture really says, one of these days you are going to realize I am correct.
__________________

No..what we realize is Winman teaches the exact opposite of what scripture really says, one of these days you are going to realize I am correct....lol there you go!

 

[Luke2427]

I do not agree with you Luke, I believe God indeed INTENDS to save all sinners. But there is only one just way God can save sinners, by belief and trust in his Son Jesus Christ.

So God INTENDS to save the unrepentant who die in their sins?

 

[Luke2427]

Whether you see what im about to say or not---still truth !!!

its complete mockery on BOTH sides to even state a such thing and put the Son of Yah's sacrifice to an open shame---and refute what He has done !!!

How is it mockery?

 

[annsni]

I believe God indeed INTENDS to save all sinners.

I do not believe there is another possible way to save man, even for God.

In another thread I posted Isaiah 5:4 that says God has done everything he possibly can to save men.

God cannot save them.

What a dim view of God

 

[DHK]

The Calvinist believes God offers salvation to people he has no intention of saving.

That is not true. God has every intention of saving all. That all does not get saved is not God's fault; it is man's. Don't blame God for the rebelliousness of man's heart. Man has the opportunity to choose Christ. He rebels. God knows about the hardness of man's heart before he chooses.
God is not willing that any should perish. His will is clearly stated.

The non-cal believes this exactly as much as the Calvinist does.

God so loved the world--That does not express "no intention of saving." You are wrong.

The non-cal believes that God never had any intention of saving any person who would refuse his whole life to receive Christ as Savior.

The non-Cal believes in the omniscience of God. He knows ahead of time who will reject him and who will receive him. That has no bearing on God's intentions. You are attributing evil motives to God.

God has never intended, regardless of how much he wants to, God has never INTENDED to save people who do not repent.

"All day long I have stretched forth my arms to you but you would not."
The Lord is longsuffering to all of us, including to those whom he knows will not repent. Some die without Christ having been raised in a Christian home and sat under sound preaching every week. God indeed was longsuffering with them.

Both Cals and "non-cals" believe together that there are millions of people God knew would exist that God never intended to save.

Yes, he knows. He knows all things. However you, the Cal, deliberately attribute evil intentions to God, making him a monster, a sinful being. God has no sin. He is not the author of sin. He did not intend that any should go to Hell. They of their own will chose to reject him.

The non-cal believes God has no intention of saving a man who dies refusing to receive Christ.

Apparently you don't know what the non-Cal believes and deliberately misrepresents his beliefs. The Bible states God's intentions clearly:
"He is not willing that any perish."

Both Cal and non-cal believe God does not intend to save everybody.

"He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
That is his intention. That it is not accomplished is the fault of man who continues to rebel against God, of his own will.

Non-cals pretend that this is just a Calvinist problem. It is not. The non-cal has to deal with the fact that God creates billions of people who he KNOWS will never repent- people who he KNOWS will die in their sins and go to hell- yet he creates them in their mother's wombs anyway. Why?

Because they refuse to accept the truth about God.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because God is willing that some should perish.

Why misquote the Bible, and deliberately so?

Now, as for the elect, God is patient to USward, not willing that ANY of the elect should perish but that ALL of the elect should come to repentance.

God allows the sun to shine upon those who believe and those who don't.
God allows the rain to fall upon those who believe and those who don't.
He extends his mercy and longsuffering to all. Proof of that is the fact that you are alive this day. Do you deserve to be?

The point is this: this is a problem for us. Why would God offer salvation to people who he has no intention of saving?

He offers it to all. He intends all to be saved. It is man who rejects God, not the other way around.

But it is not any MORE our problem than it is the non-calvinist's problem. The God of the non-calvinist knows he will not save a particular unrepentant sinner.

God saves to the uttermost. It is man that must respond to God. This, the Calvinist has a problem with. Now, God calls all men everywhere to repent.

Yet, God makes him anyway. God offers him salvation KNOWING he will never accept it. That is EXACTLY the same problem the Calvinist has.

The non-Cal has no problem with the omniscience of God; why should the Calvinist. We don't mix and confuse omniscience with intention. One has to do with the attributes of God; the other has to do with motive. Attributing an evil motive to God is sinful.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

No..what we realize is Winman teaches the exact opposite of what scripture really says, one of these days you are going to realize I am correct....lol there you go!

The difference is that I post scripture (not man-made creeds) that supports my view while you do not.

God himself declares he was done everything possible he could do to save men.

Now, I quoted Albert Barnes before to show this is an accurate interpretation of Isaiah chapter 5;

Verse 4
What could I … - As a man who had done what is described in Isaiah 5:2, would have done all that “could” be done for a vineyard, so God says that he has done all that he could, in the circumstances of the Jews, to make them holy and happy. He had chosen them; had given them his law; had sent them prophets and teachers; had defended them; had come forth in judgment and mercy, and he now appeals “to them” to say what “could” have been done more. This important verse implies that God had done all that he could have done; that is, all that he could consistently do, or all that justice and goodness required him to do, to secure the welfare of his people. It cannot, of course, be meant that he had no physical ability to do anything else, but the expression must be interpreted by a reference to the point in hand; and that is, an appeal to others to determine that he had done all that could be done in the circumstances of the case. In this respect, we may, without impropriety, say, that there is a limit to the power of God. It is impossible to conceive that he “could” have given a law more holy; or that he could append to it more solemn sanctions than the threatening of eternal death; or that he could have offered higher hopes than the prospect of eternal life; or that he could have given a more exalted Redeemer. It has been maintained (see the “Princeton Bib. Repert.,” April 1841) that the reference here is to the future, and that the question means, ‹what remains now to be done to my vineyard as an expression of displeasure?‘ or that it is asked with a view to introduce the expression of his purpose to punish his people, stated in Isaiah 5:5. But that the above is the meaning or the passage, or that it refers to what God had actually done, is evident from the following considerations:

(1) He had specified at length Isaiah 5:2 what he had done. He had performed “all” that was usually done to a vineyard; in fencing it, and clearing it of stones, and planting in it the choicest vines, and building a wine-press in it. Without impropriety, it might be said of a man that, whatever wealth he had, or whatever power he had to do “other” things, he “could do nothing more to perfect a vineyard.”

(2) It is the meaning which is most naturally suggested by the original. Literally, the Hebrew is, ‹What to do more?‘ עוד מה־לעשׂות mah -la‛ăs'ôth ‛ôd Coverdale renders this, as it is in our translation, ‹What more could have been done for it?‘ Luther, ‹What should one do more to my vineyard, that I have not done for it?‘ Was sollte man doth mehr thun an meinem Weinberge, das ich nicht gethun babe an illin? Vulgate, Quid est quod debui ultra facere. ‹What is there which I ought to do more?‘ Septuagint, Τί ποιήσω ἔτι Ti poiēsō eti ‹What shall I do yet?‘ implying that he had done all that he could for it. The Chaldee renders it, ‹What good thing - טבא מה mah ṭâbâ' - shall I say that I will do to my people that I have not done for them?‘ implying that he had done for them all the good which could be spoken of. The Syriac, ‹What remains to be done to my vineyard, and I have not done it?‘ In all these versions, the sense given is substantially the same - that God had done all that could be done to make the expectation that his vineyard would produce fruit, proper. There is no reference in one of these versions to what he “would” do afterward, but the uniform reference is to what he “had” done to make the expectation “reasonable,” that his vineyard would produce fruit.
(3) That this is the fair interpretation is apparent further, because, when, in Isaiah 5:5, he says what he “would do,” it is entirely different from what he said he “had done.” He “had” done all that could be done to make it proper to expect fruit; he now “would” do what would be a proper expression of his displeasure that no fruit had been produced. He would take away its hedge; break down its walls, and lay it waste. But in the interpretation of the passage proposed by the “Princeton Repert.,” there is an entire omission of this part of the verse - ‹that I have not done in it.‘ It is not improper, therefore, to use this passage to show that God had done all that could be consistently done for the salvation of man, and the same appeal may now be made to sinners everywhere; and it may be asked, what God “could” have done for their salvation more than has been done? “Could” he have given them a purer law? “Could” he present higher considerations than have been drawn from the hope of an “eternal” heaven, and the fear of an “eternal” hell? Could he have furnished a more full atonement than has been made by the blood of his own Son? The conclusion to which we should come would be in accordance with what is said in the prophet, that God has done “all” for the salvation of sinners that in the circumstances of the case could be done, and that if they are lost, they only will bear the blame.

I do not quote Albert Barnes for my sake, I always understood this scripture. I simply show YOU that real scholars came to the same interpretation.

You did not get this in the other thread, and I am sure you will not get it now.

 

[Luke2427]

That is not true. God has every intention of saving all. That all does not get saved is not God's fault; it is man's. Don't blame God for the rebelliousness of man's heart. Man has the opportunity to choose Christ. He rebels. God knows about the hardness of man's heart before he chooses.
God is not willing that any should perish. His will is clearly stated.

God so loved the world--That does not express "no intention of saving." You are wrong.

The non-Cal believes in the omniscience of God. He knows ahead of time who will reject him and who will receive him. That has no bearing on God's intentions. You are attributing evil motives to God.

So then God INTENDS to save people who die in their sins as unrepentant Christ-rejectors?

Or does he intend to save only those who repent?

The fact of the matter is that both Calvinists and non-calvinists agree that God intends to save only the repentant.

You are hung up on God WANTING to save everybody. We agree on that.

You are hung up on God loving everybody. We agree on that.

What you are missing is that from the beginning God only ever intended to save those who would repent. We also agree on that.

 

[Winman]

So then God INTENDS to save people who die in their sins as unrepentant Christ-rejectors?

Or does he intend to save only those who repent?

The fact of the matter is that both Calvinists and non-calvinists agree that God intends to save only the repentant.

You are hung up on God WANTING to save everybody. We agree on that.

You are hung up on God loving everybody. We agree on that.

What you are missing is that from the beginning God only ever intended to save those who would repent. We also agree on that.

We do not agree. God certainly intended to save those who do not believe and perish. Again, he has done everything he could possibly do to save them.

Isa 4:3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

Here God challenges Jerusalem and Judah to answer his question, "What could have been done MORE to my vineyard, that I have not DONE in it?"

God is clearly implying that he has exhausted every possible means that he has to save these persons, there is NOTHING MORE he could possibly do.

So, he certainly intended to save them, but they rejected the Redeemer provided for them and there are no possible remedies remaining.

See, when you guys fling around cliches that say God could save everyone, you are in complete error. This is NOT what the scriptures teach. God intends to save everyone, God desires to save everyone, but men reject God and cannot be saved, even by God.

 

[Luke2427]

We do not agree. God certainly intended to save those who do not believe and perish. Again, he has done everything he could possibly do to save them.

So he really tried hard to save them and just couldn't pull it off?

The will of man is mightier than omnipotence. Wow.

How is it then that God overcomes the hearts of kings turning them as the rivers of water wheresoever he wills, but he cannot overcome the will of those who resist his grace?

How is that God can harden hearts, like Pharaoh's, to suit Him, but he cannot make the willfully unrepentant, willfully repentant?

 

[Winman]

So he really tried hard to save them and just couldn't pull it off?

The will of man is mightier than omnipotence. Wow.

How is it then that God overcomes the hearts of kings turning them as the rivers of water wheresoever he wills, but he cannot overcome the will of those who resist his grace?

How is that God can harden hearts, like Pharaoh's, to suit Him, but he cannot make the willfully unrepentant, willfully repentant?

It has nothing to do with how powerful God is. God's greatest attribute is his Holiness, God cannot sin. God cannot violate man's free will. God will do everything he can to convince and persuade men to trust Jesus, but he will not force them.

That said, God can certainly influence men. When God caused a great storm to arise, that certainly influenced Jonah. The whale that swallowed Jonah also put real pressure on Jonah to repent. But in the end, Jonah had to walk into Nineveh on his own two feet, God did not pick him up and place him there.

As for Pharaoh, God already knew that his efforts would have the opposite effect on him. Instead of repenting as Jonah did, Pharaoh became even more stubborn and obstinate and hardened his heart.

What is funny, is that all you Calvinists will deny that God compels or forces someone to believe against their will. But when a non-Cal says that men perish because they resist God, you then argue that God could force them to believe if he wanted to.

You want your cake and to eat it too.

No, God will do everything possible to persuade men to receive Jesus and believe on him, but he will not force anyone. It has nothing to do with power, it has to do with being morally righteous and holy.

 

[DHK]

So then God INTENDS to save people who die in their sins as unrepentant Christ-rejectors?

Or does he intend to save only those who repent?

The fact of the matter is that both Calvinists and non-calvinists agree that God intends to save only the repentant.

You are hung up on God WANTING to save everybody. We agree on that.

You are hung up on God loving everybody. We agree on that.

What you are missing is that from the beginning God only ever intended to save those who would repent. We also agree on that.

It is not a matter of "God's intentions;" but man's intentions.

Let's look at an example using the life of the believer.
God's will is that every believer should live to the praise of his glory (Eph.1:6,12).
But not every believer will. We "intentionally" sin. When we do sin it is God's will that we repent and then our fellowship is restored with God. We both agree on eternal security, so our salvation is never in question here.
But sin separates us from God spiritually. We can't live to the praise of His glory until we repent and restore that fellowship.
We, by our own sin, thwart God's intention for our own lives.
God does not intend for us to sin; but we do anyway.
It is never God's will for us to sin. And yet we do. The fault is ours; not God's. We cannot blame God for our sin.

The same is true for the unsaved. One cannot blame God for their sin.
God doesn't intend for them to go to hell or to remain unsaved.
He is not willing that they perish. He is will is that all men be saved.
That all men are not saved is not God's fault; it is man's.
He has provided the means.

A good example is when Christ came to the Jews in the first century.
John 1:11 "He came to his own but his own received him not."
He came offering the kingdom to the Jews, but they rejected him as their Messiah. "His own did not receive him."
Of their own will they rejected him, took him, and crucified him.
Though it was prophesied, they were not forced into those decisions. God knew it would happen. He didn't force them. Of their own will they chose to commit those ugly acts of sin and betrayal.

 

[The Archangel]

God cannot violate man's free will.

Then, man rules over God.

God will do everything he can to convince and persuade men to trust Jesus, but he will not force them.

Ezekiel 36 tells us:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27, ESV; emphasis mine)

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Then, man rules over God.

How is rejecting Jesus and being cast into hell ruling over God?

Ezekiel 36 tells us:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27, ESV; emphasis mine)

The Archangel

Well, before Ezekiel 36 there was Ezekiel 18;

Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

You see, the scriptures show synergy between man and God. Yes, God calls men and rebukes him, but the man must turn at God's rebuke. And if the man turns at God's rebuke God will pour out his Spirit to that man.

Pro 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

You have to read ALL the scripture pertaining to a subject, not just the ones that suit you and support your doctrine. You can cherry pick the scriptures and make them say anything.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So God INTENDS to save the unrepentant who die in their sins?

Well if HE does intend to save ALL then He must be a very inept savior because He cannot do his job right. So that leaves the Non Cal with a very inept & impotent God. What a conundrum. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winman View Post
God cannot violate man's free will.

Archangel counters with "Then, man rules over God."

And BINGO was his name O....:laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

You all seem to forget that the non-Calvinist position, is not that God is subject to man by man's choosing, but we believe God in his sovereignty chose for men to be free. Your objections all appear to miss this most valuable information.

If I ask my 5 year old to sit down, but don't choose to use physical force to make him sit down, does that make me less strong than my child? Of course not. No rational person would come to that conclusion.

I believe Tozer explained this point well when he wrote:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God