Non-Calvinists, why is your God so small?

Actually, it's not a matter of whether this god is able to send missionaries. For some reason unbeknownst to me, he is bound to respect man's free will over his own desires. Therefore god will eventually say to a person, "You're here in heaven because you chose to respond of your own free will to my call. Unfortunately, a few million Chinese are now in hell because you and others chose of your own free will not to go where I wanted to send you. Hey, but what could I do? I value free will above the lives of millions of Chinese, so my hands were tied. But don't worry - I'm going to wipe your tears away and make sure you'll never recall your free will choices that sent millions of Chinese to eternal torment."

 

It is just so sad to see people cry about God not respecting people's free will. It is a shame they don't respect his.

After all, it was man that created the earth and the universe. It was man that loved God first. It was man that through his infinite wisdom decided to let Christ come. It was man, man, man, man, man...

Yeah, it is hard to imagine where this theology came from (tower of Babel).

 

when it comes down to the nitty gritty; God will not have any problem making his point no matter what we think, He will be justified in the end,i'm w/helen at one point, God said his love is greater than a mothers love; must a meant somthing to him or he wouldn't mentioned it;look at Soloman & them 2 women fighting over that baby?
i think Jesus is still seeking.

 

I had been hoping the debate strategy in this forum had improved as participants were not stating as a belief of their opposition what they know their opposition does not believe. I guess it has deteriorated back to the same old spiritual mud wrestling again.

Ken

[ November 20, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I know everyone is groaning at this time and saying to themselves oh no it's Brother Glen of the Primitive Baptist brethren. To the Primitive Baptist brethren our God is not small!... He doesn't need our help to save us or any of his children."HE IS GOD!"

He does what he wants... anywhere he wants... anytime he wants... to anyone he wants... He does not need our permission!... He created your heart and can go there anytime he pleases... None can stay his hand or ask him what doeth thou. He does according to HIS WILL AND PLEASURE... This is the God I worship!

Can you resist his just right and holy will?... The scriptures say you can't!... He sees the end from the beginning and those things not yet done saying my counsel shall stand and I will do ALL my pleasure... Will he save ALL his blood bought children... The promises of God are sure!... "IT IS FINISHED"

We were ALL headed for HELL but before the foundation of the world was laid he chose his blood bought children to himself and gave them to the Son to save because they couldn't save themself... If God gave them the ability... Jesus could have remained in glory with the Father. The free will was given to the first man Adam... Taking that into consideration would he leave our Eternal Salvation in our hands? If you brethren could see Salvation by Grace Alone you would really see how big my God is?

Job 38:[1] Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

[2] Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

[3] Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me... Brother Glen

[ November 20, 2002, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Ah, but it's not found in my line of reasoning.

Actually, I'm just begging for an answer to the question. Perhaps you will indulge me instead of throwing names of fallacies around in an attempt to write off my request for an answer.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry you don't like logic, here.

 

This is true. God chooses to allow man a part in salvation. Both of us seem to have this problem, since not all men are saved. You say it is because God did not choose them. I say it is because man did not choose God.

 

God did. Or have we forgotten the great commission.

Depends on how we define sovereignty. If God is responsible for choosing a faulty vehicle, then he is also responsible for sin. I do not hold God culpable for sin anymore than I hold him culpable for the mistakes man makes in not spreading the gospel message.

Would it not have been more fair if all men were saved? Would it not have been more fair if all men were damned?

The choice you and I have is a simple one, since we deny the first two propositions. 1.) God is more just and fair if he were to arbitrarily select an "elect," which follows that those who are not elect are damned. 2.) God is more just and fair is he were to allow all men the choice to follow him. Those who choose to follow become saved. Those who choose not to are damned.

My position is that the second is more just and fair.

And there are many of the Chinese who respond yes to just one gospel message. There are many Americans who say no after hearing it over and over again. My point is that the Chinese are responding even when hearing the message once. It is our responsibility to spread that gospel message.

 

One time hearing the gospel message is the opportunity to say yes. That's equal opportunity.

 

I had been hoping the debate strategy in this forum had improved as participants were not stating as a belief of their opposition what they know their opposition does not believe. I guess it has deteriorated back to the same old spiritual mud wrestling again.

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Could man have believed if they were chosen by God? (calvinists would say yes). Did God choose not to elect all men? (Calvinists would say yes)

Therefore, the conclusion is supported. A cry of an ad hominem attack or however we would define this, must be supported.

 

Since we're operating on illogical emotional appeals, here is an alternative view of God:

"Hey, Suzie! Welcome to Heaven. Yeah, you were the only person from your family I elected. Your mom and dad? Oh, they're in Hell. Your brothers and sisters? They are in Hell as well. Why, you ask? Because I chose not to elect them! Aren't I more glorified now? Oh, your children? Nah. They're not elect either. Yeah, I know you spent all those years praying for them and all those times telling them about Jesus. Didn't do any good though. They were destined for an eternity without me. I didn't elect them! But don't worry! You made it - you were elected! You may begin worshipping me now."

See how it works both way, nt? (And note that I had the reverence to capitalize the name of God.)

 

No, personally, I don't see how it works both ways. Speaking purely from an emotional perspective, since that's the nature of this part of the debate, your charicature is based on a premise I'm willing to accept, therefore I do not find it particularly offensive, just exaggerated.

God chooses based on His plan and based on what He knows. If God says "you were the only person in you family I elected" I can rest assured there is a good reason for that. I cannot rest assured that there is a good reason why a god would submit to the free-will of man such that a bad decision on man's part would cause that god to lose millions of people he would otherwise have saved. If the Bible said that's the way it works, maybe I'd give the possibility some consideration. But that's not at all what the Bible says.

I deliberately use lower-case "g" not out of irrerverence, but when referring to a god I do not believe exists.

 

Later, you wrote:

Could you do me the favor of explaining how these two statements are consistent? I'm sure it is merely my comprehension of your views that is insufficient.</font>[/QUOTE]For equality (as defined as all men having a chance to be saved) to be established, God needs only to truly invite a man once. The number of times that the chance is given need not be the same to establish such equality.

 

This is quite sad, indeed.

Care to speculate on what that reason is? Or any reason why God would choose not to elect a person? This seems to be a crucial point.

It's not about submission. If His sovereign plan was to allow man a part in reaching the lost, then he is not submitting! Therefore, the "such that..." does not follow.

God tells man to preach the gospel in the great commission. He commands man in Acts 1:8 to be witnesses to the entire world. It's in the Bible, right there. "How will they no if they do not hear?" It's there, too.

So, if, in reality, this is the way God works, what does this say about your salvation? I'm not willing to do the same for your perception of God, as I am not haughty enough to so such. If you are wrong, have you undermined and irreverenced the name of God? I would strongly advise that you reconsider such a practice.

 

Just as we, as created beings, are responsible for our own sin, we, as created beings, are responsible for not spreading the message. God is not responsible for our sin (even though He created us) just as He is not responsible for our failure (even though He sent us).

Does responsibility equal culpability? Why or why not?

Romans 2:11 would disagree. God is not a respecter of persons, and as such, is a fair God. Does justice not require the judge to be fair? Do you have Biblical support to back up your statement that "God could not possibly be more glorified in the world that he created?"

It's not about God working harder at all. How is his persuasion inconsistent? All that is required for fairness is one visit of the Holy Spirit. There is no more unfairness in this than in the fact that some people are gifted and others are not.

Because humans did a poor job of spreading the gospel message.

 

So Scott, what are you doing sending people to hell? You need to be out there 24/7 winning everyone you can. I hope you like fast food.

If anyone goes to hell, it is the fault of people not preaching (or talking stars in Helen's theology). I don't expect to see you post anymore. If you do, people might go to hell because of it.