Omnibenevolent God Creating Hell?

[Benjamin]

God provided the way from the beginning for His creation to be perfectly good and free from sin that we may be in His kingdom through the sacrifice of His Only Begotten to pay for those sins.

Why would Omnipotent-Omniscient God not have prevented Himself from making this sacrifice of His Only Begotten?

Could not one come to the conclusion that He had a limitation by abiding in Truth Nature within His own existence which prevented Him making His creation without this sacrifice of Self? If not why would He do this? He obviously had Omniscient knowledge of good and evil and did not want evil (sin) in His Kingdom and the Omnipotence to do as He pleased.

Why wouldn’t Omnipotent God make the decision to not allow sin in the first place if He didn’t want it in His creation? Is this a contradiction of His Omnipotent-Omniscient Nature or a (TRUTH MAKER) that in His free will to create us and give us a spirit like His own He allowed us this freedom of choice in truth by His Truth Nature abiding within His own existence?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by johnp.:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's understandable what you are saying, but I disagree. For one thing, I do not believe that Israel is a living representation of the Church.

No it was. It ceased to be when the Holy Spirit arrived. We have no need for illustrations when we have the reality. Anyway maybe we can discuss it some other time.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, you must be Reformed, I guess. Yeah - maybe some other time. This issue comes up from time to time on the BB though I don't usually get in on it. I conserve my time for issues I think are more of a priority for me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But beyond that, I do not think that the atonement spoken of here is the atonement of Christ.

Without going into the atonement then I will rephrase what I said and say it like this: God swore an oath that no sacrifice would ever be given for Eli's house. Since the house of Eli never had a sacrifice made for them then Jesus did not die for them. That is still limited atonement.
</font>[/QUOTE]Don't have time to post all the passages about Jesus' atonement for all men. I don't think "atonement" means the forgiveness of all sins here, maybe just the sins of Eli's sons. The atonement in the OT had to be made over and over; it was not final. But the atonement of Jesus was "once for all men." The atonement is made for all, but is only applied to those who believe. Maybe you call that Limited Atonement, but I don't.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What do you do with 1 Tim 2.3-6?

If it is God's will that all men are saved then all we need to do is pray that all men are saved and we have everyman saved because this is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us--whatever we ask--we know that we have what we asked of him. 1 John 5:14.

Your argument fails doesn't it unless you are a universalist? If we pray in God's will we receive what we ask for. Find His will and you can have everything. He will give you more love and more wisdom and more lavish than we can imagine if we ask for them because that is His will for those He loves. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not a universalist at all. I am not even an inclusivist -- in fact, I've argued against inclusivism on the BB a few times. God's will is for all men to be saved but he does not force that on those who don't want it. I do believe that God draws men to Christ but I also believe that we are not forced. It's one of those paradoxes or mysteries, like the Trinity.

 

[HankD]

johnp says:

My exact words were a question HankD not a statement. I was asking if that was what you were saying as the question mark in my exact words indicates.
So I see this law at work in you. If I guess at a meaning you will shoot me down if wrong and if I don't guess but ask you do the same.

Where is there in my question any suggestion I was trying to put words into your mouth please?

We went over this before, you used the word “Despot” which word I did not use and by inserting it into the question you misrepresented me. I did not and I would never use this title for Jesus.
If you are comfortable with it, fine. I’m not.

Re:universalism

Why did you use it then? I asked you why, if Jesus loved everyman ever born, He did not pray for the world you reply with, "Father, forgive them..."

If He prayed for one or some of this world then it shows that He can pray for anyone in or of this world.

Did the Father forgive those He prayed for? Jesus is always heard by His Father. What He asked for He received. Would you like to tell me what He actually prayed for? Was it forgiveness for the act that He instigated or was it to everlasting life? I know one of the guards was moved to witness.

He prayed for forgiveness, but it doesn't matter the point is that in this instance (as opposed to John 17 which prayer is limited to His apostles and disciples) He prayed a prayer limited to those of this world who crucified Him in ignorance.

Is there light without Jesus? Jesus is the light.

Jesus is the light but light about Jesus can and is progressive in the Scripture and/or limited in scope for humanity down through the ages.

Then all men does not mean all men ever born does it? All men are sinners but One is not all men ever born.
It doesn't matter what the reason is for excluding Jesus from everyone else ever born because that means not everyone ever born

Define it anyway you want, I gave you my definition ”all” means the world of “all” sinful men in the context of propitiation/appeasement vs justification/reconciliation:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

His sacrifice was a sacrifice of reconciliation given by Christ to God the Father on my behalf. That is what propitiation means.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 John teaches that He is the propitiation for the whole world which lies in wickedness (Lit. The wicked one) as well as ours. "propitiation" is appeasement, "justification" is reconciliation.

Your redefinition is unacceptable you have no authority to change the meanings of words.

I just showed you above and showed you before from 1 john that “propitiation” extends to the whole world including those lying in the “wicked one”. Justification is limited to those who believe in Him.


HankD

 

[Me4Him]

A "Minor" point, "Forgiveness" does not equal "Remission" (taken away) of sin, without shed blood, there is no remission.

OT saints made "Sacrifices" and their sins were "Forgiven", but not "Taken away" until Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law, "Death for sin".

Le 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

"Flesh" sinned and only "Flesh" can pay the "wages of sin", hence, the "WORD" (God) made "flesh".

forgiveness is best interpret as "payment postponed", until later date, since the wages of all sin must be "Paid", God "NEVER" forgives sin in the context of "Remission", the "Law" won't allow it, only Death (shed blood) can remit sin.

Don't interpret Forgiveness as Remission, they are different.

"propitiation" is easier to understand if the word "Substitude" is used, the law required "our death" for our sins, but Jesus's death was a "substitude" for our death, fulfilling the law.

 

[johnp.]

This is interesting Me4Him. There is a lot here that needs to be sorted.

A "Minor" point, "Forgiveness" does not equal "Remission" (taken away) of sin, without shed blood, there is no remission.

I said to HankD, Would you like to tell me what He actually prayed for? Was it forgiveness for the act that He instigated (the cross) or was it to everlasting life? I know one of the guards was moved to witness.

So the sacrifice of atonement in Leviticus 16 cleaned the nation of Isreal for the preceding year. The OT sacrifices were made in order for God to be reconciled to His chosen nation. It was not a remission of future sins but the sins committed that year were put aside, forgiven and forgotten. This made no one righteous but ceremonially clean for God to dwell with His people.

If the prayer for forgiveness was for the guards we have little warrant to think they received the right to become Children of God but just remission from the consequences of touching Christ.

Remission means forgiveness but there are forgivenesses that do not remit all a persons sins but just for the sin the sacrifice is intended for. The atonement was a cover all sacrifice for the whole of Israel's sins except those barred.

forgiveness is best interpret as "payment postponed", until later date, since the wages of all sin must be "Paid", God "NEVER" forgives sin in the context of "Remission", the "Law" won't allow it, only Death (shed blood) can remit sin.

This is wrong. God is not under the law. I can cite many scriptures where He not only does not do those things commanded of us but actually does those things He tells us not to. God is not bound by law.

It is also wrong to say that all sins must have a payment for them.
EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.


What do you think?

john.

 

[HankD]

The sacrifices of the old covenant were a shadow of things to come, they were not the reality.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

We all know that there is only one whose blood can take away sin.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Anyway I have been repeating myself in the last few posts and will probably leave off this debat, at least under the terms of engagement when I joined in.

Thank you johnp for the food for thought in this debate. Your observation of Eli and his household is an excellent point for "limited atonement (I prefer "limited justification").

The one answer which is the real rebuttal to classic Limited Atonement is that Limited Atonement is a general "decree" while Eli and his house hold are specific or particular to a given family in a specific time and place.

Similarly in the other direction is:

Acts 16
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Made in particular or specifically to the jailer and his household but folks like to quote this as a general doctrine of salvation which IMO it is not because lots of people are saved by believing in Jesus and yet their households are/were not.

If one leaves off the "and thy house" then its a good general model and should/could be quoted to anyone.

Bye for now.

HankD

 

[Benjamin]

Well, I’ve picked up on some things, that’s always good, got some responsibilities to catch up on this next couple weeks and priorities in Bible study will have to be limited, so better say bye for now also.

Johnp, thank you, as I’ve come to have a better understanding of the varying beliefs behind Calvinism. Sorry things got out of hand and guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on God’s nature.

HankD, thank you.

Thanks to all others and you are all welcome to take this discussion where ever it leads.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by johnp.:

Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by necessity and hence are unfree. Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows infallibly the entire future, then no human act is free.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

And I think that is a good argument but I hold that He causes all men's acts thus alieviating myself from theological fatalism. So you did not know what I believed and attacked me anyway. Since God created us and knew what would happen to everyone anyway He logically created some for Hell. No one can get around that. Since I believe God is Sovereign then I believe theological fatalism to be a contradiction in terms. He is first cause.

john.

Thank you for providing this link. I have discussed and believed one of the arguments presented here for Theological Fatalism for quite some time but had never seen a formal presentation of it.

I accept the Boethian solution which argues that God is outside time and therefore able to see all of history at the same "time." It never made sence to me that God should be constrained by time since He is not constrained by anything else. I believe that time was created along with everything else and that it will go away after the Second Coming.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by johnp.:
This is interesting Me4Him. There is a lot here that needs to be sorted.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A "Minor" point, "Forgiveness" does not equal "Remission" (taken away) of sin, without shed blood, there is no remission.

I said to HankD, Would you like to tell me what He actually prayed for? Was it forgiveness for the act that He instigated (the cross) or was it to everlasting life? I know one of the guards was moved to witness.

So the sacrifice of atonement in Leviticus 16 cleaned the nation of Isreal for the preceding year. The OT sacrifices were made in order for God to be reconciled to His chosen nation. It was not a remission of future sins but the sins committed that year were put aside, forgiven and forgotten. This made no one righteous but ceremonially clean for God to dwell with His people.

If the prayer for forgiveness was for the guards we have little warrant to think they received the right to become Children of God but just remission from the consequences of touching Christ.

Remission means forgiveness but there are forgivenesses that do not remit all a persons sins but just for the sin the sacrifice is intended for. The atonement was a cover all sacrifice for the whole of Israel's sins except those barred.

forgiveness is best interpret as "payment postponed", until later date, since the wages of all sin must be "Paid", God "NEVER" forgives sin in the context of "Remission", the "Law" won't allow it, only Death (shed blood) can remit sin.

This is wrong. God is not under the law. I can cite many scriptures where He not only does not do those things commanded of us but actually does those things He tells us not to. God is not bound by law.

It is also wrong to say that all sins must have a payment for them.
EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.


What do you think?

john. </font>[/QUOTE]I "think" you don't understand God/law/sin very well

The "First law" given to man was, "Adam, if you eat, you die". (The wages of sin is death)

"EVERY" jot/title from Adam that "transgresses the law" is a sin that only the "DEATH" of a "PERSON" can pay, no sheep, lambs, rams, bulls, no animals, PERIOD.

"MAN" (flesh of man) sinned, and only "MAN" (flesh of man) can pay the wages of sin.


1. The law requires the "death" of a person to pay for sin, (why Jesus came)
2. "NO JOT/TITLE" of the law will go "UN-Fulfilled, (every sin paid),
3. NO MAN comes to the father except by/through Jesus,


If animals sacrifices "took away" sin, then Jesus coming/dying was for nothing.

Learn one little rules about God/Law/sin, and your doctrine will be right.

GOD NEVER FORGIVES SIN

Every "jot/tittle" that transgresses the law, (evil thoughts) will be paid by the "DEATH" of a "PERSON". (Jesus or person)

Not one sin will go unpaid, the "Books" will be "balanced" to the very "last mite". (penny)

Lu 12:59 I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

This is why "Once saved, always saved" is true, Jesus isn't dying for any more sins.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Benjamin:
God provided the way from the beginning for His creation to be perfectly good and free from sin that we may be in His kingdom through the sacrifice of His Only Begotten to pay for those sins.

Why would Omnipotent-Omniscient God not have prevented Himself from making this sacrifice of His Only Begotten?

Could not one come to the conclusion that He had a limitation by abiding in Truth Nature within His own existence which prevented Him making His creation without this sacrifice of Self? If not why would He do this? He obviously had Omniscient knowledge of good and evil and did not want evil (sin) in His Kingdom and the Omnipotence to do as He pleased.

Why wouldn’t Omnipotent God make the decision to not allow sin in the first place if He didn’t want it in His creation? Is this a contradiction of His Omnipotent-Omniscient Nature or a (TRUTH MAKER) that in His free will to create us and give us a spirit like His own He allowed us this freedom of choice in truth by His Truth Nature abiding within His own existence?

Many know Jesus came, but "WHY" is still a "mystery" to some.

If you can't explain the "WHY" behind the events in scripture, then the scriptures are still a "mystery" to you.

Let's see if any can give an answer to your question, explain the "WHY" in context of Calvin doctrine.

 

[johnp.]

Hello StraightAndNarrow.

I accept the Boethian solution...

I didn't know it had a name. Boethius (c480-524) right?
I've not had an argument with anyone using this argument before who ever told me it comes from way back. I thought it came from closer by like the Twilight Zone.

I believe that time was created along with everything else and that it will go away after the Second Coming.

Great. Just as soon as we get enough time to get something done we run out of it?
Shall I start old chap or would you like to get your retaliation in first? Benjamin did say, Thanks to all others and you are all welcome to take this discussion where ever it leads. I shall read what the man said I think. To my mind time is as essential for all things to happen in as 3d space.

It never made sence to me that God should be constrained by time since He is not constrained by anything else.

Why should part of His being be a constraint?

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello HankD.

The one answer which is the real rebuttal to classic Limited Atonement is that Limited Atonement is a general "decree" while Eli and his house hold are specific or particular to a given family in a specific time and place.

No it supports it for not only does the man save himself but because of that he saves his children who are part of the elect as I was and my children were saved because I was elect. Jesus dying for individuals can never be a general decree. All you do is argue with God because it was Him who said no sacrifice would ever be given for Eli's household and that must include any general sacrifice must it not or Eli's family have their sacrifice? General or not it doesn't matter because no sacrifice is what God says.

If one leaves off the "and thy house" then its a good general model and should/could be quoted to anyone.

Encouraging people not to preach God's word is a very serious matter. The scriptures says, "And thy house."

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

No of course it can't. A life for a life. It says nothing about the other way to Heaven does it?
EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. His sins will be forgotten by God because he does right. No blood is necessary, this is also part of the law.
It doesn't matter if it is not possible the promise is there and if that is so then no blood is necessary to have our past guilt removed. And if that don't wind someone up I will be surprised. But that's what the verse says. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Not because of any sacrifice but obedience.
I know you said 'bye for now' but I thought this needed to be covered.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Let's see if any can give an answer to your question, explain the "WHY" in context of Calvin doctrine.

He came to strut His stuff and make His glory known why do you think He came Me4Him?

john.

 

[johnp.]

It's cool Benjamin. Thanks for the argument.

Well, I’ve picked up on some things, that’s always good...

Alawys.

Sorry things got out of hand and guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on God’s nature.

They did not get out of hand, did you ever visit the C/A forum?
I never agree to allowing false doctrine without contention but I don't want you burnt. Freedom of speech came through the Calvinists.

God bless. john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Me4Him.

I "think" you don't understand God/law/sin very well

I think you might be right but you know of them less.

The "First law" given to man was, "Adam, if you eat, you die". (The wages of sin is death)

Just shows that fruit is not always good for you I think.

"EVERY" jot/title from Adam that "transgresses the law" is a sin that only the "DEATH" of a "PERSON" can pay, no sheep, lambs, rams, bulls, no animals, PERIOD.

No it's God that sets the tarrif not you. If He says no sacrifice is needed just do as you're told then that's the tarrif for that. You fail to answer the passage below:
EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

"MAN" (flesh of man) sinned, and only "MAN" (flesh of man) can pay the wages of sin.

Flesh of man? No way it was man? Flesh of man can pay the wages? Wages are received not paid out unless you are the Boss.

Learn one little rules about God/Law/sin, and your doctrine will be right.

Does one suck or blow the egg? Answer the scripture above don't ignore it.

GOD NEVER FORGIVES SIN

Answer the scripture above don't ignore it.

Not one sin will go unpaid...

I'm sure you are correct but just a technicality, those in Hell will be paying their debt off forever so their instalments will never be finished.


john.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by johnp.:
[QB] No of course it can't. A life for a life. It says nothing about the other way to Heaven does it?

OTHER WAY TO HEAVEN????

EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. His sins will be forgotten by God because he does right. No blood is necessary, this is also part of the law.
john.

Do you know that you're teaching "WORKS" for "salvation"???

And "contradicted" Jesus when he said:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: "NO MAN" cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,

I "think" you've proved more about the "fallacy" of "Your doctrine" than I could ever hope to prove.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Me4Him.

Do you know that you're teaching "WORKS" for "salvation"???

Just goes to show how much you retain in your memory man if you think that this Calvinist teaches works like what you do.

I "think" you've proved more about the "fallacy" of "Your doctrine" than I could ever hope to prove.

Answer the scripture above don't ignore it. How many times did I ask you to apply your mind to EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. ?

I did not contradict Jesus or anyone but you just contradicted the passage. What does the passage say? Why don't you answer it? You contradicted the scripture with scripture try harmony for once.

john.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by johnp.:
EZE 18:21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. ?

I did not contradict Jesus or anyone but you just contradicted the passage. What does the passage say? Why don't you answer it? You contradicted the scripture with scripture try harmony for once.

john. [/QB]

Let "READ" the scripture and "SEE" what it "Actually" says.


"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed (crucify the old man)


and keeps all my decrees (believe in the lord)

and does what is just and right, (not live in sin)

he will surely live; he will not die.

22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

You take "MAN'S WORKS" and make them "Righteousness", Justifying the man, then turn around and say all men are "totally Depraved".

Do you know "What you believe"???

Like a "bar room door" you "swing" both directions, depending on which direction the conversation is going.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Me4Him.

Like a "bar room door" you "swing" both directions, depending on which direction the conversation is going.

Like those ones in the cowboy films that you can see through? I can remember choosing to drink whaskey cause the cowboys drank it. I could talk about pubs all night.

Let "READ" the scripture and "SEE" what it "Actually" says.

That would be a good start.

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed (crucify the old man)

He will be the old man not a new one. Should he kill himself before regeneration? Could the old man crucify the old man? Blown away.

and keeps all my decrees (believe in the lord)

all my decrees Is what it says. Yes or no? It is not a singular is it?

and does what is just and right, (not live in sin)

he will surely live; he will not die. A works righteousness will get you into Heaven. That's what it says. Yes or no? all my decrees is plural.

22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

Yes because of the righteous things he had done his former sins will be forgotten. Yes or no? No blood is needed yes or no.

You take "MAN'S WORKS" and make them "Righteousness", Justifying the man, then turn around and say all men are "totally Depraved".

Shall we transfer the thread to the 'confused about Calvinism' thread for you?

Where have I taken man's works and made them righteousness please. What planet are you on? You should know by now that I am the Calvinist of Calvinists man. Now think it through properly you are not paying attention and you keep getting savaged. It isn't friendly advice it is a correction. You should try to understand your enemy before you attack him. You owe it to us to try to understand what we say because it is what you want us to do for you.

You take "MAN'S WORKS" and make them "Righteousness", Justifying the man, then turn around and say all men are "totally Depraved".

That is not Let "READ" the scripture and "SEE" what it "Actually" says. is it?

None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

You should pray for God to show you what He says here because I can't show you.
Try again. Break the two sentences down word by word.

Look: None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.

None means none.

None of the offenses he has committed...

The man has transgressed the law...but none of these offences will be remembered.

Why not?

Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

No blood, sweat or tears.

Do you know "What you believe"???

I don't believe in 'what' but Who. You don't know what I believe.

john.

 

[Me4Him]

all my decrees=LAW

Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified

in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (in Jesus)

without the deeds of the law.

Jesus said "NO MAN" comes to the Father except by him,

you say "Righteous works" can justify a man,

The "LAW" says only "DEATH" can satisfy the law's requirement for sin.

I "think" you're a "little mixed up" in what the Bible actually teaches.