Great Response.
I'd take the Catholic Heaven or the Universalist Heaven over Ryan's Heaven anyday!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Quick-and-Dirty Calvinism
- Thread starter Monergist
- Start date
I'd take the Catholic Heaven or the Universalist Heaven over Ryan's Heaven anyday!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Fine - but it is neither Arminian nor Calvinist - nor Biblical.
I was trying to keep this simple.
In suggesting this OTHER solution you give away the idea that you too have an "inner Arminian" that wants God to be portrayed as a God of Love who is consistent with His Word. Else you would be happy with the Calvinist solution asis.
Interesting.
Again your premise is "IF we are going to start CARING and LOVING then we need to be Universalists not cold-hearted Calvinists" ---
However you have exposed a huge flaw in Calvinism. Calvinism offers NO REASON why God is not "zapping the brains of all humans" to be saved. IT just observes "He is not" without actually arguing that there is any problem at all with DOING it!!! And in that sense you are right. ANY TORMENT that exists in the Calvinist scenario is purely arbitrary because NO REASON is available for ANY MECHANISM stopping God from CARING about and ZAPPING ALL!!
He "just doesn't" (as innexplicable as that Calvinist defense is).
In the Arminian scenario the REASON that ALL are not saved is obvious.
So your "Alternative" is really nothing more than "A BETTER CALVINISM"!!
I didn't use it - I just used the EXISTING Calvinism.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
No wonder you recommend "A better Calvinism" as the ideal solution then!!
I agree with you that if "pre-emptive Zapping" is the solution then simply not "arbitrarily restricting the zapping to the FEW of Matt 7" is the better solution. In that model zapping THE WORLD so that you can back up the claim "So loved the WORLD' -- is a much better solution that avoids the CFS altogether and ends up with a much brighter future than the AFS as well.
The odd thing is that "calvinism" can only respond to that "better-CAlvinism" alternative with "yes but innexplicably God sovereignly does not choose that better path -- oh well".
Bob
I agree with you that if "pre-emptive Zapping" is the solution then simply not "arbitrarily restricting the zapping to the FEW of Matt 7" is the better solution. In that model zapping THE WORLD so that you can back up the claim "So loved the WORLD' -- is a much better solution that avoids the CFS altogether and ends up with a much brighter future than the AFS as well.
The odd thing is that "calvinism" can only respond to that "better-CAlvinism" alternative with "yes but innexplicably God sovereignly does not choose that better path -- oh well".
Bob
The bigger problem with this all is the existence of hell. I believe in hell, but it's really just hard to grasp if you truly think about it.
Explanations are usually quite shallow. "God is sovereign" doesn't do anything for me. The question never was whether he could create hell, but why he would create it. "Because a just God has to punish sin" makes sense, but hell still seems so extreme.
To me, hell is a topic that should make Calvinists and Arminians both wonder. Let's face it, with hell in the picture, neither one is very pretty.
Explanations are usually quite shallow. "God is sovereign" doesn't do anything for me. The question never was whether he could create hell, but why he would create it. "Because a just God has to punish sin" makes sense, but hell still seems so extreme.
To me, hell is a topic that should make Calvinists and Arminians both wonder. Let's face it, with hell in the picture, neither one is very pretty.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well if Hell (as in fiery hell from Matt 10) is really the Lake of Fire that we see in Rev 20 then there may be a solution.
In Matt 10 God says "BOTH body AND soul are destroyed in fiery Hell" and God is the only one ABLE to do that. Man can only destroy the body - but not the soul.
IF Luke 12:45-49 is correct about some getting less punishment than others based on what they know -- and so also 2Cor 5 correct when it sayse each person must give an account for deeds both good AND evil -- then our precious little girl who has refused wave after wave of love and "drawing mercy" will pay for her sins - but that horrible moment will be quick and brief as compared to lets say "Hitler" or "Satan".
And then only AFTER the Lake of Fire and AFTER the New Earth do we find the Rev 21 promise of all tears being removed.
And of Course the truth of Rev 14:10 remains - we will be there for the whole thing! And it will hurt US MORE then because in that PERFECT sinless eternity we will be models of 1Cor 13 LOVE -- EVEN MORE perfectly than we are here!!
Instead of the cold lifeless indifference to the suffering of our loved ones that some Calvinists "need" so they don't have to worry while their loved ones writhe in torment due to "arbitrary selection" passing them by -- there exists an Arminian model consistent with God's truth about Rev 14:10 where we are there for the whole horrible ordeal AND with God's truth about our being "more loving" as Christians (and in heaven) than as sinners -- and with God's truth about degrees of punishment based on deeds and what the person knows.
In any case - Calvinism "needs" a way to shield itself in a corner where it has the "luxury" of a cold heartless unconcern for lost loved one ONCE the end is reached and the saints are in heaven's reward with loved once in hell. "Pith the brain like a frog" if nothing else they say.
In Christ,
Bob
In Matt 10 God says "BOTH body AND soul are destroyed in fiery Hell" and God is the only one ABLE to do that. Man can only destroy the body - but not the soul.
IF Luke 12:45-49 is correct about some getting less punishment than others based on what they know -- and so also 2Cor 5 correct when it sayse each person must give an account for deeds both good AND evil -- then our precious little girl who has refused wave after wave of love and "drawing mercy" will pay for her sins - but that horrible moment will be quick and brief as compared to lets say "Hitler" or "Satan".
And then only AFTER the Lake of Fire and AFTER the New Earth do we find the Rev 21 promise of all tears being removed.
And of Course the truth of Rev 14:10 remains - we will be there for the whole thing! And it will hurt US MORE then because in that PERFECT sinless eternity we will be models of 1Cor 13 LOVE -- EVEN MORE perfectly than we are here!!
Instead of the cold lifeless indifference to the suffering of our loved ones that some Calvinists "need" so they don't have to worry while their loved ones writhe in torment due to "arbitrary selection" passing them by -- there exists an Arminian model consistent with God's truth about Rev 14:10 where we are there for the whole horrible ordeal AND with God's truth about our being "more loving" as Christians (and in heaven) than as sinners -- and with God's truth about degrees of punishment based on deeds and what the person knows.
In any case - Calvinism "needs" a way to shield itself in a corner where it has the "luxury" of a cold heartless unconcern for lost loved one ONCE the end is reached and the saints are in heaven's reward with loved once in hell. "Pith the brain like a frog" if nothing else they say.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob,
You've still not given me an answer.
I asked you go give me a reference for the non-Biblical source of your theory/interpretation of Rev 14:10.
You've still not given me an answer.
I asked you go give me a reference for the non-Biblical source of your theory/interpretation of Rev 14:10.
Andrew C Bain
New Member
Post removed for violation of posting rules.
[ June 11, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
[ June 11, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Why would I need to dump "sola-scriptura" - now??
Why not stick with sola scriptura and just admit that Rev 14:10 is accurate "IN the PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His holy ones" really MEANS exactly that!
"Thus shall WE ever be WITH the LORD" 1Thess 4 means EXACTLY that!
"That WHERE I am there YOU may be also" really means EXACTLY that!
What alternative is there????? Eisgesis??? Making stuff up???
You may think that those WITH Christ WHERE He is are not in fact IN His PRESENCE - but I know of no extra-biblical source that would help you make that case.
However I see why Calvinism puts you in a spot where you "need" to make that case in Rev 14 so that the precious child can suffer without the sympathy concern or notice of the parent.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Think about it. StefanM was in fact recommending "A BETTER CALVINISM". No wonder you would take it over Calvinism!!
In StefanM's scenario instead of God arbitrarily selecting out the FEW of Matt 7 for heaven and leaving the rest in fiery torment - selecting in a totally innexplicable manner -- he has God SELECTING ALL for "zapping" into "regenerate heaven" and thus avoids ALL POSSIBILITY of the CFS (and even your notion of child-suffering horribly while Parent goes on in blissful unconcern for loved one).
I applaud you choice for "The BETTER Calvinism". It certainly would be better no question!
In Christ,
Bob
Can you people stop thinking so humanistically and being guided by your emotions?
Johnathan Edwards rightly and completely answers this in His treatise "The Ends For Which God Created The World".
God is not just Glorified in His Grace but ALSO in His Wrath. To know that God has loved us and chose us is amazing in and of itself, but it is only magnified when we will see the utter hatred, anger, and disdain for sin and it's punishment. Only then will we truly and fully give glory to God for what He has saved us from. Get your mind off of humanistic, man centered theology and see God's purpose in it... We will be to awestruck and on our knees glorifying God and be centered on Him and will not be "grieved" for anybody. For to do so would be sinful, we would be thinking of "our loss" in the presence of God and not glorifying Him for His JUSTICE and wrath on them, for only then will we see the complete and heinous evil of the hatred for God in ALL those people and we will not pity them at all.....
Johnathan Edwards rightly and completely answers this in His treatise "The Ends For Which God Created The World".
God is not just Glorified in His Grace but ALSO in His Wrath. To know that God has loved us and chose us is amazing in and of itself, but it is only magnified when we will see the utter hatred, anger, and disdain for sin and it's punishment. Only then will we truly and fully give glory to God for what He has saved us from. Get your mind off of humanistic, man centered theology and see God's purpose in it... We will be to awestruck and on our knees glorifying God and be centered on Him and will not be "grieved" for anybody. For to do so would be sinful, we would be thinking of "our loss" in the presence of God and not glorifying Him for His JUSTICE and wrath on them, for only then will we see the complete and heinous evil of the hatred for God in ALL those people and we will not pity them at all.....
Bob,
Keep Dreaming,
YOU Wrote - Why not stick with sola scriptura and just admit that Rev 14:10 is accurate "IN the PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His holy ones" really MEANS exactly that!
Because It doesn't say that. It says in every translation I own - in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
The last time I checked angels were heavenly beings not the Saints of God.
It's going to take more than your "interpretations" of Holy Scripture to convince me that Mothers and Fathers who die in Christ are going to witness the torment of their lost children in Hell from Heaven.
As far as Stefan's post - he presented two nonBiblical views to add to your nonBiblical view. Of the three I would pick Universalism any day. But I don't have that luxury because I must abide by the Word of God, and the Word of God never states anywhere that Saints in Heaven will mourn over lost loved ones.
Bob you are interjecting your own views into Scripture.
Keep Dreaming,
YOU Wrote - Why not stick with sola scriptura and just admit that Rev 14:10 is accurate "IN the PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His holy ones" really MEANS exactly that!
Because It doesn't say that. It says in every translation I own - in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
The last time I checked angels were heavenly beings not the Saints of God.
It's going to take more than your "interpretations" of Holy Scripture to convince me that Mothers and Fathers who die in Christ are going to witness the torment of their lost children in Hell from Heaven.
As far as Stefan's post - he presented two nonBiblical views to add to your nonBiblical view. Of the three I would pick Universalism any day. But I don't have that luxury because I must abide by the Word of God, and the Word of God never states anywhere that Saints in Heaven will mourn over lost loved ones.
Bob you are interjecting your own views into Scripture.
Remember, Hebrew culture was very emotional--check out the prophets, the psalms, and especially Lamentations.
Lam 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever,
Lam 3:32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
Lam 3:33 for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.
What is so wrong with trying to think about exactly what this kind of language means?
Bob,
You Wrote - Why would I need to dump "sola-scriptura" - now??
You need to think about that.
Can you truthfully say that everything you believe came right out of the Bible?
Is there nothing in your church's doctrinal statement that you question?
You Wrote - Why would I need to dump "sola-scriptura" - now??
You need to think about that.
Can you truthfully say that everything you believe came right out of the Bible?
Is there nothing in your church's doctrinal statement that you question?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I am pointing out that practially all of scripture points to our "Being WITH Christ" by the time of the 2nd coming and after the Millennium - at the GWTJ - Lake of Fire event. I think that is impossible to refute.
In Christ,
Bob
The term Hagios used in Rev 14:10 is "Saints" 59 times in the NASB when speaking of a person or being.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well said rc! Preach it Brother! Calvinism in its purest form -- yet railed against here by other Calvinists who hate its perfect portrayal in the CFS! (How odd that their inner Arminian should lead them there).
I think this is what needs to go in the Calvinist future Scenario when the loving Parent comes to God looking for "The God of Love" to show in deeds - just how much HE loved the precious little girl now suffering the torments of hell.
That will "fix" that parent and will show how the opening statement of the CSF is utterly true beyond a doubt!
Here then is how Calvinism leads us to "Love God AND Love our fellow humans AS ourselves." By eventually reducing us to the same "Cold heartless unconcern for the torment of our precious loved ones - that Calvinism claims God has about them".
And is it not "logical" that the saints should ever become more and more "like the God they serve"??
Obviously it is!!
As the Calvinis scenario points out - "it is all about ME ME ME!". To focus on torment and suffering of "HER HER HER" in the presence of this calvinist-god would be a "sin" -- no doubt!
Finally I have someome who will hold to Calvinism boldly on this just as JohnP was doing!
Outstanding!
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I think everyone has to admit that they get general opinions from sermons they hear or people they read to some extent. It is the human condition. But we can still go to the Bible "alone" to build our case. We can present that case in a very critical venue like this one and see it ripped to shreds (to the extent it can be) and also see inneffective arguments against it flailing but obviously failing.
When the arguments against it hold water - then we have a clue that we need to re-think our position. When they simply expose greater weakness in the opposing views - we are confirmed.
I have presented this "sola scriptura" -- Each of the key salient points defended from scripture to make my case.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In deference to Hardsheller's insistance that we NOT allow ourselves to even think about the saints seeing their precious loved ones tormented by their Calvinist-god unless the Bible is really really REALLY going to insist that the saints are WITH the LAMB as He torments their precious children ---
I am revising my comments on Rev 14:10 somewhat.
Bob
I am revising my comments on Rev 14:10 somewhat.
It is very instructive that it is only “After” the Great White Throne Judgment of Rev 20 and After the Lake of Fire of Rev 20 and After the New Earth is created in Rev 21 that we see the Promise in 21 that all tears are wiped away from the eyes of the saints.
</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,
Bob
The term Hagios used in Rev 14:10 is "Saints" 59 times in the NASB when speaking of a person or being.
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I found that reference too. It seems to say that the saints will too busy rejoicing over the torment of the lost (including your lost children - in your scenario) to mourn.
The term Hagios used in Rev 14:10 is "Saints" 59 times in the NASB when speaking of a person or being.
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]But it is never translated Saints when the word Hagios is used in conjunction with another noun as in Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Holy Angels.