The Handful?

As for logic, you are missing the boat Scott. A choice of one thing, is not a choice against everything else. Double predestination is not the logical step, no matter who said it. All men are born on the road to hell. God didn't choose to send them there. That is the natural result of the sin of Adam in all mankind. They are on that road because they do not want to do anything different.

You misdefine free will (a problem that crops up entirely too much). Free will is the ability to act in accordance with the nature. Man can do anything in accordance with his nature.

Simply logic perhaps but not biblical truth. You can only sin becuase Adam as your representative, sinned. Therefore we are all sinners because of him (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). Furthemore, you are not suffering for someone else's sin; you are suffering for you own becuase your sin nature leads you to freely sin.

1. No arminians has ever shown this to be true; 2. God still created people that he could have chosen not to create and thus, in your position, shows himself to be unfair.

I didn't say this. You said this.

Nobody is denying that man has free will. Neither is anyone questioning God's ability to do this.

 

If God did chose only certain people to be saved, than he chose to pass over others who weren't. That is quite plainly a choice.

The Calvinist definition is different from the Arminian one, then.

Because one cannot prove a negative. Calvinists cannot provide an clear exegetical proof on such. You miss the mark in explaining the Arminian position. Every person that God created had a choice to follow him or reject him. Those who reject him have ONLY themselves to blame. In the Calvinist model, since man doesn't have a choice nor a chance, he has ONLY God to blame for his predicament.

You deny that man has a free will to choose Christ or not, no? Either he MUST accept Christ or he CANNOT accept Christ - those are the only two categories.

 

Choosing to pass over was not what you said. It is so difficult discussing these things with you becuase you seem so uninformed on the arugments that you are trying to debate.

[/qb]The definition I gave is the definition that treats man as made in the image of God since it applies equally to God and man.

[/qb]The issue of foreknowledge has long been demonstrated from exegesis to be determinative foreknowledge.

If God gave every man this unaided choice, then why does God say through Paul that the unsaved man cannot please God and is unable to please God (Rom 8). Those are words of ability. Furthermore, every Calvinist agrees that man has only himself to blame. He cannot blame God.

He cannot and will not except Christ of his own free will. That is the bottom line.

I think I am going to bow out here because there is simply no headway being made.

 

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom. 9:14-21)

Your problem is not with the Primitive Baptists or Calvinsts, it's with submitting to the fact God is sovereign and man is not. The Bible could not be any more plain on this issue.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (II Pet. 3:16)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say Paul was writing Romans 9 for people like you.

 

Come on now - is there really a difference? If you would agree that God chooses to pass over people then God chooses to send them to Hell. If you can agree to the former, then the latter logically follows. You see, it's not a matter of being uninformed. I'm seeing what you will agree with - if you can see one hole in the dike, then the rest of the dam will cave in.

So God caused Adam to sin and God caused evil. Thou hast said. If God were to know that they would sin, he determined the sin. Either God's foreknowledge is determinative or it isn't. Either God caused evil, destruction, and damnation or he didn't.

What does God allowing man a choice have with pleasing God? Man does have enmity with God - yet Christ died for us anyway. Behold, what manner of love the Father has given unto us that we should be called the sons of God! Just because we cannot please God doesn't mean that he cannot give all men such an unaided source.

An unscriptural bottom line, but if it's a bottom line for you...

'Tis a shame. There are a couple things in this post that I'm sure you would like to respond to.

 

Why, Dr. Berrian, wherever did you get the idea that the Lord damns the majority to hell ?
All men from after Adam and Eve are conceived and born damned to hell. Had it not been for the mercy of God and His grace in plucking many out of damnation there would be none saved at all.

 

Preach the Word,

You are correct that the Lord is not wringing His sacred hands wondering if only a few more people accept Him.

He has paid the debt for the sins of every human being [I Tim. 2:6 & I John 2:2] and the written Word says that He ' . . . . had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.' [Hebrews 1:3]

In the mystery of the Godhead He in unity with the Holy Spirit is still wooing men and women, boys and girls toward His Kingdom. [Revelation 22:17].

This is the view of a four point Arminian/Biblicist.

 

Ray,

You seem to be implying that according to your view of the atonement that now that it was accomplished, it is a matter of indifference to God how many "decide" to accept it.

I believe that God has purposed to save His people and has no intention of letting one of them perish in hell. Not one of those for whom Christ shed His precious blood will be lost.

My God actually, not maybe, redeems.

From a five-point Calvinist,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

 

Oh, I see. The ones who He created who won't accept Him, He really doesn't care for at all. At least not enough to die for.

Why would an omnipotent and all-loving God dismiss so many people and pass over them like that? Why is this not a question of ethics for you?

 

Ray,

You seem to be implying that according to your view of the atonement that now that it was accomplished, it is a matter of indifference to God how many "decide" to accept it.

I believe that God has purposed to save His people and has no intention of letting one of them perish in hell. Not one of those for whom Christ shed His precious blood will be lost.

My God actually, not maybe, redeems.

From a five-point Calvinist,

Ken
Were it not for grace...</font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand why God doesn't care about the non-elect though.

Why didn't he just not create them?

Doesn't He care that they will suffer eternally?

 

This is a question that is much more appropriate for Scott and Ray and one that they will not answer. They have a God who sends people to hell when their sins have already been paid for. The God of Calvinism has just reasons for sending people to hell: their sin. For Scott and Ray, those sins have been paid for and thus there is no longer anything between them and God ... but God sends them to hell anyway.

Their God created a bunch of people he knew were never going to accept them and thus, they are no better off than we are. In fact, they are worse off because their God does the same thing our God does; he just isn't in control of it.

 

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4)

"It is not the sense of this text, nor of any other passage of Scripture, that God made man to damn him; nor is this to be inferred from the doctrine of predestination: God made man, neither to damn him, nor to save him, but for his own glory; and that is secured, whether in his salvation or damnation; nor did or does God make men wicked; he made man upright, and he has made himself wicked; and, being so, God may justly appoint him to damnation for his wickedness, in doing which he glorifies his justice." -Dr. John Gill, D. D.

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" (Rom. 9:22)

"...[T]hese are said to be "fitted for destruction," that is, eternal damnation; not by God, for this does not respect God's act of ordination to punishment; but by Satan, the god of this world, that blinds them, who works effectually in them, and leads them captive at his will; and by themselves, by their own wickedness, hardness of heart, and impenitence, do they treasure up to themselves wrath, against the day of wrath, so that their destruction is of themselves..." Dr. John Gill, D. D.

"We must notice that the expression fitted to destruction is in the Greek middle voice, and should be interpreted that man fits himself to destruction." (King James Bible Commentary)

God simply lets mankind act in accordance with their nature and is just in doing so, for He would have been just as righteous in letting all mankind perish, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:4-7) Notice there is no mention of the Gospel in this passage.

 

Scott,

If you don't like the fact that God saves some but not all, I cordially suggest that you bring the issue up with Him during your devotional time, and ask for His guidance in the matter. I can only tell you what I believe the Bible teaches and I can go no farther.

One who accepts God's purposes,

Ken
Were it not for grace...

[ July 10, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Because we are not in any sort of a position to question the ethics of God. We have no right to say, "What have you done?" to God. If God does it, then it is the righteous thing to do, even if we don't understand it.

 

Because we are not in any sort of a position to question the ethics of God. We have no right to say, "What have you done?" to God. If God does it, then it is the righteous thing to do, even if we don't understand it.</font>[/QUOTE]Now that is an answer that I can understand better! Those of us who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian think that many things are beyond our understanding but that God always acts in righteousness AND love, for His glory.

Karen

 

Are you implying God isn't "ethical" in His purpose according to election, "not of works but of Him that calleth?" (Rom. 9:11) Who are you to reply against the Almighty Sovereign of the universe? We don't have the right or privilege to question God.

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35)

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9:20)

Certainly not! The main problem with Arminians is they don't keep the attributes of God in balance. They preach love, love, love, but forget God hates all workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5) and hated Esau (Ron. 9:13).

[ July 10, 2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

Wow! someone finally answers how "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" does not lead to double predestination/election to Hell. Pretty interesting idea! But Gill is forgetting v.17-21 which portrays this "fitting for destruction" as an active decree of God's "will"(v19) called "hardening"(v18), with Pharaoh as an example (v17), and that God made them that way (v20-21). If God was simply "allowing men to go the way they want" then the hypothetical questioner would have no question since God is doing nothing as far as the non-elect are concerned.
This further shows that if double predestination is not true, then this passage is not talking about the eternal damnation of "all individuals who will be in Hell".

Looking at this from a different angle, if the person going to Hell, rather than "finding fault" with God, instead asked "What was I supposed to do?", then what would God say? Just a question. I'm sure people think "such a person wouldn't care to ask", but just in case anyone has any other thoughts on that.

[ July 10, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

You have to realize God is sovereign and not accountable to anyone, and the only will He consults is His own.

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35)

"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom. 9:21)

God allows the natural man to walk his own path. In the case of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Rom. 9:18) No man has been the granted the right or privilege to reply against God. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it was Pharaoh's rebellion.