Those In Hell, When Did They Reject God

This isn't even "Arminianism," it is pure Pelagianism - the heresy which has been condemned the most extensively in the history of the Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Good point.

Roger Nicole summarizing the 1610 Remonstrance (drawn up after the death of Arminius) showed five points drawn from the beliefs of James Arminius. Here are Roger Nicole’s basic points summarizing the beliefs of Arminius: 1) God elects or reproves on the basis of fore-seen faith or unbelief 2) Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved. 3) Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed. 4) This grace may be resisted. 5) Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

The Five-points advanced in 1618 as the tenets of Arminianism actually do not agree with what James Arminius believed. In 1618 the synod further defined the tenets: 1) Free will or human ability. 2) Conditional election. 3) Universal or general atonement 4) The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted. 5) Falling from grace. It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.

With this considered, a person could rightly be called an Arminian if these three points are rejected: 1) unconditional election to salvation, 2) limited atonement or particular redemption (really substitutionary atonement), and 3) irresistible grace or effectual calling.

 

This isn't even "Arminianism," it is pure Pelagianism - the heresy which has been condemned the most extensively in the history of the Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Good point.

Roger Nicole summarizing the 1610 Remonstrance (drawn up after the death of Arminius) showed five points drawn from the beliefs of James Arminius. Here are Roger Nicole’s basic points summarizing the beliefs of Arminius: 1) God elects or reproves on the basis of fore-seen faith or unbelief 2) Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved. 3) Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed. 4) This grace may be resisted. 5) Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

The Five-points advanced in 1618 as the tenets of Arminianism actually do not agree with what James Arminius believed. In 1618 the synod further defined the tenets: 1) Free will or human ability. 2) Conditional election. 3) Universal or general atonement 4) The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted. 5) Falling from grace. It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.

With this considered, a person could rightly be called an Arminian if these three points are rejected: 1) unconditional election to salvation, 2) limited atonement or particular redemption (really substitutionary atonement), and 3) irresistible grace or effectual calling.

 

This isn't even "Arminianism," it is pure Pelagianism - the heresy which has been condemned the most extensively in the history of the Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Good point.

Roger Nicole summarizing the 1610 Remonstrance (drawn up after the death of Arminius) showed five points drawn from the beliefs of James Arminius. Here are Roger Nicole’s basic points summarizing the beliefs of Arminius: 1) God elects or reproves on the basis of fore-seen faith or unbelief 2) Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved. 3) Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed. 4) This grace may be resisted. 5) Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation.

The Five-points advanced in 1618 as the tenets of Arminianism actually do not agree with what James Arminius believed. In 1618 the synod further defined the tenets: 1) Free will or human ability. 2) Conditional election. 3) Universal or general atonement 4) The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted. 5) Falling from grace. It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.

With this considered, a person could rightly be called an Arminian if these three points are rejected: 1) unconditional election to salvation, 2) limited atonement or particular redemption (really substitutionary atonement), and 3) irresistible grace or effectual calling.

 

Those In Hell, When Did They Reject God?
They went astray from the womb speaking speaking lies. They were born in rebellion against God.

 

Here is where you err, my friend. Yes, Eph. 1:4 states that God chose His people before the foundation of the world. However, it DOES NOT declare that they were saved before they were born. That is the doctrine of eternal justification. While some hold to this view (namely Hyper-Calvinists), it is not "Calvinism."
We are justified at the moment we believe.

Rev. G

P. S. (Farley, welcome to the BB! )

 

Thank you Rev G. my southern brother.

 

That is not a position that an Arminian would take.

Arminians DO accept the unlimited substitutionary atonement of Christ - just not the restrictions of Calvinism that want to "limit" it.

Arminians do accept the effectual calling of God - "Drawing ALL mankind unto Him" - they just don't claim that God's work is "not effectual" if man is supernaturally ENABLED to choose but then CHOOSES death.

(THey think this would be like calling the creation of Adam "inneffectual creating" since the Creature chose death).

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Actually Christ says in Matt 7 that it is the "MANY" that go to hell and the "FEW" that find eternal life - so in fact that wretch standing next to you is "most likely to go to hell" as are your friends, family - even children that have passed the age of accountability where they must CHOOSE. It is the "MANY" not the "FEW" that go to hell according to MAtt 7.

Which means that the scenario holds for Calvinism as follows -- you know what it coming... the unnanswerable Calvinist dilemma.

IN Christ,

Bob

[ November 02, 2002, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Your error is forgetting heaven is to be an eternal place void of sorrow. Those in this place will not look over the edge into any suffering, if so, the comfort so many have found in the future happiness of that state is a lie, and then we must set about investigating upon the truthfulness of the rest of scripture.

The first ploy of Satan in tempting us is to use a wrong view of scripture to invoke whatever doubts he may toward our Loving and Merciful God and Saviour. Resist these ploys, Christ shall help you if you desire.

Next, you forget heaven is not to be the eternal place of fulfillment of simple human emotions we enjoy, endure and share in our earthly home. I do not know, but certainly this is the "renewing" of the mind we shall realize. All activity in heaven, rather than being man centered, will finally be as God intended, centered upon Himself and the Glory of the Lamb Slain Before the foundation of the world.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Dallas your "answer" to the Calvinist dilemma is simply to claim that in heaven you will have no concern for your precious daughter. Claims that your love and selfless concern for others will be "muted" compared to your love and interest for her today may appear to solve the problem - but does it really help as much as you think?

You're satisfied with that uncaring view? How nice.

Notice that in the scenario described - the 1Cor 13 principle of selfless love for others is said to be "magnified" in "the New Heavens and the New Earth" instead of "stunted". I had hoped that would not be a "problem" for Calvinists - but for some - apparently that premise is in doubt.

The view that our brains are "pithed" once in heaven - and we no longer "care" for our tormented suffering loved ones as we "once did" - is well "nice" when trying to get out of the dilemma proposed.

But for many others - God IS love and the 1Cor 13 principle of Love includes BOTH love for God AND Love for our neighbor - especially our precious children.

For others - the mind pithed of all love and concern for their children is "heaven" - and I can understand why that would be needed in the Calvinist view of the future where God responds "SURE I COULD have done something - IF I had Cared to".

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 03, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

So, since God is a God of "love," is there really a Hell? If He is a God of love, then how can a place such as Hell exist? After all, He knew even before we were born whether or not we would receive or reject Him. Didn't He? If He knew, and He still permitted those who were going to reject Him to be born, then that wasn't very loving. Was it?

 

First, I never said I did not desire the salvation of anyone, not the least of any one of my children. In fact, I fully trust God will deal with and save each one, however, I do not believe He will do this because I trust it, it will be as always according to His Will.

This is not a problem for me, that God does not deal from an emotional standpoint as I or other humans do. I rest in God that He sent Christ into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. I believe that teaches an elect body whom God and Christ know, we do not. Because I recognize the fact that there is no sorrow in heaven is only realizing God does not deal according to human emotion, but His own Will.

Would my daughter or anyone be better off if I taught them God will not send them to Hell because He is all Love, only to arrive before God in Judgement to learn different? No.

Did God ever save anyone because they had a grandparent saved? a mother, a father, brother sister, uncle, or close friend? No. He saves because Christ was obedient to His Will and purchased His elect from among sinful man.

I do desire my children to be saved, I desire the salvation of people I do not even know, If however, God saves these only because I desire it, then why did He force His only Begotten Son to tread the winepress of His wrath?

Where there is love, there is also justice, if not the love is not perfect.

We love our children, but we prevent them from having their way in things though they sincerely do desire these things and often make a huge fuss over them. Still, in the long run it is a proof of our love that we restrain them and control their actions not a disproof.

This is the failure of the 'God is Love' theology. It seeks to maximize love according to a human understanding of it, which often is clouded by lusts of the flesh. God does not possess these lusts, He acts always in accordance with His predeterminate council.

God Bless you in your walk and service to Him.

Bro. Dallas

 

Chappie:
You forget that the Scriptures also state that God is holy. In fact, this assertion is repeated in triple fashion ("Holy, holy, holy"). The assertion about love isn't. God's holiness goes in hand with His justice.

Rev. G

 

Chappie (and/or others):

You may have already discussed it elsewhere, but if God has complete and perfect foreknowledge, then how is He as "loving" as you say? For more info. about what I'm asking, see my previous post on this page.