Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

[jne1611]

HP:I have never read a more preposterous statement as to the character of God. God has made it abundantly clear that He is Just, Loving, Truthful, Full of Mercy and Grace, Holy, Pure, Righteous, a God that will not perpetrate evil under any circumstances. This writer takes actions we know full well to be heinously evil and wicked, and states that if God does them they are holy and righteous acts. The author goes as far as to say that God murders MILLIONS every year! I can think of no more wicked blight to paint upon a Holy and Righteous God than this author paints.

Man is not told it is wrong to kill. Man is told it is wrong to murder. Man is ‘commanded’ to kill under certain instances, but never told or permitted to murder. If the author cannot discern the difference between killing and murder, he is a moral Neanderthal. To even consider for a minute that our Holy God would commit a pure act of selfishness in the act of murder is unthinkably wicked. To
say that He does it millions of times a year is beyond wicked absurdity. The author paints a picture of a cosmic butcher, not a Holy God. How could the mind of an intelligent man professing to love a Holy God say such things is a total and complete mystery to me. He simply is not thinking rational or morally.





HP: One of the problems with this author is that he fails to understand or demonstrate that in morals intent is that which rightfully incurs guilt or praise, wheter or not it is an intent to selfishness or an intent towards benevolence. Surely God can, in His wisdom, due to His Infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, do that which we could not do due in light of our limited understanding, but that is a far cry from saying that God can commit murder when we are forbidden to. The motivations of murder are always pure selfishness, while killing can indeed be justified, especially when God takes the life, for we can rest assured that His motivation is NEVER selfish, and His acts are always pure and righteous altogether. I may not understand why God does certain things, but I can know ABSOLUTELY His intents and actions are in accordance to love. Yes God Kills, but never murders. Yes man can kill without violation of the law under certain circumstances. Yes killing is ALWAYS justified if God does it for He is love and all of His intents and actions are in accordance to His righteous nature. God would NEVER in a thousand years violate His own moral laws and act contrary to his own moral attributes. If God states it is sin for us, He would never operate from the selfish intents that merit His moral condemnation in men or angels.

We are commanded to be holy even as He is Holy. If Holiness consists in arbitrary intents of selfishness or holiness according to whatever whim happens to influence God at a particular instance, that would be the character we are commanded to take upon ourselves. What utter preposterously wicked notions that genders. God is no such God, and we are certainly not commanded to follow any such arbitrarily selfish and wicked pattern. God help us.

I believe that if Dabney had thought about that a little more, he would have found a better way to word that.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611: I believe that if Dabney had thought about that a little more, he would have found a better way to word that.

HP: Painting a picture of the Almighty Holy and Just God as the ultimate comic hypocritical tyrant, arbitrarily and capriciously doing that which He punishes in others by and with eternal torment, needs a little more than just extra time to think. He needed a revelation from God Himself as to His Holy nature and what that consists of.

What we are witnessing is a firsthand demonstration of the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism weaves. Dabney could not be a better example of such a system of thought.

 

[David Michael Harris]

People go to hell because they never recieved the Grace of God. The question should be, why did they not recieve the Grace of God!

David

 

[jne1611]

HP: Painting a picture of the Almighty Holy and Just God as the ultimate comic hypocritical tyrant, arbitrarily and capriciously doing that which He punishes in others by and with eternal torment, needs a little more than just extra time to think. He needed a revelation from God Himself as to His Holy nature and what that consists of.

What we are witnessing is a firsthand demonstration of the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism weaves. Dabney could not be a better example of such a system of thought.

I thought you considered yourself a Calvinist.

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

You stated:

HP: Painting a picture of the Almighty Holy and Just God as the ultimate comic hypocritical tyrant, arbitrarily and capriciously doing that which He punishes in others by and with eternal torment, needs a little more than just extra time to think. He needed a revelation from God Himself as to His Holy nature and what that consists of.

What we are witnessing is a firsthand demonstration of the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism weaves. Dabney could not be a better example of such a system of thought.

I would suggest that you have misunderstood Dabney’s point in the last quote. For just one example, Dabney wrote “Defense of Virginia and The South” defending the South’s right to fight (kill) in the Civil War and was one of the leading Chaplains in the Confederate Army.

You argued that God is a ‘hypocritical’ tyrant in the Calvinist view. However your misuse of Deut. 24:16 AND your accusation that ‘Calvinism’ makes God out to be a ‘hypocritical’ tyrant has been successfully refuted throughout history.

Notice the words of Dabney:
It is objected that the unrighteousness of penal substitution is strongly shown by the fact that God expressly prohibited it to human magistrates (Deut. xxiv. 16), and that in Ezekiel xviii. 4, he disclaims it as a principle of his own moral government, declaring that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." The first assertion is correct; the second misconceives the text. But the sophism of the first is contained in the false assumption that because a given moral prerogative is improper for men, it must, therefore, be improper for God. I shall not take the harsh position that because God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore his will is not regulated by, or responsible to, those fundamental principles of morality which he has enjoined on his creatures. I shall never argue that God's "might makes his right," as our opponents charge strict Calvinists with arguing. But it is a very different thing, and a perfectly plain and reasonable thing, to say that the infinite sovereignty, wisdom, and holiness of God may condition, and may limit his moral rights in a manner very different from what is proper for us men. The principles of righteousness for the two rulers, God and a human magistrate, are the same; the details of prerogative for the two may differ greatly, while directed by the same holy principles. How simple is this! How ready and facile the instances! Thus, a father entrusts his boy to a distant teacher, and tells him to consider himself as in loco parentis to the child. Does this authorize the pedagogue to inflict any kind of punishment for the boy's faults which would be righteous for the father, as, for instance, disinheritance? By no means. This plain view makes the inference of our opponents worthless, that because God has told his servants they must not do a certain thing, therefore it is immoral for him to do it. (Source given in link below)

In regards to Dabneys statement on "killing", all authority given to Human Magistrates is only a ‘delegated’ authority. God can ‘kill’ millions justly because they are condemned sinners. Man may not ‘kill’ millions because God has only given them (government, leaders, etc) a delegated authority as in the example above with the Foster Parent who has a ‘delegated’ authority and not all authority as the real Father.

Dabney goes into great detail refuting your view on Deut. 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 in this link:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/p_s3.htm

In conclusion, I ask anyone following this discussion to consider that these arguments have been refuted in detail a long time ago. The context of each of these passages (as Dabney deals with in detail) will not bear what Heavenly Pilgrim is attempting to make it say.

I simply ask you to read Dabney more carefully and see if Heavenly Pilgrim, who I respect, can really deal with his arguments. You be the judge and may we be found on the side of scripture! (Please read the article in its entirety for a clear defense of the Biblical teaching of Imputation!!!)

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe all of the children in the flood went to hell?!? I highlighted something that's really important in regards to those who perish in that verse, and this was in reference to the gentiles.

And to answer your question if I would send people to Hell forever...if the law stated that it is the just punishment for their refusal to have faith in Christ...the answer is yes. Are you a judge? I sure hope not! You sound like you would let murderers off the hook.

Good point. They did not go to hell because "They have a Savior" who "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and NOT for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world". 1John 2:2

God is loving and just and "is not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" 2Pet 3

So although the infants do have sinful natures that they must be saved from - God is able to save them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We came from the Separate Baptist split to United Baptist and then to Regular Baptist. Where we differ from Primitive Baptist is that the Old Regular believe that all men have a chance to go to Heaven through belief in Jesus Christ, repenting of your sins and being "born again". Our practice and faith is much like the Primitive Baptist with the exception of we believe God give man a choice of good or evil.
There are many Old Regular Baptist churches in the US but they differ greatly in belief and practice. So, to answer your question I can only give the part of the Old Regular Baptist that I am a member of which is mostly in Kentucky, Virginia, Tenn. Ohio, Fla, Mich, WV and some S C and N C.

I would never attempt to answer for all Old Regular Baptist for as Southern says, there have been many changes over the years.

Sounds like "good people" to me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: So although the infants do have sinful natures that they must be saved from - God is able to save them.

HP: Upon what evidence do you support that presupposition?

 

[jne1611]

HP: Upon what evidence do you support that presupposition?

There is none. Most of Calvinism supports what he says, but I have never found concrete evidence in Scripture for this. But that is not to say it is not true, but if it is. 1John 2:2 in not indicative of it I do not think.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611: There is none. Most of Calvinism supports what he says, but I have never found concrete evidence in Scripture for this. But that is not to say it is not true, but if it is. 1John 2:2 in not indicative of it I do not think.

HP: A refreshing and perfect example of simply intellectual honesty. I agree wholeheartedly that 1John 2:2 supports no such idea as BR set forth.

There is not a scintilla of truth in the notion that morality can exist without a moral choice being made. The notion that infants are sinners before they have ever reached the age of accountability and formed an intent of selfishness as opposed to benevolence apart from punishments or rewards, fully understanding the intrinsic value of the command, is simply not accordance to reason, Scripture or experience. One might as well call animals sinners, or rocks sinners as to denote an innocent baby as one. It is simply absurd.

This notion of imputed sin is completely foreign to the Word of God. There is not one definition of sin in Scripture that supports such a heathen notion as this. I say heathen, due to the fact it was from Augustine’s heathen roots that taught him that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. Such a notion was completely foreign to any and all notions held by the Church prior to Augustine.

Listen to these clear passages that speak to the notion of sin. I challenge BR and others holding to the false dogma of imputed sin to set forth one solitary Scripture that defines sin consistent with the notion that it lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

• Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
  2.Gen. 18:20 Sin is grievous
  3. Gen. 31:36 Sin amounts to a trespass
  4. Gen. 39:9 Sin is great wickedness
  5. Ex. 34:9 Sin is iniquity
  6.1Sam.15:23 Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft
  7.Prov.14:34 Sin is a reproach
  8. Prov. 21:4 A high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin
  9. Prov.24:19The thought of foolishness is sin
  10. Ezek. 33:14 Sin is the opposite of lawful and right
  11. John 8:34 He that sins is the servant of sin
  12.Romans 3:20 By the law is the knowledge of sin
  13.Romans 5:13 Sin is not imputed where there is no law
  14. Romans 14:23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin
  15. Heb 3:13 Deceitfulness is sin
  16. When lust is conceived it bringeth forth sin.
  17. James 4:17 To him that knoweth to do good to him it is sin
  18. 1John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law
  19. 1 John 3:8; John 8:44 Is of the devil
  
  20. 1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin
  21.Romans 4:15 for where no law is, there is no transgression
  22. Romans 14:23 Anything not of faith is sin
  23. John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
  24. Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Possibly there are some others that someone can think of to add to the list?

 

[jne1611]

HP: A refreshing and perfect example of simply intellectual honesty. I agree wholeheartedly that 1John 2:2 supports no such idea as BR set forth.

There is not a scintilla of truth in the notion that morality can exist without a moral choice being made. The notion that infants are sinners before they have ever reached the age of accountability and formed an intent of selfishness as opposed to benevolence apart from punishments or rewards, fully understanding the intrinsic value of the command, is simply not accordance to reason, Scripture or experience. One might as well call animals sinners, or rocks sinners as to denote an innocent baby as one. It is simply absurd.

This notion of imputed sin is completely foreign to the Word of God. There is not one definition of sin in Scripture that supports such a heathen notion as this. I say heathen, due to the fact it was from Augustine’s heathen roots that taught him that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. Such a notion was completely foreign to any and all notions held by the Church prior to Augustine.

Listen to these clear passages that speak to the notion of sin. I challenge BR and others holding to the false dogma of imputed sin to set forth one solitary Scripture that defines sin consistent with the notion that it lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

• Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
  2.Gen. 18:20 Sin is grievous
  3. Gen. 31:36 Sin amounts to a trespass
  4. Gen. 39:9 Sin is great wickedness
  5. Ex. 34:9 Sin is iniquity
  6.1Sam.15:23 Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft
  7.Prov.14:34 Sin is a reproach
  8. Prov. 21:4 A high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin
  9. Prov.24:19The thought of foolishness is sin
  10. Ezek. 33:14 Sin is the opposite of lawful and right
  11. John 8:34 He that sins is the servant of sin
  12.Romans 3:20 By the law is the knowledge of sin
  13.Romans 5:13 Sin is not imputed where there is no law
  14. Romans 14:23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin
  15. Heb 3:13 Deceitfulness is sin
  16. When lust is conceived it bringeth forth sin.
  17. James 4:17 To him that knoweth to do good to him it is sin
  18. 1John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law
  19. 1 John 3:8; John 8:44 Is of the devil
  
  20. 1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin
  21.Romans 4:15 for where no law is, there is no transgression
  22. Romans 14:23 Anything not of faith is sin
  23. John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
  24. Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Possibly there are some others that someone can think of to add to the list?

You must have misread my post. I was talking about his theology of salvation of all infants not imputed sin. Infants die do they not? If so, is sin not the cause?

 

[Jarthur001]

HP: A refreshing and perfect example of simply intellectual honesty. I agree wholeheartedly that 1John 2:2 supports no such idea as BR set forth.

There is not a scintilla of truth in the notion that morality can exist without a moral choice being made. The notion that infants are sinners before they have ever reached the age of accountability and formed an intent of selfishness as opposed to benevolence apart from punishments or rewards, fully understanding the intrinsic value of the command, is simply not accordance to reason, Scripture or experience. One might as well call animals sinners, or rocks sinners as to denote an innocent baby as one. It is simply absurd.

This notion of imputed sin is completely foreign to the Word of God. There is not one definition of sin in Scripture that supports such a heathen notion as this. I say heathen, due to the fact it was from Augustine’s heathen roots that taught him that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not the will. Such a notion was completely foreign to any and all notions held by the Church prior to Augustine.

Listen to these clear passages that speak to the notion of sin. I challenge BR and others holding to the false dogma of imputed sin to set forth one solitary Scripture that defines sin consistent with the notion that it lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will.

• Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
  2.Gen. 18:20 Sin is grievous
  3. Gen. 31:36 Sin amounts to a trespass
  4. Gen. 39:9 Sin is great wickedness
  5. Ex. 34:9 Sin is iniquity
  6.1Sam.15:23 Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft
  7.Prov.14:34 Sin is a reproach
  8. Prov. 21:4 A high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked is sin
  9. Prov.24:19The thought of foolishness is sin
  10. Ezek. 33:14 Sin is the opposite of lawful and right
  11. John 8:34 He that sins is the servant of sin
  12.Romans 3:20 By the law is the knowledge of sin
  13.Romans 5:13 Sin is not imputed where there is no law
  14. Romans 14:23 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin
  15. Heb 3:13 Deceitfulness is sin
  16. When lust is conceived it bringeth forth sin.
  17. James 4:17 To him that knoweth to do good to him it is sin
  18. 1John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law
  19. 1 John 3:8; John 8:44 Is of the devil
  
  20. 1John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin
  21.Romans 4:15 for where no law is, there is no transgression
  22. Romans 14:23 Anything not of faith is sin
  23. John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."
  24. Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Possibly there are some others that someone can think of to add to the list?

Well well well....

What do we have hear?

Please ....Please I ask you...do not call me a prophet. It was really easy to see. HP clearly is into Pelagianism. I called it 1st...i get all book copyrights...you heard it here 1st folks. And...it seems he has a bit of pride in this stand.

This will be strange to be on Bob R side....But even Bob knows Arminian hold to the fall of man nearly as the same as John Calvin. Arminian was a one point Calvinist. I as a Calvinist have a view that is 2 fold guilt of man. This is not the same as Bobs view. I will let Bob go 1st. This time I will just take the left overs. Go for it Bob.

 

[J.D.]

You must have misread my post. I was talking about his theology of salvation of all infants not imputed sin. Infants die do they not? If so, is sin not the cause?

I must have misread it also. I thought you had a problem with original/imputed sin. I was going to say that I you can not reject those doctrines and be a Calvinist.

It's my understanding that some C's believe that all infants that die in infancy are elect and are therefore saved. I think old man Calvin himself held to that. Other C's believe that all infants of believers are elect and saved, while infants of unbelievers are not elect and are damned. Still other C's, like me, believe that we just can't know which infants are elect until we get to heaven.

No C believes in an "age of accountability". That's a man-made theory.

 

[jne1611]

I must have misread it also. I thought you had a problem with original/imputed sin. I was going to say that I you can not reject those doctrines and be a Calvinist.

It's my understanding that some C's believe that all infants that die in infancy are elect and are therefore saved. I think old man Calvin himself held to that. Other C's believe that all infants of believers are elect and saved, while infants of unbelievers are not elect and are damned. Still other C's, like me, believe that we just can't know which infants are elect until we get to heaven.

No C believes in an "age of accountability". That's a man-made theory.

I am glad I clarified myself before I got hit by the repercussion! :laugh:

 

[jne1611]

I must have misread it also. I thought you had a problem with original/imputed sin. I was going to say that I you can not reject those doctrines and be a Calvinist.

It's my understanding that some C's believe that all infants that die in infancy are elect and are therefore saved. I think old man Calvin himself held to that. Other C's believe that all infants of believers are elect and saved, while infants of unbelievers are not elect and are damned. Still other C's, like me, believe that we just can't know which infants are elect until we get to heaven.

No C believes in an "age of accountability". That's a man-made theory.

I'll agree with the last. Considering the case of Esau in Rom 9. changed my mind. Boy, I can't believe how close I came to being classed with Pelagius!

 

[J.D.]

Well well well....

What do we have hear?

Please ....Please I ask you...do not call me a prophet. It was really easy to see. HP clearly is into Pelagianism. I called it 1st...i get all book copyrights...you heard it here 1st folks. And...it seems he has a bit of pride in this stand.

This will be strange to be on Bob R side....But even Bob knows Arminian hold to the fall of man nearly as the same as John Calvin. Arminian was a one point Calvinist. I as a Calvinist have a view that is 2 fold guilt of man. This is not the same as Bobs view. I will let Bob go 1st. This time I will just take the left overs. Go for it Bob.

James, I don't know when you made your prophecy on HP, but I called him "Pelagius" on 8/18/06 (I can't remember how to put in a link to the post). Do I win?

 

[jne1611]

James, I don't know when you made your prophecy on HP, but I called him "Pelagius" on 8/18/06 (I can't remember how to put in a link to the post). Do I win?

I knew he was headed the other way when he denied total inability.

 

[jne1611]

James, I don't know when you made your prophecy on HP, but I called him "Pelagius" on 8/18/06 (I can't remember how to put in a link to the post). Do I win?

Just copy & paste your comments.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jne1611: You must have misread my post. I was talking about his theology of salvation of all infants not imputed sin. Infants die do they not? If so, is sin not the cause?

HP: Sorry for misunderstanding you. You exemplify a first truth of reason, in that you instinctively know that the praise you received was not justified in that there was no choice on your part that merited it, but rather it was due to a simple misunderstanding. In order to do anything praiseworthy or blameworthy, one must have choice. There is no morality possible apart from this first truth, and no morality can be predicated of any intent unless a contrary choice was possible.

Now concerning the issue of physical death even in infants, one thing is certain, it is not due to imputed sin. Physical death is due to a physical connection to Adam. God shortened his span of life, and because we are partakers of his nature (i.e. physical nature,) we indeed inherit the certainty of physical depravity and subsequent death.

If you say that infants who die somehow indicate that they are sinful, you end up with a peck full of problems. First, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. If the curse of the law spoken of is physical death, why would believers die when Christ has already made an atonement to atone for our sins and to free us from the curse of the law? If you say it is because they still have sin, then you have made the atoning work of Christ less than effective to atone for all sin. If you say that all believers still have sin, how can the Apostle Paul be seen as correct when he states repeatedly that we have been ‘made free from sin?’

I believe that physical death as we know it today, especially the timing of when it occurs, is indeed a consequence of sin, but it is not the penalty of sin. Christ’s atoning work does not free us from the physical depravity of this world and physical death necessarily, but rather frees us from the justice of the laws demands on sins that are past. The mere fact of physical death is in no wise an indication of present or imputed sin, in adults or especially in infants. It simply is a clear indicator that we are descendants of Adam, and as his physical offspring, we inherit physical depravity.

If physical death is a sign of imputed sin, what about Enoch and Elijah that never saw death? How did they miss the imputed guilt, or were they not human? What about those fortunate enough to meet the Lord in the air at the rapture that obviously will not see physical death as we know it?

 

[Jarthur001]

James, I don't know when you made your prophecy on HP, but I called him "Pelagius" on 8/18/06 (I can't remember how to put in a link to the post). Do I win?

Rats.