Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

[BobRyan]

HP: If there is no desire, nothing to attract or draw, sin is impossible to conceive of.

In Calvinism people "make choices" because something inside them "makes them".

In the free will model that is not true at all.

If sin is "packaged and sold" with some kind of argument "spun around it" -- it can be made to appear desirable - such that faith alone would convict the one confronted with it - to remain loyal to God. And some times that packaging can be in the form of one's own imagination and speculation dealing with questions for which they have no immediate answers. As in the case of Lucifer. In other cases that "speculation in the gap of what is not known or immediately seen" is compounded by the presentation of a "temtper". This was the case for the sinless angels confronted by Lucifer - for Eve and even for Adam confronted by Eve.

But nothing INSIDE them was inherently BENT to desire evil at the start. But for fallen humans with sinFUL natures we DO have the "BENT" predisposition discribed in Romans 3 - where "NO NOT ONE" is excluded.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: But nothing INSIDE them was inherently BENT to desire evil at the start. But for fallen humans with sinFUL natures we DO have the "BENT" predisposition discribed in Romans 3 - where "NO NOT ONE" is excluded.

HP: Where in Scripture does it ever use the words “sinful natures?” I agree that we indeed have a proclivity to sin due to physical depravity that Satan and our first parents did not have, but how or why do you denote that proclivity as sin? Yes I fully agree that ALL have sinned and that not a single man women or child is excluded from choosing sin, but the minute you start to make the proclivity to sin so extreme that no possibility exists for contrary choice, you eliminate all morality from the picture. If that was the case, the sinner could indeed be pitied, but never blamed or rightfully punished for his actions.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I agree that we indeed have a proclivity to sin due to physical depravity that Satan and our first parents did not have, but how or why do you denote that proclivity as sin?

I do not claim that it is a sinful act on the part of the infant to HAVE a sinful nature. I claim that the sinful nature "the bent to do evil BY NATURE as we see in Eph 2:1-7) is our natural state - and "No not one" (Rom 3) is immune to it - not even the infants.

My argument is that God provides through the Gospel - the solution to that sin problem AS WELL as the sin problem of sins we HAVE committed and DO commit and WILL commit.

But as has been pointed out - when we commit sin we are under command to confess and repent and turn from them. To "persevere" as was pointed out earlier.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jne1611]

Jesus was born with a weakened human nature - weakened by 4000 years of sin eroding the strength of the human frame - but his nature was not 'full of sin" -- hence He did not have a "SinFUL nature".

Nothing in Him - desired sin. He had no sinful propensity and we clearly do - so we do have sinful natures - He did not.

IN Christ,

Bob

Amen to that! We may not agree on many things, but this is one of the things I'll stand with you on. Jesus was not contaminated by sin at ALL!

 

[BobRyan]

Now see! Every now and then it happens that we agree.

 

[jne1611]

HP: I have never heard a more insensitive, uncalled for remark concerning a Holy, Just, Compassionate God than this. Are you sure you do nor desire to strike it from the record before you stand before Him in judgment? I for one sure would.

Calling Bob and Arminian is about as far from the truth as could possibly be. If you don’t know by now that Arminians believe that babies are born sinful, I have little hope for you. They do not believe that God holds them accountable for this inherited sin, and I am waiting for one to show me such a passage in Scripture.

Oh well, at least they impute no guilt to the innocents on behalf of this so-called ‘inherited sin nature.’ Why in the world they call it sin is beyond me…………………… and Scripture and reason as well.

I'll not strike it from the record. If your defending his view, then you to must think that God has to be like a man or He just cant be God! Reconcile that with eternal hell! Maybe you can tell us why God did not save the children. It seems a problem for you guys that God just does not have to run by the standards of man!

 

[jne1611]

Now see! Every now and then it happens that we agree.

I just can't see how these guys can view imputed righteousness as being Biblical & yet disown imputed sin?

 

[BobRyan]

Calling Bob and Arminian is about as far from the truth as could possibly be. If you don’t know by now that Arminians believe that babies are born sinful, I have little hope for you. They do not believe that God holds them accountable for this inherited sin, and I am waiting for one to show me such a passage in Scripture.

Oh well, at least they impute no guilt to the innocents on behalf of this so-called ‘inherited sin nature.’ Why in the world they call it sin is beyond me…………………… and Scripture and reason as well.

I would argue that I am an Arminian - at least mostly. I do not believe that God sends babies to hell because they have sinful natures. I believe that the blood of Christ covers them. The gospel fully provides for them.

I would also argue that Brother Bob is somewhat Arminian in some of his views as an "Old Regular" -- but I could be wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'll not strike it from the record. If your defending his view, then you to must think that God has to be like a man or He just cant be God! Reconcile that with eternal hell! Maybe you can tell us why God did not save the children. It seems a problem for you guys that God just does not have to run by the standards of man!

You have a good point - "Eternal hell" does not fit with the description of a loving God who "IS LOVE" and who "SO LOVED the world" (even those He knew would never accept the Gospel) that HE GAVE His only Son.

Fortunately there is no such text in scripture as "eternal hell" -- thank God!!

Is this a good place to repeat the ARMINIAN future scenario??

 

[jne1611]

I would argue that I am an Arminian - at least mostly. I do not believe that God sends babies to hell because they have sinful natures. I believe that the blood of Christ covers them. The gospel fully provides for them.

I would also argue that Brother Bob is somewhat Arminian in some of his views as an "Old Regular" -- but I could be wrong.

In Christ,

Bob

I do not fully agree with you on this subject as you know I believe in unconditional election. But you do have it right to say that man is born a sinner. HP seems to be driving that man is born like Adam was & chooses to be a sinner like Adam did. What do you think?

 

[jne1611]

You have a good point - "Eternal hell" does not fit with the description of a loving God who "IS LOVE" and who "SO LOVED the world" (even those He knew would never accept the Gospel) that HE GAVE His only Son.

Fortunately there is no such text in scripture as "eternal hell" -- thank God!!

Is this a good place to repeat the ARMINIAN future scenario??

I am sorry, "Eternal Fire" No difference really. But anyway. If you did believe in hell - fire. I think you would come much closer to seeing what I am saying about putting God on mans terms of mercy. Would you not? I am not starting a debate with you on this subject. Just answer honestly.

 

[BobRyan]

A few people are known to whine now and then whenever I present the CALVINIST future scenario fully exposing the totall capricious nature that they attribute to God and the heartless disregard that their model INSISTS upon for the finally lost --

But a good point has been raised about the Arminian view of God --

So here we put the Arminian view TO THE TEST as we did the Calvinist view USING ONLY Arminian concepts just as we used only Calvinist concepts in the CALVINIST future scenario.

Classic Arminian Future Scenario​

When the consistent Bible believing Arminian finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of fire and brimstone IN The PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His Holy ones (Rev 14:10) - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry

"Oh my great God and Savior - couldn't you have done Something to spare my precious daughter from the fires of the 2nd death?"

By the doctrines of grace as taught in the Arminian model - ... God may well reply with the words that Arminianism so “expects to hear”

"Why YES my child I loved them with an infinite love as Their tender Heavenly Father JUST as I loved you. I suffered the torments of the second death suffering for EACH and every one of THEIR sins JUST as I did for each and every one of yours!

I drew them to my heart of infinite love JUST as I drew you. I sent WAVE after WAVE of invitation, heart wrenching plea after plea - BUT In all this I did not force myself on them - JUST as I did not force myself on YOU.

”YES I could have FORCED both YOU and your child” to accept my Grace - but instead I Sovereignly Chose to Draw you both to Me and to Give you BOTH the ABILITY to see the light, to CHOOSE life or to CHOOSE your own selfish will. Fully enabled to choose. No trick language, no marketing gimmicks!

So when YOU CHOSE against me - I CAME back with even stronger ties of love and compassion - ENABLING your choice of LIFE JUST as I did with your precious child. Even so when your child refused my Love and eternal salvation I came back also to THEM with wave after wave of mercy and conviction and “Drawing”.

In the end - you finally accepted repentance and salvation but your precious child - OUR precious child - MY precious child -- chose to stand firm on "NO".

My heart of infinite love is broken over that - but I also Sovereignly CHOOSE to enable my children to CHOOSE even if it is to reject my lavish gift of love that suffered fully in their behalf!

[/quote]

Oh what wonderful Grace! What unbiased impartial Love! What sacrifice lavished upon both the saved AND the Lost!

Of course the Calvinist may say of the Arminian God that we see pictured here "OH how TERRIBLE! How AWFUL" that God would "ALLOW selfless concern for our lost children EVEN for a moment once we are in heaven" (as some have said)... or that "God would LOVE our lost children" (As others have said) -- But I know that "not many" will do so - even among Calvinists because the comparison is obvious - blatant and clear.


[/quote]



===========================================================
But some Calvinist could “really” think that the Arminian idea of “God who so loved the WORLD” (as described above is) in fact an “awful” idea.
=============================================================

Calvinist posts to that effect will be in no short supply as (instead of addressing each of the salient points listed above) – they repeat Calvinism as IF that were the Arminian view stated above.

In Calvinism "God could have loved and died for and saved the finally lost but chose not to" -- In the Arminian system this is not the case at all. "HOW I WANTED to save your children but YOU would not" Matt 23.

Pastor Larry – poste April 28, 2003 11:51 PM Thread Title: Christ was Arminian?
As I say, your conception of God is no better because you have a God who could have saved that little girl but chose not to. Instead, he blames this weak and helpless little child for something that he could have changed.

 

[BobRyan]

I am sorry, "Eternal Fire" No difference really. But anyway. If you did believe in hell - fire. I think you would come much closer to seeing what I am saying about putting God on mans terms of mercy. Would you not? I am not starting a debate with you on this subject. Just answer honestly.

I agree with you that EVEN in the case of "the Lake of Fire" the second death -where God burns the wicked UP - and destroys them "Both body AND soul" -- the torment and suffering inflicted there is for the "law MAKER" alone to authorize and give out "justly" mixing justice with mercy.

(I happen to think that the portioning out of that level of torment is one of the things going on during the 1000 years where the saints are reviewing those cases - the cases of their loved ones).

So now - lets say I am a parent and my child was consumed - burned up in the lake of fire. Even if that torment was but for a brief period of time - would I not STILL want to find that God was long suffering and merciful toward her? As God points out in Romans 9 HE DISPLAYS His mercy and justice to the saints by SHOWING kindness and longsuffering toward the wicked that will not end up accepting the Gospel.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am sorry, "Eternal Fire" No difference really. .

In Jude we are told that Sodom and Gomorrah are perfect examples of what it means to undergo the punishment of "Eternal fire" -- do you agree with that text?

 

[jne1611]

Like I said, this is just a discussion & not a debate, because I have not the time for it now.
But, even if I were to consent to your view, in all reason, if I were going to hold anything against God for my child's damnation, I would have to go back long before the long suffering, and ask the question, "Why if you knew this would happen, did you even let her be born?" But Bob I am content to know that God does have the right over His creation to do what He wants. And so I must believe that He will give me the grace to accept His choices even when they are disagreeable to my feelings.

And besides in the context of where you find the long suffering mentioned, Pharaoh is the example, and he could not have done contrary to God's will for him to disobey, because God limited him by hardening his heart, God was not long suffering in the sense of waiting on him to repent. He was long suffering or as the word indicates "patient" "holding back his wrath on them" to fully show His power by destroying them. They were after all, not vessels of mercy.
Just some things to think about. I have to run, but I will check back with you on this.

 

[jne1611]

In Jude we are told that Sodom and Gomorrah are perfect examples of what it means to undergo the punishment of "Eternal fire" -- do you agree with that text?

I agree with the text, but I do not believe their judgment ended there.
According to Luke 16. The rich man defined hell as a flame.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: In Jude we are told that Sodom and Gomorrah are perfect examples of what it means to undergo the punishment of "Eternal fire" -- do you agree with that text?

HP: I agree with that text, but how does this text support the false notion you purport in eternal fire not really lasting for eternity? Just because they were destroyed from the earth in no way can be seen to negate the fact of everlasting torment they now endure in hell, i.e. the moral agents destroyed and spoken of in the text. “Mr 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

 

[jne1611]

HP: I agree with that text, but how does this text support the false notion you purport in eternal fire not really lasting for eternity? Just because they were destroyed from the earth in no way can be seen to negate the fact of everlasting torment they now endure in hell, i.e. the moral agents destroyed and spoken of in the text. “Mr 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

I am sure we would agree on this. And in my conversation with Bro. Bob, I hope you understood what I was trying to say by my illustration. As with Bob Ryan's view of hell. To try to take God & put Him on our level of justice is to disclaim God's judgements, because the majority of them do not square at their roots with our thoughts.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I agree with that text, but how does this text support the false notion you purport in eternal fire not really lasting for eternity? Just because they were destroyed from the earth in no way can be seen to negate the fact of everlasting torment they now endure in hell, i.e. the moral agents destroyed and spoken of in the text. “Mr 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

A fire not quenchend - consumes material still. It does not leave things alone. It consumes and can not be put out.

Your idea that Eternal Fire is not what burned Soddom and Gomorrah - is stating that the city is burned by one thing -- then the residence are taken some place else -- and burned with eternal fire.

That is not the example we are told to view in Jude.

Jude tells that the destruction of the cities themselves are the perfect example of the punishment by eternal fire .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Jude tells that the destruction of the cities themselves are the perfect example of the punishment by eternal fire .

HP: There is no evidence whatsoever in Jude that their punishment is not continuing as we speak and will for eternity upon the souls of those destroyed. One the physical is gone it is gone, but the spirit lives on throughout eternity in either of two places, an eternal hell or in heaven with the Lord. Everlasting torment is a clearly Scriptural concept and all the argumentation of those opposed in no way negate the truth concerning it.