Why would God punish people that have no chance of salvation?

[jbh28]

You two brought up two very good, very well thought out posts. Eventhough we may disagree with the way we see God operate, neither side of this debate wants, let alone desires, to see anyone punish in torment for eternity. We all, both C's and A's, desire to see everyone saved, eventhough the scriptures plainly state that many will die in their lost condition. I see are arguments much like "shadow boxing". We are fighting against something that's not even there. We all desire to see everyone saved.

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[jbh28]

God does not offer salvation to all if He did not atone for all.

ahem..... the death of Christ is sufficient for all. The atonement will only cover the sins of believers. You think will agree with me on those two points. The atonement was never meant to save unbelievers.

 

[jbh28]

Red herring. We are discussing humans not aliens, lions, tigers, etc.

No, it's valid. They sinned and will be punished in hell. It's valid because we see that those angels sinned and deserve punishment in hell. God never gave them an opportunity to repent. He didn't die for them. They have no chance of salvation. God is perfectly just to send them to hell.

We have to remember the statement in the OP.

And if they have no chance of salvation, then why would God punish them for something they have no control over?

The question was why does God send people to hell without a chance to repent. Well, they do have a chance first of all. But even if they didn't, God is perfectly just to send them to hell.

I was always taught that hell was a place of justice, were people paid for their unbelief. Where is the justice in sending people there without giving them a chance or a choice to believe?

People sinned and deserve hell. I have sinned. I deserve hell. God has saved me of which I have nothing to brag about. I didn't deserve it. I didn't' deserve even the opportunity. The problem with the OP is it comes from two faulty premises.

1. People to go hell for unbelief and not sin.
-- No, people go to hell because they are sinners and deserve hell. They were given an opportunity to repent and believe(which wasn't required nor deserved) and have rejected. So yes, a secondary cause can be said because they didn't believe, but the primary cause is punished for their sin. They are now going to have to pay because they rejected the substitutionary payment Christ made on the cross.


2. People have the right to the opportunity to repent.
-- No, people do not have this right. It's not deserved. If God never saved anyone, we would all be getting exactly what we deserve. Thanks to God that He is a merciful God that has shown his great mercy in saving us.

 

[seekingthetruth]

I am not sure where you ever got the idea that man does not go to hell because he is a sinner. That is simply false. Second The justice is you do not deserve a chance to repent and go to heaven any more then anyone else. Going to heaven is not about justice or your right, or what is right, it is about mercy which we do not deserve. We do not even deserve a chance to hear the gospel much less accept it.


As to your last question, even though I do not claim to be a Calvinist, I have heard several testimonies of such instances and the "jungle boy", as you call them, leaves the jungle and goes to a place where they can hear the gospel when no one has went to them.

I agree with you, and let me explain my statement.

Yes, we all deserve to go to hell because we are sinners. Our sins are the reason we need to believe and repent.

But, the only way we will actually go to hell is if we refuse to believe and repent.

Jesus already paid the price for every sin that man will ever commit. Again, every sin a man can ever commit is already paid for by the blood of Christ. The only sin left unforgiven is the sin of unbelief. If we refuse the gift Jesus paid for on the cross then we are lost and destined for hell.

The bottom line is that the only sin that will send us to hell is failing to believe and repent.

I guess I see it from the oppisite direction of Calvinists. They believe that God gives only a few of us the ability to repent, so to them it is the actual physical sins that condemns one to hell, and God chooses whom He will forgive and who He won't.

I see it as we all have the ability to repent, but most of us don't. It is that refusal to repent that condemns one to hell. I believe that God will forgive and save anyone that earnestly seeks Him.

I would like to add one more thing. I believe that our lost state is due to the nature of sin that we are born with, and that our actual physical sins are just the result of that state. It is the nature of sin within us that condemns us before we ever actually commit a physical sin.

We all have that sin nature, but it is the ones that refuse to admit it, believe and repent that will be condemned to hell.

I honestly believe that even Charles Manson could believe and repent and go to heaven if he would seek God. I believe that if he asked God for help that God would not deny him that help, and that God would send the HS to minister to him. If he doesn't, he will go to hell for his unbelief, not for his actual physical sins.

Jesus paid the price for our physical sins, but refusing to accept that is the sin that is not forgiven and condemns us to hell.

John

 

[webdog]

ahem..... the death of Christ is sufficient for all. The atonement will only cover the sins of believers. You think will agree with me on those two points. The atonement was never meant to save unbelievers.

What does sufficient to all mean to you? If it is limited it cannot be sufficient for those not made for.

No, it's valid. They sinned and will be punished in hell. It's valid because we see that those angels sinned and deserve punishment in hell. God never gave them an opportunity to repent. He didn't die for them. They have no chance of salvation. God is perfectly just to send them to hell.

...but Christ didn't die for Angels, He died for humans meaning the two cannot be compared.

 

[jbh28]

What does sufficient to all mean to you? If it is limited it cannot be sufficient for those not made for.

Tell me what you disagree with in what I said. Which area do you agree and which disagree.

...but Christ didn't die for Angels, He died for humans meaning the two cannot be compared.

It's compared because he didn't die for angles, but is perfectly just to send them to hell.

 

[webdog]

Tell me what you disagree with in what I said. Which area do you agree and which disagree.

I disagree that it can be sufficient for someone not intended or made for. I was trying to delve into this from a closed thread here http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74714

It's compared because he didn't die for angles, but is perfectly just to send them to hell.

...and He would also be perfectly just for resurrecting every animal in Heaven, but that's apples and oranges. We are discussing Christ's death, His atonement and how it relates to human beings not angelic beings.

 

[Winman]

If men are born sinners with a nature that cannot possibly choose for God through no choice or fault of their own, and can only do evil continually, then they do not deserve punishment, they deserve pity.

This is not unlike people who are born with a handicap. We do not punish people born with handicaps, and any person who did would be considered cruel and inhuman. Yet many here believe God is just to punish men who are born handicapped with a sinful nature that cannot possibly do good or trust in God through no fault or choice of their own. This is horrendous error and would make man more loving and merciful than God. This is a gross misrepresentation of God.

 

[convicted1]

The answer is no. By adding to scripture you are clouding your understanding. The bible never says they do not have the opportunity to repent. They have every possible opportunity to repent and do not. It has nothing to do with the person. It has to do with the sovereignty of God.

I did not add to the scriptures, because this was a question only. I do not know why the angels were apparently never afforded the opportunity to repent after they followed Lucifer and his deeds. I was just asking this to gather people's thoughts on this "scenario".

 

[Grasshopper]

I agree with you, and let me explain my statement.

Yes, we all deserve to go to hell because we are sinners. Our sins are the reason we need to believe and repent.

But, the only way we will actually go to hell is if we refuse to believe and repent.

Jesus already paid the price for every sin that man will ever commit. Again, every sin a man can ever commit is already paid for by the blood of Christ. The only sin left unforgiven is the sin of unbelief. If we refuse the gift Jesus paid for on the cross then we are lost and destined for hell.

The bottom line is that the only sin that will send us to hell is failing to believe and repent.

I guess I see it from the oppisite direction of Calvinists. They believe that God gives only a few of us the ability to repent, so to them it is the actual physical sins that condemns one to hell, and God chooses whom He will forgive and who He won't.

I see it as we all have the ability to repent, but most of us don't. It is that refusal to repent that condemns one to hell. I believe that God will forgive and save anyone that earnestly seeks Him.

I would like to add one more thing. I believe that our lost state is due to the nature of sin that we are born with, and that our actual physical sins are just the result of that state. It is the nature of sin within us that condemns us before we ever actually commit a physical sin.

We all have that sin nature, but it is the ones that refuse to admit it, believe and repent that will be condemned to hell.

I honestly believe that even Charles Manson could believe and repent and go to heaven if he would seek God. I believe that if he asked God for help that God would not deny him that help, and that God would send the HS to minister to him. If he doesn't, he will go to hell for his unbelief, not for his actual physical sins.

Jesus paid the price for our physical sins, but refusing to accept that is the sin that is not forgiven and condemns us to hell.

John

You still haven't answered the question. How is it fair that jungle boy, either raised in the Assyrian Empire thousands of years before Christ or born in a secluded area thousands of years after Christ, be held responsible for accepting or rejecting the Gospel he has never heard?

You have accused the Calvinist of having an unfair God, so I'm asking you how this senerio above is fair under the anti-Calvinist doctrine. You have God creating individuals who never have an opportunity to hear of the God of the Hebrews or of their Messiah Jesus yet are still held accountable for their unbelief. Please answer.

 

[Amy.G]

The answer is no. By adding to scripture you are clouding your understanding. The bible never says they do not have the opportunity to repent. They have every possible opportunity to repent and do not. It has nothing to do with the person. It has to do with the sovereignty of God.

It would do them no good to repent even if they wanted to because there was never an atonement made for angels.

 

[Amy.G]

You still haven't answered the question. How is it fair that jungle boy, either raised in the Assyrian Empire thousands of years before Christ or born in a secluded area thousands of years after Christ, be held responsible for accepting or rejecting the Gospel he has never heard?

You have accused the Calvinist of having an unfair God, so I'm asking you how this senerio above is fair under the anti-Calvinist doctrine. You have God creating individuals who never have an opportunity to hear of the God of the Hebrews or of their Messiah Jesus yet are still held accountable for their unbelief. Please answer.

Read Romans 1.

 

[convicted1]

Thanks.

You're welcome, Brother.

But no one is saying God desires for them to be so, or suffer so.

Agreed.

But this must be best, and there are other matters we have no clue to, nor what other repercussions could come to pass if it were otherwise.

Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who can be His counsellor. He does it His way, and not our ways, agreed.

I've seen several judges sentence persons I've goen to court with, and sentence severely, yet at the same moment of the sentence there was compassion and sorrow.

This sums up God's Righteousness and Justice.

God is just and the justifier, and He still only shows mercy upon whom He wills to do so. These are eternal truths concerning His nature and Sovereignty. Others want to paint God as something other than this and other than who He is, in a more "fair" light, and attempt to explain away these hard truths.

God will save all who call upon His name. Anyone who wants salvation can, and will, obtain it. I rejoice in knowing this much about Him. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Grasshopper]

Read Romans 1.

I have. Now you explain it to me. If you can.

 

[freeatlast]

Can you be a little more clear. Are you speaking of angels or people? You seem to say the angels have every opportunity to repent, then you say it has nothing to do with the person, but with the sovereignty of God. I'm just not sure what you are saying here.

Yes I can see why it is confusing. I was answering a question other then what was being suggested. Just disregard what I wrote.

To be more on topic God does not keep anyone from repenting.

 

[seekingthetruth]

You still haven't answered the question. How is it fair that jungle boy, either raised in the Assyrian Empire thousands of years before Christ or born in a secluded area thousands of years after Christ, be held responsible for accepting or rejecting the Gospel he has never heard?

You have accused the Calvinist of having an unfair God, so I'm asking you how this senerio above is fair under the anti-Calvinist doctrine. You have God creating individuals who never have an opportunity to hear of the God of the Hebrews or of their Messiah Jesus yet are still held accountable for their unbelief. Please answer.

After the hatefulness and disrespect you showed towards me in your earlier posts, i am no longer engaging in debate with you. Please stop demanding that I respond to you, because i won't?

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

If men are born sinners with a nature that cannot possibly choose for God through no choice or fault of their own, and can only do evil continually, then they do not deserve punishment, they deserve pity.

This is not unlike people who are born with a handicap. We do not punish people born with handicaps, and any person who did would be considered cruel and inhuman. Yet many here believe God is just to punish men who are born handicapped with a sinful nature that cannot possibly do good or trust in God through no fault or choice of their own. This is horrendous error and would make man more loving and merciful than God. This is a gross misrepresentation of God.

Adam and Eve were not held accountable until they ate the fruit thus opening their eyes to sin. Before their eyes were opened they were ignorant of sin and the consequences. Once they were aware of sin and the consequences they were forced to pay the price for sin, that being the physical death.

If God denies most people the ability to recognise their sins and repent of their sins, or even understand the consequences of their sins, then why would God hold them accountable of something they are ignorant of?

This is why I believe that sometime in everyone's life, God gives them an oppurtunity to believe and repent.

John

 

[Grasshopper]

After the hatefulness and disrespect you showed towards me in your earlier posts, i am no longer engaging in debate with you. Please stop demanding that I respond to you, because i won't?

John

I would love for you to point to me where I was hateful or disrespectful to you. But you won't because I wasn't.

The reason you won't answer my question is because you can't. You see it is easy to accuse Calvinist of having an "unfair" God, but when the tables are turned, there is silence. Seems there is one standard for Calvinists and another for anti-Calvinists. Continue to ignore me, but everyone reading knows the question remains and is unanswered.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Tell us anti-Calvinist, if the jungle boy lives his entire life and never even hears of this Jesus, then why would God punish them for something they have no control over?



No, they all send you there.



Yes, where is the justice in sending jungle boy to hell? Tell us heathen Calvinist the answer.





Gee, if believed God sent innocent little jungle boy to hell having never heard the Gospel then I would have to quit being a hypocrite and apologize to the Calvinists.

I would love for you to point to me where I was hateful or disrespectful to you. But you won't because I wasn't.

The reason you won't answer my question is because you can't. You see it is easy to accuse Calvinist of having an "unfair" God, but when the tables are turned, there is silence. Seems there is one standard for Calvinists and another for anti-Calvinists. Continue to ignore me, but everyone reading knows the question remains and is unanswered.

Go back an read post 20 and then please stop bothering me with your spite.

John

 

[Grasshopper]

If God denies most people the ability to recognise their sins and repent of their sins, or even understand the consequences of their sins, then why would God hold them accountable of something they are ignorant of?

Which is why I bring up jungle boy raised somewhere where the Gospel has never reached.

This is why I believe that sometime in everyone's life, God gives them an oppurtunity to believe and repent.

Believe what? Can't be the Gospel because it never reached them. If they are not held accountable, like Adam and Eve, then there is no need to repent. Does God save them outside the avenue of the Gospel? You see, before going on the assault against Calvinism, you might want to clean up your side first.