|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 22, 2006 13:59:05 GMT -5
Did God choose, before the foundation of the world, to send certain unchosen people to hell fire for eternity?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 22, 2006 20:04:24 GMT -5
As a Charismatic Calvinist, I do not fear this question, simply because what the Lord our God has said in His Word is to be believed and obeyed, regardless of the thoughts of man.
So, that said....
What does the BIBLE say?
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Note that God did not say He hated the SIN of Esau, but that He hated Esau.
This is clarified, actually, in verse 11 of the same chapter:
Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
See that? Before birth God chose to hate and to love one and not the other.
In verse 18 of Romans 9: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
God is the One who alone chooses whom to show mercy and whom to show a hardening.
And, according to verse 11, it's all worked out BEFORE birth, so that it is NOT based on good or evil, or anything "in" the object of the one who is shown love or hate.
Many say, "What kind of a God would do that?!"
The answer is found in verse 20 of Romans 9: 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?
|
|
|
Post by josh on Apr 23, 2006 5:25:35 GMT -5
So if God has predestine some to hell, why then is He angry with them? After all they have no choice on where they will spend eternity?
Shouldn't then God be angry at Himself for creating them to burn?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 8:22:23 GMT -5
Friend, you should have carefully studied my initial reply; you'll note that not once did I state God creates anyone for hell What I did reply with was the fact that God is God, He has freewill to choose to love or hate and, finally, that man has no authority to question God on these matters. Now, to answer whether God creates people to burn, I would say, accorfing to Scripture, that the answer is, "No." When a sinner dies it won;t be based on GOD sending him to hell as an unrighteous Judge...man will go to hell because of his own wickedness and sin. You see, Biblical Calvinism teaches the doctrine of Reprobation...anyone who believes Calvinists teach a God who creates people for hell are in error, as we do not believe such a false doctrine. (I don't even like the term Calvinist, as Calvin only taught Reformed Theology, which means the TULIP should be called by others Reformed/Doctrines of Grace) Lastly, if one has not studied the Inistitues of the Christian Religion, where these Doctrines of Grace are fully explained, how can one then assume he knows what we believe? Dan
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 23, 2006 8:28:22 GMT -5
BibleThumper, You really need to read the other thread made specifically for Romans 9.
I agree with some of the basic tenets of total depravity, but I call it original sin and due to prevenient grace all can heed the call of the Gospel of God. I totally disagree with Uncinditional election and Limited atonement and scripture does as well. Perseverance of the saints is not taught in scripture either, but I do believe that a saint needs to persevere to the end to be saved.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 8:46:51 GMT -5
We could debate and debate and debate, but to what end? To show you're right/I'm wrong, I'm right/You're wrong? I'm not into that evanschaible Your post makes firm statements such as "Perseverance of the saints is not taught in scripture either..." This shows a mind which is completely "made up", to which I commend. A mind which is convinced is a sharp mind, indeed, and is one which can usually sway others. That said, I want to say that I'm also as you are; I'm convinced, as being a "free-willer"/Arminian for almost 10 years gave me a good footing in the world of the non-calvinists lol.... Through Biblical Exegesis and, most of all, through the diligent heeding of the Spirit of God, I do not believe the arminian gospel is correct and nor do I believe that the teaching expounded upon by the arminian brethren is teaching which is pleasing to the Lord. At the same time, nor do I believe everything Calvinists throw at us. That is simply what I have been brought to believe through the clear and plain teaching of the Word of God and through prayer and fasting; that's not a small statement of inconsistency, but it is one of fact. More people believe what they believe because someone with a sharp mind was able to sway them; how many can say that their doctrine was birthed out of prayer and a heeding of the Spirit of God? Jesus said in John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Thus, I end the post by saying that I am a moderate calvinist but certainly not an Arminian in any sense of the word, as I believe such is ungodly doctrine and is not to be obeyed, as prayer and the Word has made quite clear to me; thus I leave this post at that, because I will not bow to false doctrine and nor will I debate the issue further.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 23, 2006 8:54:01 GMT -5
AMEN brother, but you do know that the point of the doctrine and theology section is for doctrine and theology discission right? ;D
It is all in love brother, I am always open to further examine my theology, in fact I do it every single day of my life. The only "sharp mind" that played any part in swaying me is JackJackson and his brilliant little article on how Calvinist's witness. Other than that I have been mostly led of God. But God instituded teachers for a reason, it would be foolish to not listen to what others have to say.
Again I say brother, it may seem contentious sometimes in here, but watch and see, every thread ends in love and usually agreeing to disagree, but they are fun nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 9:01:45 GMT -5
evanschaible, I know what you're saying, brother..... I like your posts! It's not about YOUR post or whoeever else's.... it's about me keeping my own heart free from strife of any kind. The only valid reason for discussion on any topic is for growth and edification. If I ever feel that MY words would sooner or later become bitter or resentful or arrogant, I will always stop at that. Your own posts seem a little like mine, so I kinda like that, because it appears you've got your cards well lined up in theoligical study (at leats I see you this way thus far!) I would, however, like to know some points on Wesleyan Doctrine in comparison with Arminian Doctrine. I hold services (pastoral) and have a wesleyan coming to our meetings
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 23, 2006 9:05:14 GMT -5
Sounds like a thread brother. AMEN
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 23, 2006 19:40:27 GMT -5
Did God choose, before the foundation of the world, to send certain unchosen people to hell fire for eternity? to answer your question - yes, because they deserved hell, even before they were born. He also chose to save some who also deserved hell by His grace. We all deserve hell. And any day you aren't cut into a thousand pieces and cast into the lake of fire is a good day. Christians should be humbled and grateful for their salvation, not questioning the purposes of God. We are the clay, He is the potter. Not one person will be in hell that doesn't deserve to be there, because we all deserve to be there. But there will be some in heave that have no right or claim to be there. Be sure of that. It is God's grace anyone is saved.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 23, 2006 19:41:52 GMT -5
So if God has predestine some to hell, why then is He angry with them? After all they have no choice on where they will spend eternity? Shouldn't then God be angry at Himself for creating them to burn? God can be angry with anyone He darn well pleases. He's GOD. He doesn't have to give us a reason or justify himself. He didn't give Job one. Was He wrong in letting everyhting happen to Job that He did? He NEVER answered Job's questions, simply reminded Him that HE WAS SOVEREIGN. And He still is.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 20:39:00 GMT -5
Wow, Jules.... your two posts have cause dme to fear the Lord more reverantly, knowing He IS God and He CAN do what He desires and that we DO all deserve hell.
Wow is all I can say.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 24, 2006 8:28:58 GMT -5
No one argues that God CAN do what he wants, the question is do certain things line up with His character. Well.. there are certain things God cannot do. He cannot lie for one. I don't believe He can do anything outside of His character.
We all deserve hell... hmm... who is we? If you are saying we as in all that are of an age that we have chosen to do evil, then yes I agree. Do newborn children deserve hell? I do not believe so. I think if you say they do, you would have to think Adam deserved hell before he sinned.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 8:33:55 GMT -5
No true Calvinist teaches a child goes to hell; children are predestined for heaven if they die before accountability age... Paul said he was alvive without the law... that makes the statement clear
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 24, 2006 8:46:56 GMT -5
No true Calvinist teaches a child goes to hell; children are predestined for heaven if they die before accountability age... Paul said he was alvive without the law... that makes the statement clear the "age of accountability" assumes you're accountable for something... not predestined for something. So what would you be accountable for? YOUR sin or Adam's sin?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 8:56:19 GMT -5
Your own sin.
Show me from Scripture where we are accountable for ADAM'S sin and I'll renig.
We reap the RESULTS of Adam's sin (ie, corrupt nature through the tainting of the blood) .
Hence, the reason we need Jesus' Blood; to give us forgiveness and a NEW nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 24, 2006 19:37:28 GMT -5
No true Calvinist teaches a child goes to hell; children are predestined for heaven if they die before accountability age... Paul said he was alvive without the law... that makes the statement clear I believe that ALL PEOPLE regardless of age are saved by 1) the grace of God and 2) through faith. If they are never old enough to "have faith" (i.e. abortion, young child, miscarriage) then I don't think scripture supports an argument that they simply go to heaven because they were "innocent". That falls back into a works based salvation. These children, and unborn, go to heaven IF they go to heaven, by the same way anyone else does" God's grace. It is one thing to say that I believe all unborn children go to heaven because they never sinned, but quite another to say they go to heaven because God is gracious. I don't compromise God's grace or disregard it, I embrace it. Grace is what saves, even before faith on our part.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 20:28:34 GMT -5
Jules, your point is well taken However, aren't we really saying the same thing using different terminology?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 24, 2006 22:30:03 GMT -5
thumper, I think the use of the term "accountability age" can be confusing to some. It implies we are not accountable until a certain point, which some may see as us being "innocent" when in fact we are not. We are born sinful. So, if we die at birth, we die in sin. And we need God's grace then justr as much as any other point, to save us. The responsibility on our part for an enduring faith and life of holiness never comes into play when an infant dies, hence the absolute and total reliance on the grace of God, which is where ALL salvation begins anyway. Does that make sense? I just don't think we can teach age of accountability alongside saving grace, it contradicts. If we allow wiggle room for children who are young, then we also have to make concessions for those who haven't heard, who were ignorant, handicapped, etc. etc. etc. See where it leads? It is always by grace alone, through faith. In all circumstances. And in the cases mentioned above, it is still by grace alone if "faith" can't be acted out. I hope that isn't totally confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 24, 2006 23:50:55 GMT -5
curious, how come Jesus speaks so highly of children?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 25, 2006 7:28:50 GMT -5
Not confusing at all
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 25, 2006 9:44:11 GMT -5
The bible does teach that a person is accountable at a certain point. Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
I know this scripture is about Jesus, but I believe it applies to every child. It plainly says there is a time before a child knows so choose evil or good. Oh, and this is a verse that shows Jesus could have sinned, but ofcourse we know he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 25, 2006 10:22:34 GMT -5
curious, how come Jesus speaks so highly of children? Grant....wow, I'm speechless. You got me there. Of course it is because of their faith. We must enter the kingdom with a faith like theirs. Is that the conclusion you wanted me to draw? Now, how does that fit into my point? Maybe it doesn't. I will have to think on it. But, thanks for pointing that out and possibly blowing a shotgun sized hole in my argument. I still love and respect you though!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 26, 2006 9:51:30 GMT -5
If a child is born in sin, and yet we understand that the Spirit of God cannot inhabit sin, why was John the Baptist filled with the Spirit pre-Cross and while in his mother's womb?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 10:28:49 GMT -5
the Spirit of God cannot inhabit sin? WHat does that mean? Seriously, I don't understand where that comes from and how it translates into application, can you expound on that?
If a child is NOT born in sin, how to you interpret the scriptures that say we were birthed in iniquity and sinful from our mother's womb? That there are none rightous, etc...if we were NOT born in sin, then why did God choose us before the foundations of the world to be IN CHRIST? What would the need have been if we were not born sinful?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 26, 2006 10:57:07 GMT -5
Hmm.. is there a difference in being born IN sin as opposed to WITH sin?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 26, 2006 11:07:21 GMT -5
If you were to come into my home and take the lives of my children, I'm sure you;'d agree that God would hold YOU accountable for that action while holding ME innocent, as it was not my action.
However, the action taken by you would AFFECT me, meaning your sin would bear on MY life.
Same thought here.
God tells us through Ezekiel that we are NOT accountable for the sins of our fathers/son/vice-versa.
So, Jules, how do you say we are?
I am born AFFECTED by Adam's sin; however, don't tell me I'm GUILTY of Adam's sin; I'm guilty of my OWN sin.
WHY do we sin?
Because of Adam's fall the whole of creation was affected, meaning we're born in DEATH (Paul tell the Romans) but in Adam's sin?
I'm not going to believe the false Augustininan (correct; it's NOT Calvinistic in ORIGIN) teaching of original sin.
I believe I was born affected; that Adam "took the lives" of "the children"...but I'm not the Forbidden Fruit Eater (smiles)....Adam is.
Unfortunately, because of this, we're all born in death, or with a sinful nature.
As for the Holy Spirit inhabitting a place of sin, here is an elaboration:
Does the Spirit of God live within the hearts of the unregenerate?
Nope.
Jesus said the world CANNOT receive Him.
So, how do you, Jules, say that He CAN live and co-habit with sin?
Jesus clearly said it's not possible.
So, again:
If a child is born in sin/with a sin nature/separated from God, and yet we understand that the Spirit of God cannot inhabit sin(or an unregenerate person), why was John the Baptist filled with the Spirit pre-Cross and while in his mother's womb?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 26, 2006 12:08:45 GMT -5
before the foundations of the world. Jules, I love your heart! Your question here is looked at by Pratney when he disects translations of the words. He approaches Augustine's translations of words, compares to the literal definitions to these words (not using a biased Lexicon but non-religious/non-biased dictionaries and understanding of antient Greek). He then replaces "before the foundations of the world" with the literal translations. It is incredibly interesting!! I just wish someone would listen to em... uhhhhh
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Apr 26, 2006 15:53:16 GMT -5
Grant,
I wasn't able to play the Pratney stuff on my computer here, but I picked up an MP3 player last week and downloaded some of them into it yesterday. I'll let ya know what I think.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 26, 2006 17:19:27 GMT -5
Grant...so what IS the literal translation of that phrase?
Biblethumper...OK. Please explain then how a regenerate person can sin? Or can they? If they do, what does that mean? They "lose" the Holy Spirit? It is temporarily "quenched" or what? I believe in total depravity, bottom line. But I also believe that children are saved by grace, and grace FIRST, as it is the Spirit of God that MUST quicken our dead spirits to life (as in Ezekiel's dry bones) and thus enables us to become regenerate.
Quite possibly, I have EVERYTHING out of order. Sanctification, justification, regeneration, conversion, etc. Anybody want to comment on the process as a whole, with a sidebar or who does what? (us or God) perhaps in another thread?
|
|