God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Ryft]

1. Calvinistic view of salvation.

It is fair to characterize my theology of salvation as Calvinistic, if that soteriology is understood rightly and not turned into a crude caricature (as is so often done). Although I am not really all that familiar with what John Calvin believed and taught—for example, I have never read the Institutes of the Christian Religion—I am very familiar with the biblical doctrines of grace typically denoted as "Calvinism," so I generally accept the eponym as a convenience. (For a solid and clear explanation of my view of salvation, see John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied [Eerdmans, 1955].) But I prefer "biblical Christianity" over "Calvinism" because it is the former that I believe and defend, not the latter. The Bible is the infallible word of God and what I make my stand on. Calvin's writings were neither the word of God nor infallible so no one should make their stand on that. (Moreover, I hold some beliefs that conflict with those of Calvin but which are firmly biblical. Yeah, the guy was wrong on some things. It happens.)

2. The contradiction vanished.

"If you are right in your interpretation," you said, "then no, there is not a contradiction." I appreciate your candor. As I said in my first response to you, although there might be a contradiction for this or that cultural Christianity, as you are effectively demonstrating with Black Chakra and Godschild, it remains true that for biblical Christianity the contradiction is not there.

1. Is the Bible inerrant?
2. If it is inerrant, in what sense is it inerrant?
3. Are you trying to understand what scripture meant to the original audience (first recipients)?
4. Does historical context play a role in your reading of scripture or does this contradict “sola scriptura”? (perhaps related to question 3)

1. Yes.

2. It is inerrant with respect to its theological content as God's self-revelation to mankind about the plan, purpose, order, and history of salvation in Christ and covenant. Although the Bible makes claims that might be scientifically erroneous, for example—like the sky being a solid dome over a world that is a circular disc—that does not constitute an error because it was not making a scientific statement in the first place but rather a theological one, such that creation is described in terms of a cosmic temple (which is simply self-consistent because the Bible is saturated in the temple motif, beginning at Genesis with a cosmic temple and ending at Revelation the same way). Everything the Bible says is God's self-revelation to mankind about the plan, purpose, order, and history of salvation in Christ and covenant, and it is inerrant and infallible in what it says. If you make the Bible say anything outside of that context, then you are refusing to let the Bible speak for itself and whatever errors arise are your fault, not the Bible's.

3. Yes. That is crucial to sound exegesis (seen perhaps nowhere more clearly than Genesis 1; see John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One [InterVarsity Press, 2009] and Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology [Eisenbrauns, 2011]).

4. (You are correct, this falls under 3.)

I want to know why God would command such a thing? What good is preaching the gospel if people who go to hell were going there anyway?

Because it is not for people who are going to hell anyway. I said that the gospel is a means of grace by which God reaches those for whom Christ died and will give eternal life. Preaching the gospel is therefore of infinite good for those who are being saved (and foolishness to those who are perishing).

When I say pointless, I mean pointless in the sense of winning souls.

As I said, the gospel does not win souls. God does, through the gospel. It is like watering a planted seed; it supplies what the seed requires in order to grow, but is not what makes the seed grow. "What is Apollos, really? Or what is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow. So neither the one who plants counts for anything, nor the one who waters, but God who causes the growth" (1 Cor 3:5-7).

First, we need to keep in mind why a person is justly in hell. They have either (1) rejected the gospel or (2) would have rejected the gospel if given the chance.

No. That is why they are not in heaven, but it is not why they are in hell. They are in hell because of their manifold sins, only one of which is their rejection of Christ.

Now where do you think the person is going? It must be hell, because if the person in the first hypothetical example had gone to hell, changing the history of their life in the second hypothetical example would not have prevented that from happening. Otherwise, if they end up accepting the gospel in the second example, that would mean that they went to hell in the first example unjustly because . . . [snip rest]

Again, "If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day."

I think I've shown that a person's destiny, whether it be heaven or hell, is inevitable. If this is true, then why is God commanding us to witness? . . . If I witness to a person and they go to heaven, I could have instead not witnessed and they would have gone to heaven anyway.

They might have "gone to heaven anyway" without hearing the gospel from you, but they will not have gone to heaven without ever hearing the gospel at all (i.e., they will have heard it from someone other than you, or perhaps by reading the Bible). The reason why God commands us to preach the word of Christ is because that is the instrument through which his saving power does its work. "Those he predestined, he also called" (Rom 8:30; emphasis mine). See especially Romans chapter 10.

I guess, then, under your specific view witnessing isn’t pointless—when you define the point of witnessing in such a peculiar way (i.e., to call out those being saved or for whom Christ died).

It may be peculiar, but more importantly it is biblical.

Why didn’t Christ die for everyone?

Because he never intended to. "I lay down my life for the sheep," Jesus said (John 10:15). The sheep symbolize those who the Father gives to the Son (elect), while the goats symbolize everyone else (non-elect). "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (John 6:38-39). Who did the Father give to him? The sheep (John 10:29). He died only for those God intended to save.

It appears completely unjust for God to allow those Christ did not die for to go into eternal torment. They can’t help it! That’s just the way they are.

They can't help it? Who said? That is not what biblical Christianity teaches, Tegh. They willingly choose to sin, so it is just for God to condemn them to hell. Allow me to quote Mitch Cervinka, who put the matter more eloquently and clearly than I ever could ("How Free is the Will?"):

"It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it! The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness."

---

---

I don't see how God can be responsible for one and not the other. If God is responsible for us getting into heaven, then God is also responsible for us not getting into heaven. Not going to heaven means going to hell, which would make God responsible.

1. We should probably avoid, as best we can, conflating proximate moral responsibility and final causal responsibility.

2. God is indeed responsible for these getting into heaven and those not getting into heaven—but not in the same way. The former is active, the latter is passive. (There is an extreme view out there which posits that God is just as actively involved in keeping some out of heaven as he is in getting others into heaven. It is a fractional minority for a reason: the view is indefensible and reprehensible.)

[Cinjin]

And were you born under the very same circumstance, and wait what is the difference between you and me, it couldn't be understanding and desire.

Sarcasm is fun, I use it often, but it won't win your argument for you - as it never does for me either.

You don't comment on the next part. You assume without proof that you are for sure going to hell.

I'm only concluding this fact because of what YOUR bible says. It is you who avoids commenting on my points, not the other way around. Address this point: According to your Bible and literally hundreds of thousand of Christians, your god is sending billions of souls to hell. And you sir, essentially bragged about it.

And that it is His fault and that you were born and then magically appeared in hell. Your skipping your whole life which is a testament and proof to who you are and what you did.

I'm not skipping that portion at all. Rather I note that portion the most. Your god is "magically" sending me to hell for not believing he exists in this current lifetime --NOT because of my immoral lifestyle. He's punishing billions of people for being wrong thinkers not wrong doers. It's really the ultimate injustice. I know you think we non-believers go around raping, robbing and killing people. But it's just not true. I live a very moral life and have no wish to wrong anyone at any time.

That does not go unnoticed, and is so very important if you do not believe in Christ. Your life without Christ and faith was your reward and you received it in full.

I received my reward of being allowed to live in full. How nice ... only to be tortured for all eternity. Then to add insult to injury, you go and tell me it's my fault for simply not believing. NOT for doing horrible things mind you ... but for not believing. I love how you Christians twist the words of the Bible around to say that I somehow cast myself into hell. What a god damn joke. Your god is the only one with the power to cast people into the hell that HE created. According to you it is your god that makes sure that me and billions of others like me are going to be punished for all eternity ... and for what??? Not believing he exists? for some people - not ever have even heard of him?? For WHAT?!?! For being born??? I suppose I've watched a few R-rated movies and got drunk a few times ... do I deserve to be burned eternally for that???? You talk about this life that I skipped over as if I've been trying to omit all the horrible things I've done during my 30+ years. What exactly is god sending me to hell for???? I'll tell you. He's sending me to hell because I'm a wrong thinker ... not a wrong doer. And the most insulting part of that is, that the most vile criminal on this planet can accept Jesus before he dies and he'll get to spend eternity in paradise simply because your god is clearly a narcissistic self-absorbed dick bag.


Well, not really. We all know your god doesn't exist and we have nothing to worry about. Clearly.

I don't see how God can be responsible for one and not the other. If God is responsible for us getting into heaven, then God is also responsible for us not getting into heaven. Not going to heaven means going to hell, which would make God responsible.

1. We should probably avoid, as best we can, conflating proximate moral responsibility and final causal responsibility.

2. God is indeed responsible for these getting into heaven and those not getting into heaven—but not in the same way. The former is active, the latter is passive. (There is an extreme view out there which posits that God is just as actively involved in keeping some out of heaven as he is in getting others into heaven. It is a fractional minority for a reason: the view is indefensible and reprehensible.)

point made.

[Welsh cake]

The "IQ" of this thread has nosedived. None of the Christians can agree on a single issue about the deity they believe in. The 'message' of their theology is confounded.

Well, Godschild said it right when he mentioned he didn't come here to convert people. That's clearly beyond any of these theists' capabilities.

Christianity's worst enemy is itself in many ways. Like Ghandi said, "I love their Jesus but not their Christians". A lot of crap has been done in the name of Christianity.

I agree.

Foreknowledge is not predetermination. Just because God has foreknowledge of all history, and that history will come to pass, doesn't pose a problem for free will. The individuals in that history are free to make their decision as they see fit. Notice decision is in the singular, one decision that all are free to make, salvation. Outside of salvation it's ultimately up to God, through His will.

So regarding those who wind up in Hell, they're there because god simply didn't care all that much about them? That the fate of their "souls" was neglected by the one who knew they were going to be in danger and yet that one did nothing?

Or are you saying he didn't neglect them but every person has multiple chances to avoid removing themselves from god's grace?

Back up a second, you're the type of Christian that believes god does not love everyone correct? So it is neglect and both parties, the sinner and god, are both to blame for the 'wastage' of soul?

Or maybe god's having a recession in Heaven and is simply trimming the fat and tightening up the belt ready for massive cuts mentioned in his "love budget" what do you think?

[Godscreated]

---

The "IQ" of this thread has nosedived. None of the Christians can agree on a single issue about the deity they believe in. The 'message' of their theology is confounded.

---

Well, Godschild said it right when he mentioned he didn't come here to convert people. That's clearly beyond any of these theists' capabilities.

You are correct none of use are capable of salvation, only God can grant salvation through faith your faith in Christ.

Foreknowledge is not predetermination. Just because God has foreknowledge of all history, and that history will come to pass, doesn't pose a problem for free will. The individuals in that history are free to make their decision as they see fit. Notice decision is in the singular, one decision that all are free to make, salvation. Outside of salvation it's ultimately up to God, through His will.

So regarding those who wind up in Hell, they're there because god simply didn't care all that much about them? That the fate of their "souls" was neglected by the one who knew they were going to be in danger and yet that one did nothing?

God cares about everyone, where did you get the idea He doesn't?
God neglects no one, again where did you get the idea He does?

Or are you saying he didn't neglect them but every person has multiple chances to avoid removing themselves from god's grace?

God gives everyone chances, how many only He knows. Even though He knows that a person will not ever accept Christ, out of His love He still gives them an opportunity for salvation, He desires that no one be lost.

Back up a second, you're the type of Christian that believes god does not love everyone correct? So it is neglect and both parties, the sinner and god, are both to blame for the 'wastage' of soul?

No I'm not, God is love, it is who He is, God loves all. God is not to blame, the one has the free will to accept or reject the salvation that comes through faith in Christ.

Or maybe god's having a recession in Heaven and is simply trimming the fat and tightening up the belt ready for massive cuts mentioned in his "love budget" what do you think?

God has the entire universe at His disposal, being that He created the universe He could create whatever He desires. Christ is building mansions in heaven, He has one for me, one so magnificent that nothing on earth could ever compare.

[Ryft]

The "IQ" of this thread has nose-dived.

What do you make of that, Tegh? Nice, huh? And here I thought our conversation was rather intelligent. Oh well.

None of the Christians can agree on a single issue about the deity they believe in. The 'message' of their theology is confounded.

Not exactly a rational conclusion there, an incompetent broad brush that I find embarrassing on your behalf. There are so many issues relevant to why there is disagreement about God that your sweeping dismissal conveniently ignores. It also indefensibly assumes that we all have the same theology, and even the same deity, when it is blatantly clear to any literate person that we simply do not. You just carelessly assume that all Christians are the same, all worship the same God, and all have the same theology, when the evidence to the contrary is stacked heavily against such an incompetent broad brush.

Is there not a skeptic anywhere in this forum who would call you out on such a dereliction of reason?

[...cue sound of crickets...]

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The "IQ" of this thread has nose-dived.

What do you make of that, Tegh? Nice, huh? And here I thought our conversation was rather intelligent. Oh well.

I don't know. I just wish the conversation would stay on topic.

I'm still working on my reply to you btw. I'm having to deal with Godschild's response to me too and that new guy with the mario avatar (can't remember his name).

[Ryft]

Take your time, Tegh. I am very patient. Even if it takes you two or three days to get back to me, I'll still see it eventually.

[Engel]

---

The "IQ" of this thread has nosedived. None of the Christians can agree on a single issue about the deity they believe in. The 'message' of their theology is confounded.

---

Well, Godschild said it right when he mentioned he didn't come here to convert people. That's clearly beyond any of these theists' capabilities.

You are correct none of use are capable of salvation, only God can grant salvation through faith your faith in Christ.

Foreknowledge is not predetermination. Just because God has foreknowledge of all history, and that history will come to pass, doesn't pose a problem for free will. The individuals in that history are free to make their decision as they see fit. Notice decision is in the singular, one decision that all are free to make, salvation. Outside of salvation it's ultimately up to God, through His will.

So regarding those who wind up in Hell, they're there because god simply didn't care all that much about them? That the fate of their "souls" was neglected by the one who knew they were going to be in danger and yet that one did nothing?

God cares about everyone, where did you get the idea He doesn't?
God neglects no one, again where did you get the idea He does?

Or are you saying he didn't neglect them but every person has multiple chances to avoid removing themselves from god's grace?

God gives everyone chances, how many only He knows. Even though He knows that a person will not ever accept Christ, out of His love He still gives them an opportunity for salvation, He desires that no one be lost.

Back up a second, you're the type of Christian that believes god does not love everyone correct? So it is neglect and both parties, the sinner and god, are both to blame for the 'wastage' of soul?

No I'm not, God is love, it is who He is, God loves all. God is not to blame, the one has the free will to accept or reject the salvation that comes through faith in Christ.

Or maybe god's having a recession in Heaven and is simply trimming the fat and tightening up the belt ready for massive cuts mentioned in his "love budget" what do you think?

God has the entire universe at His disposal, being that He created the universe He could create whatever He desires. Christ is building mansions in heaven, He has one for me, one so magnificent that nothing on earth could ever compare.

What Welsh meant is that none of you have been able to put together a clear and coherent argument in your favor without disagreeing on many aspects of who this god person is. As for your second point, if god supposedly knows how history will unfold then doesn't that imply that it is set in stone and unchangeable? On your third point, if there was a god, either he is not all-powerful as you suspect or he is simply absent or flawed, as he continues to let the better part of his creation suffer in squalid conditions. On your forth point, logically that does not make sense. If he knew they were going to hell anyways, then why not just send them there to begin with? Why then, if he desires that nobody be lost, does he not show himself and woo us with displays of his awesome power and make us believe in him? Finally, the idea of heaven, however ideal it may be, is just that, an ideal. Much in the same way Mount Olympus was for the Greeks, or the Afterlife was to the Egyptians. And this below pretty much sums up my feelings on the Christian god and the resurrection of his son.

[Godscreated]

---

You are correct none of use are capable of salvation, only God can grant salvation through faith your faith in Christ.



God cares about everyone, where did you get the idea He doesn't?
God neglects no one, again where did you get the idea He does?


God gives everyone chances, how many only He knows. Even though He knows that a person will not ever accept Christ, out of His love He still gives them an opportunity for salvation, He desires that no one be lost.


No I'm not, God is love, it is who He is, God loves all. God is not to blame, the one has the free will to accept or reject the salvation that comes through faith in Christ.


God has the entire universe at His disposal, being that He created the universe He could create whatever He desires. Christ is building mansions in heaven, He has one for me, one so magnificent that nothing on earth could ever compare.

---

What Welsh meant is that none of you have been able to put together a clear and coherent argument in your favor without disagreeing on many aspects of who this god person is.

I understood what he was saying.

As for your second point, if god supposedly knows how history will unfold then doesn't that imply that it is set in stone and unchangeable?

That goes without saying, this however has no bearing on God's love for us. He can and does offer it no matter what one will do. No one can slight God for being just when He has offered His love to all.

On your third point, if there was a god, either he is not all-powerful as you suspect or he is simply absent or flawed, as he continues to let the better part of his creation suffer in squalid conditions.

God has been and always will be, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Sin is what's wrong with the world, I do not expect you to understand, God moves in history to complete His will, what makes you think that we are not the ones that should be taking care of these squalid conditions, we the people of this planet created it.

On your forth point, logically that does not make sense. If he knew they were going to hell anyways, then why not just send them there to begin with? Why then, if he desires that nobody be lost, does he not show himself and woo us with displays of his awesome power and make us believe in him? Finally, the idea of heaven, however ideal it may be, is just that, an ideal. Much in the same way Mount Olympus was for the Greeks, or the Afterlife was to the Egyptians. And this below pretty much sums up my feelings on the Christian god and the resurrection of his son.

It makes perfect sense, you're not looking at this through God's love. In your second sentence you state they, why, do you believe you are not one of them. If, in the end you're one of them, would you want God to send you there before you got to live a life? God has shown displays of His awesome powers, you have rejected them, there's a parable that fits your disbelief concerning this particular situation, read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16. None of hose promised me a mansion, I pretty sure I,m going to enjoy my mansion, bright and sparkling and lit by the Glory of Christ. In regard to your last sentence, childish.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft

Thanks for answering my questions on the way you understand, read, and interpret the Bible.

... It is inerrant with respect to its theological content as God's self-revelation to mankind about the plan, purpose, order, and history of salvation in Christ and covenant. Although the Bible makes claims that might be scientifically erroneous, for example—like the sky being a solid dome over a world that is a circular disc—that does not constitute an error because it was not making a scientific statement in the first place but rather a theological one, such that creation is described in terms of a cosmic temple (which is simply self-consistent because the Bible is saturated in the temple motif, beginning at Genesis with a cosmic temple and ending at Revelation the same way).

I actually started thread a few weeks ago discussing problems in interpreting scripture in such a way.The discussion mostly centered on whether you’re interpreting scripture really the way it was intended to be interpreted or if you’re just falling into this fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index...al-fallacy

That discussion isn’t relevant for what we we’re debating now but if you wish you can find it and continue the discussion here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-12501.html

You have made it clear several times that Christ has died only for some:

“I said that the gospel is a means of grace by which God reaches those for whom Christ died and will give eternal life.”
...
Again, "If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.
...

The reason why God commands us to preach the word of Christ is because that is the instrument through which his saving power does its work. "Those he predestined, he also called" (Rom 8:30; emphasis mine).

The sheep symbolize those who the Father gives to the Son (elect), while the goats symbolize everyone else (non-elect).

To summarize, you seem to understand that God as only died to those he intended save. And he only calls those he died for. Basically only those he intended to save, died for and calls will be saved.

I must ask then, what is the difference between people he did not decide to die for and call and those he did (aside from the fact he chose them of course)? Why did he select the ones that he did select? What’s so special about them?

Also, why did he not select all human beings? Why did he not die for all and then call them all to him? Why did only die for some human beings?

This is what I was getting at when I said:

“It appears completely unjust for God to allow those Christ did not die for to go into eternal torment. They can’t help it! That’s just the way they are.”

You replied thusly:

They can't help it? Who said? That is not what biblical Christianity teaches, Tegh. They willingly choose to sin, so it is just for God to condemn them to hell.

When you that say “they” (the non-elect) willingly choose to sin, does that mean that the elect do not sin, or at least, do not willingly sin? If you say, no, both groups willingly sin, then what’s the difference between the elect and non-elect?

God apparently decided to save one group of sinners and leave the rest of the sinners to burn in hell for eternal torment. If both groups are willful sinners, then the only reason the non-elect went to hell, is because they were non-elect. They never got the opportunity for Christ to die for them, and they were never called. So I still affirm that they “can’t help it.” If you again say “they willingly choose to sin” therefore they’re justified for being grilled then you have to show how that differentiates them from the elect if the elect also willingly sin.

However, if you were to say that the chosen elect do not “willingly” sin (I guess as opposed to unintentionally sinning?) then I must ask, why is that they do not “willingly” sin? Is it because God chose, died, and called them? In other words, is God the cause of their not “willingly” sinning? If you say yes, then why could not God had caused all men to not want to sin?

Anyway I picture it in your view, it appears that God, not man’s fault, is the ultimate reason that they go to heaven or hell. If a person goes to hell, they can blame God for it because really they had nothing to do with it.

One last question, do all people God died for respond to God’s call? Are there some he died for that do not respond to his call? If that’s true, what happens to those he died for but did not respond to his calling? However, if it is true that everyone he died for will respond to his call, and they (the elect) all go to heaven, that seems to make witnessing pointless (back to that point I’m afraid). God’s call will always end up getting to the elect person somehow if one does not witness to a person. If you don’t witness to someone, it’s inevitable that someone else will later down the road. Or if all else fails, perhaps something miraculous will happen like a Bible “coincidentally” falling off the shelf, smacking the called person on the head and landing on the floor open to John 3:16. God will always find a way to get his elect called. So, this goes back to my original point. The sun will always rise!