God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Ryft]

I actually started thread a few weeks ago discussing problems in interpreting scripture in such a way. The discussion mostly centered on whether you are interpreting scripture really the way it was intended to be interpreted or just committing the Spiritual Fallacy. . . . That discussion is not relevant for what we we are debating now but, if you wish, you can find it and continue the discussion here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-12501.html

It was not a few weeks ago, it was only last week. Heheh. Anyway, I will have a go at your questions in that thread over the next couple of days. And it does not matter that it has no relevance to our discussion here; like most anyone else, I enjoy a broad range of subjects.

You seem to understand that Christ only died for those God intended save, and that God only calls those Christ 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 who 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?

The election by God of particular people for redemption is explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible. What is not stated in the Bible, nor is it even implied, is the reason why God chose these people but not those—although it does state what the reason was not, namely, anything to do with the people in themselves (Rom. 9:11; cf. v, 16; 2 Tim. 1:9). In other words, election is unconditional.

So what I mean to say is that there is no "difference" between who he did and did not choose, that there was no "special" quality about those he chose; we were all in the same boat, condemned under his wrath for our manifold sins (Titus 3:3-5). There is no morally neutral state in which anyone exists; all mankind exists in a state of condemnation on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of sin, of moral ruin and death—and through unbelief, which is itself a sin, we would remain there. We exist under death; only in Christ do we move to life. We exist under God's wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified.

So then why did he choose these people but not those? Why did he not choose everyone? We are not told what his reason was, beyond the fact that he has one (Eph. 1:11; Deut. 29:29); and it was arguably a smart move to not tell us, quite frankly, for we are thus unable to presume who is and is not part of the elect. For all I know, you might be. And thus, not knowing who constitutes the elect, we do not discriminate when sharing the gospel.

(Yes, it is possible for an atheist to be part of the elect. That term simply means chosen by God for salvation; but 'when' they are called to that salvation through union with Christ, and everything which attends that, is another matter entirely. It could happen at any point in their life, a time known only to God and his purpose; but it will happen, for when God intends to save someone he will not fail.)

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

Indeed my answer would be that they both willingly sin. What, then, is the difference between them? Just this: That once the elect are called and regenerated, now turning to Christ in faith and repentance, they are no longer comfortable in and with their sin; that is, they hate their sin and yearn to stop sinning, and all the more as God continues to sanctify them in the pure image of God, Jesus Christ. They also now love God and the things of God, and all the more as they are being sanctified. Moreover, they are no longer under condemnation, the penalty their sin was due having been borne by Christ and nailed to the cross, with the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in them through the faithfulness of Christ for all who believe.

It is a stark difference from the non-elect, who are left unregenerated and remain under condemnation, left to continue enjoying their sin and increasing it, despising God and the things of God, an obdurate rebellion and ingratitude to which God responds by removing what little grace they had been extended, and in the end having to bear the penalty their sin is due themselves (which some here have even insisted on).

If both groups are willful sinners, then the only reason the non-elect went to hell is because they were non-elect.

Again, being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven. It is not why they go to hell. They are condemned because of their multitude of sins, the penalty for which they must bear themselves (which some even insist on). Again, that is the condition in which absolutely everyone finds themselves; and it is out of that already condemned lot that God chose to save some. So being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven; they were already condemned to hell.

One last question: Do all people for whom Christ died respond to God's call? Are there some he died for that do not respond to his call?

Yes, every single person for whom Christ died ends up responding to God's call, brought into union with Christ and saved in him. God will not fail to save any one of those who belong to him.

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 you do not witness to someone, it is 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 elect 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.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it is inevitable that the gospel of Jesus Christ will somehow reach every elect person, then it is not pointless at all.

[Godscreated]

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?

All choose to willfully sin, sin is a condition of man, it's part of free will. The difference between the elect and non-elect simply is this, not all that are called will choose Christ, this is Biblical. Matt.22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding feast. In this parable there were those invited and did not come, the king sent out his servants once again to call those invited to come to the feast, they refused, and some were violent, killing some of the servants. The king became angry with these who were violent to his servants and destroyed them. The king sent out servant again, told them to call all they could find, many came to the feast, but one was there who was not in wedding clothing, he had no answer for why he was there, the king had him bond and thrown into the darkness. All were called few were chosen. The king=God, the servants=witnesses or the Word of God, the original ones invited=people who believed they were good enough to ignore the king, the others that were called=those who were grateful to be a part of the kings good nature, the one not in the wedding clothes=those who become part of the church to be seen, not caring to be a true wedding guest, that is a real christian. This parable is about those who are called to be a part of God's kingdom, church.

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.

On this we agree, God being love would not do this. Everyone has a chance at heaven, even those who never hear the gospel, as I explained earlier in this thread. Actually Christ did die only for those who would choose Him, but all are given that chance to chose Him. God desires that none perish, this to me puts an end to predestination.

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 predestination were true, then the above parable would suggest that not all predestined would choose to join God, in this I would question the ability of God to save anyone. It certainly would mean He would not be capable of holding on to the ones He has called through predestination.

[DeeTee]

New poster here and taking a stab at the Op. I am sure this may have been mentioned before but I do not have the time to read through 21 pages of comments.

I just want to address a couple of points made in the Op and another post:

#1.

Free will, blah blah blah. Supposedly if he shows himself, we can't believe in him freely.

Though this is part of the issue, it is only a part. One can still freely reject God's message of salvation even if God revealed Himself physically

God won't though as He told Moses that if Moses viewed God's real form He would surely die. That statement holds true today and applies to all humans. If God did reveal Himself physically, no one would have a chance to believe in Him because they would be dead.

#2.

why doesn't he just show himself continuously to everyone

God has shown Himself to all people. The Bible tells us that the heavens declare God glory. it also declares His power, His creativity, His concern, His abilities etc. In all of the created world we see a bit of God.

It is NOT God's fault that humans listen to evil and apply what they see to false theories and ideas.

#3.

It seems to me then that really the only reason in your view that a person goes to hell is because of a lack of information

No, people go to hell because they have rejected Jesus as their Saviour NOT because they do not have enough information.

#4.

God already knew that this free person would freely reject the gospel anyway so there was no point in sending missionaries his way.

But that isn't the only person in the world and God knows that others will hear the same message and will convert thus the missionary is needed to bring the message to others.

#5.

his appearances don't violate free will

.

But it would violate God's rule about faith. The Bible tells us that 'by grace through faith are ye saved.' Read Hebrews 11 as well. Faith is the key to the whole equation which is why so many scientists and others have a hard time with the gospel message as they place physical evidence in faith's place and that is not scriptural or correct.

God did not say to use physical evidence. Yes we will get some of that in order to shore up a believer's faith BUT not so much tat it won't destroy God's requirement. People acting on faith please God and God is not going to destroy what pleases Him.

#6.

then it's unfair that God doesn't show himself in the same way to everyone.

But God has shown Himself in the same way to everyone. DO you think believers are born that way? No, they come to the knolwedge of Jesus and salvation through the very same witness as everyone else receives.

It is AFTER they come to be followers of Him that they learn more about God and grow deeper in the faith. You can't get more information about God until you believe.

Everyone sees the same evidence, hears the same message and has the same rules to follow and the key is that some follow the rules and use faith while others do not.

I thought there was a subsequent point to address in another post but I may have already covered it in this list.

[Paul the Human]

Godschild, you and Ryft are very good at defending your beliefs, but for an atheist like me, your arguments fail to achieve the only thing that would really make a difference. They fail to offer a convincing or compelling reason to believe that gods of any kind actually exist.

The name of this thread calls your god out of hiding, but the discussion that follows makes it clear that he is hidden in the distraction of the details. Everyone arguing about how the whole godverse works, rather than the existence of a god at all.

In other words, until you have shown me a reason to believe that gods exist in the first place I have no reason to take any of this seriously. Unless a God exists, the stories about that god are nothing but myth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whoa! Where did all the Calvinists come from!?! With respect to the OP, the obviousness of God fills our language. Imagine your daily communication without referring to either intentions or choices, meanings or values - all of which cannot be true in a world formed out of random, senseless and nonconscious events. Orderliness cannot emerge in a world without an inherent order. Life emerged in the course of time because it was inherent in the process from the start.

I want to see the Avengers movie. That is much easier to say than, "current electro-chemical states generate actions leading me to expose my senses to a particular series of electromagnetic and kinetic waves." Belief in God is a working hypothesis that best reflects the world I live in on an everyday basis. I can't open my mouth without using words and phrases that presuppose divine qualities.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

“It was not a few weeks ago, it was only last week. Heheh. Anyway, I will have a go at your questions in that thread over the next couple of days. And it does not matter that it has no relevance to our discussion here; like most anyone else, I enjoy a broad range of subjects.”

I’m in a different time zone. It’s really May 10th where I am.

“The election by God of particular people for redemption is explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible. What is not stated in the Bible, nor is it even implied, is the reason why God chose these people but not those—although it does state what the reason was not, namely, anything to do with the people in themselves (Rom. 9:11; cf. v, 16; 2 Tim. 1:9). In other words, election is unconditional.”

Ok, election is unconditional. It has nothing to do with the person. It all has to do with God in other words.

“So what I mean to say is that there is no "difference" between who he did and did not choose, that there was no "special" quality about those he chose; we were all in the same boat, condemned under his wrath for our manifold sins (Titus 3:3-5).”

Ok, so you admit that there is no difference (or no special quality distinguishing the elect from the non-elect).

“So then why did he choose these people but not those? Why did he not choose everyone? We are not told what his reason was, beyond the fact that he has one (Eph. 1:11; Deut. 29:29); and it was arguably a smart move to not tell us, quite frankly, for we are thus unable to presume who is and is not part of the elect.”

Ok, now let’s remember, you’ve established that election is unconditional, and that there is no distinguishing quality between the elect and the non-elect. And now, you admit that you do not know why God choose a few rather than everyone. Well, it doesn’t matter what God’s reason might be then! God is evil merely by making election unconditional and only selecting a few. It still ultimately not the person’s fault, but God’s. Just because God has a reason (whatever it maybe) doesn’t take him off the hook.

Ok, let’s say Bob is at the judgement seat (Forgot for the moment whether this conversation could actually take place given your views. That’s not the point). He was never one of God’s elect. He was never chosen.

God: I never knew you. You shall be cast in the lake of fire.
Bob: Objection your honor.
God: Make it quick. I got a harp concert to attend in an hour.
Bob: Why does Larry over there get to go into your heavenly kingdom, while I get to roast for eternity?
God: Because I called him to me. Duh.
Bob: And why did you not you call me also?
God: Because Jesus over here...
Jesus: Yo. *peace sign*
God: ... Did not die for you.
Bob: Oh. I see. So, why didn’t Jesus die for me too?
God: Because I did not chose you.
Bob: And why not?!
God: Who are you to ask?
Bob: The person about to tortured forever and forever.
God: Well, when you put it that way *rolls eyes*
Bob: What’s your reason then?
God: Look, all I need to tell you is that you’re a terrible sinner.
Bob: I’ve seen Larry’s browser history.
God: Yeah, Incognito mode, Larry! Look it up!
Bob: So, you admit that Larry was a sinner too?
God: Yes. What’s your point?
Bob: What’s the difference then? We’re both sinners. Yet you condemn me for being a sinner and not Larry.
God: I know that. My reasons for condemning you are unconditional.
Bob: So it’s nothing I’ve done, it’s all your doing then? Correct?
God: Yep.
Bob: Why then, if I’ve done nothing more than Larry, am I to spend eternity in Hell?
God: I have my reasons.
Bob: And they are?
God: Not telling.
Bob: If my election was unconditional, then you’re an evil God. You doom people who do not deserve it.
God: Shut up. No one likes a sour puss.
*trap door under Bob opens*
God: Ok, who’s next in line for Hell? hmm. Gandhi, you’re next, you little weirdo.

[end of play]

“It is a stark difference from the non-elect, who are left unregenerated and remain under condemnation, left to continue enjoying their sin and increasing it, despising God and the things of God, an obdurate rebellion and ingratitude to which God responds by removing what little grace they had been extended, and in the end having to bear the penalty their sin is due themselves (which some here have even insisted on).”

So, basically, it sucks to be them. They just weren’t chosen and that’s too bad. I’m sorry if I sound sarcastic and incredulous, but the God you paint, whether you realize it or not, comes off as being incredibly evil. I don't care what his unknown reasons might be, the fact that he unconditionally condemns peoples makes him guilty.

“Again, being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven. It is not why they go to hell. They are condemned because of their multitude of sins, the penalty for which they must bear themselves (which some even insist on).”

I’m not sure how this distinction is meaningful. Is there some other place they could have gone? Can nonelect people go somewhere else other than Hell? What difference does it make to say that nonelect only go to hell because of their sins, when the elect are just as sinful? This does not take the blame away from God, because if God had chosen them, they would not be condemned to Hell. So your distinction hardly makes a distinction.

“You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If it is inevitable that the gospel of Jesus Christ will somehow reach every elect person, then it is not pointless at all.”

No, I’m not contradicting myself. I’m saying that each individual act of witnessing is pointless because if I don’t witness, it’s true that someone later down the road who isn’t lazy (and doesn’t realize its pointless) will witness to the guy or maybe something else will happen. God will always be successful in calling his chosen.

[Godscreated]

Godschild, you and Ryft are very good at defending your beliefs, but for an atheist like me, your arguments fail to achieve the only thing that would really make a difference. They fail to offer a convincing or compelling reason to believe that gods of any kind actually exist.

The name of this thread calls your god out of hiding, but the discussion that follows makes it clear that he is hidden in the distraction of the details. Everyone arguing about how the whole godverse works, rather than the existence of a god at all.

In other words, until you have shown me a reason to believe that gods exist in the first place I have no reason to take any of this seriously. Unless a God exists, the stories about that god are nothing but myth.

Paul, I do not know what to say that I've not already said about the existence of God, it's God's will that faith in Christ is what's required of us. Let me say this, do you think that there are times, and have been times, that christians wish God would show Himself to us, you can bet we have. We do take solace in this though, Christ said "blessed are those who believe without seeing. Why is it when I look at nature I see God's work, and you see evolution in motion, and we both believe we are right in what we see.

[Cinjin]

God has shown Himself to all people. The Bible tells us that the heavens declare God glory. it also declares His power, His creativity, His concern, His abilities etc. In all of the created world we see a bit of God.

Untrue. When the Mayans were found by the Spanish Conquistadors did they find them worshiping Jesus Christ?? Nope. Did they find them giving the god jehovah the praise for things like bountiful harvests and plenty of food and water? Nope. Since it's well known that the Mayans were excellent astronomers, did they give the glory of the heavens to the Lord god Immanuel?? Nope. This is a bull shit excuse that christians use to weasel out of the fact that their god left most people on this planet to burn in hell due to their "pagan gods" and their accident of birth. The Mayans and the billions of people that lived prior all over the world didn't even know your god's name. They praised the only gods they knew and they offered human sacrifices to appease them. And why did they worship these gods? ... the same reason you worship yours ... because they assumed that their parents and their grand parents and their entire civilization wouldn't lie to them about "the one true god."


You are essentially a Mayan ... you were just born on a different continent, in a different century, and serve a different god.



EDIT: Just a final thought. After all was said and done the Spanish murdered nearly all of them and enslaved the rest --- all in an effort to "reveal god to the world."
If it weren't so terrifying, it would be such an obvious fucking joke.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I believe that free will is essential to Christianity, as essential as God's love is, and I do not think I need to elaborate on His love. If we are not free agents, and I believe God allows us to be, then God's love has no meaning for salvation. If we are not free agents, then why the sacrifice of Christ, God shows His love to us through this. In Christ's own words, "what greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for another". Your position was that God had to strike a balance between the saved and lost, and ultimately God saved those He chose and sent to hell those He did not choose, this is predestination, a determination before the cause. What would qualify this as predetermination, God's foreknowledge, He would have known the ones He would choose and in that choosing leave man completely out of any decision.

Again, the view I expressed is not deterministic. It's a view used by libertarians. I can't help it if comes off sounding deterministic but there's not a better libertarian solution that I know of.

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.

Ok, let's assume that everyone has free will. Why does one person with free will freely accept Christ as their savior, and another person freely rejects Christ? What's different about the two people that would result in them making two different free choices?

Again knowing, determining and whatever has nothing to do with us choosing God or not choosing God, simple really.

You may be right on that. I have to continue to study that point and may return to it.

---

...

The name of this thread calls your god out of hiding, but the discussion that follows makes it clear that he is hidden in the distraction of the details. Everyone arguing about how the whole godverse works, rather than the existence of a god at all.
...

I'm going to try to get the thread back on the topic of why doesn't God show himself eventually.

[DeeTee]

Untrue.

Please stop saying things like this because it is a false accusation.

When the Mayans were found by the Spanish Conquistadors did they find them worshiping Jesus Christ?? Nope. Did they find them giving the god jehovah the praise for things like bountiful harvests and plenty of food and water? Nope. Since it's well known that the Mayans were excellent astronomers, did they give the glory of the heavens to the Lord god Immanuel?? Nope.

You have the Bible in your own language yet you do not believe. Revelation does not guarantee belief. Your ignore free choice.

This is a bull shit excuse that christians use to weasel out of the fact that their god left most people on this planet to burn in hell due to their "pagan gods" and their accident of birth. The Mayans and the billions of people that lived prior all over the world didn't even know your god's name. They praised the only gods they knew and they offered human sacrifices to appease them

Really? You were there and know this for a fact? Billions of people today have the Bible in their own language yet they CHOOSE to worship false gods--what is your point?

And why did they worship these gods? ... the same reason you worship yours ... because they assumed that their parents and their grand parents and their entire civilization wouldn't lie to them about "the one true god."

What evidence do you have that this is true? Please trot it out. How do you know that some Mayans and other ancient citizens di dnot question their family's belief's? It happens today even in Christian homes so why would the Mayan be any different?

You are essentially a Mayan ... you were just born on a different continent, in a different century, and serve a different god

So all those people who were raised in non-christian homes or in cultic enviornments really aren't Christian then since their coinversion was done outside of a christian influence? This is a weak argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Even in atheistic Stalinistic Russia there were believers. Read the book, God's Smuggler to see how that enviorment did not produce only atheists.

After all was said and done the Spanish murdered nearly all of them and enslaved the rest --- all in an effort to "reveal god to the world."

I think you need to re-read your history. The Spanairds were after GOLD not evangelizing the world.

But then your thinking is common where you feel everyone who claims to be a christian is one and that is so far from the truth. Evil people will use religion, but that doesn't mean religion (in this case Christianity) is evil and bad. You just use the generality to provide you with an excuse for not believing in Jesus.

The Bible doesn't teach 'all who claim to be a christian is one' NO it teaches 'by their fruits you shall know them. Obviously, the Spanairds were not christian by the results of their interaction with native peoples.

P.S. you should be terrified of those evil people who use religion for their own gain NOT of God, Jesus or those who truly believe in them.