God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft


Firstly, I explicitly said to forget whether or not my fictional story were possible: “Forgot [sic] for the moment whether this conversation could actually take place given your views. That’s not the point”

It’s irrelevant whether Bob could actually talk to God. It’s the sheer injustice of God condemning Bob that I was trying to bring out. Some people understand something better in parables than they do in arguments.

My view has a clause in that sentence which is conveniently missing from your caricature.

Then tell me what it is. I’m not trying to purposely misrepresent your views. You’re wasting time if you know the answer yet leave me to guess what it is.

I said “God is evil merely by making election unconditional and only selecting a few.”

You replied:

An assertion is not an argument. If that is a conclusion, then where is the argument which produces it?

God is evil because he condemns people to an eternity of suffering who do not deserve it. He condemns because of actions and desires (or the lack of desires) that they could not help. Of course, I have to show why they do not deserve it. That’s found in the rest of this post.

Where in anything I have written do you find this incoherent belief that God "unconditionally condemns" people?

You said previously:

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.[emphasis mine]

If you say that God condemns non-elect because they sin and rejected him, and that this is the condition by which he condemns, then he not condemning by a condition in which they had any control over. They had no choice but to sin and reject him. The reason they are like this is because God unconditionally did not elect them. And then God condemns them based on a condition that was only the result of God’s unconditionally not electing them (as I will show below).

Another bald assertion—and one that flies in the face of everything I have said thus far, so let us take a look at the argument which produces it. I would like to see that your argument (assuming there is one) has properly taken into account and treated fairly everything that I have said thus far.

They are not at fault. God condemns the non-elect because of their multitude of sins and because of they have rejected him. Why are they like this? Because God did not choose them, die for them, and save them. If he had, they would have responded to his calling, and accepted him. If the only way they can accept God and not have their multitude of sins count of against them is if God choose them, died for them, and called them, then they can’t help but reject God and sin because God didn’t do these things for them. They are incapable of doing otherwise. In order to be at fault for something, one must able to have been capable of doing otherwise. They non-elect are not capable of doing otherwise therefore they aren’t at fault. God is at fault because he did not elect them, which would have given them the capability. I will develop this further.

Oh, wait, that is not something you believe? All right: (1) Then who believes that? (2) And why are you drawing conclusions about my view from what someone else believes? It is certainly not drawn from what I believe, since I have repeatedly, explicitly, and directly repudiated the belief that they are in hell because they are not part of the elect—not only in that very post, Tegh, but previous ones too.

I’m not saying you do believe that. I'm not sure who would actually believe it. I’m saying that given your view, that’s what really true, whether you realize it or not.

And to prove that I have actually read your posts, here’s the parts from which I developed my conclusions:

1.

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.

2.

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).

3.

...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.

In the first quote, you explicitly state that the elect are “called” and “regenerated.” They then “turn” to Christ in “repentance.” They hate sin. They are also are continually sanctified by God. They are also no longer “under condemnation.” Their sins were paid by Christ. They’re having a pretty good time.

In the second quote, the non-elect aren’t having as much fun. Twice you use the word “left” as in they were “left unregenerate” and “left to continue enjoying their sin...” Left by whom I must ask? God left them! God left them unregenerate. God let them remain under condemnation. God left them to continue to enjoy their sin. God left them to increase in their sin. God left them to despise him. God left them in rebellion and ingratitude. God left them to bear their own sins.

In the third quote, you then say that it’s still the non-elect fault’s that they go to hell because of the “multitude of sins.” So you still think God is faultless in all of this. I will show next that they aren’t at fault for their “multitude of sins” and rejection of God.


A few more quotes

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.

In this case, the person’s destiny is dependent on God’s “intent.”

"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.

Again, a person’s destiny is dependent upon God’s “intent.”

You then completely contradict yourself however, methinks:

“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...

They are not “willingly” choosing to sin because God purposely intended to leave them unregenerate. They are not “willingly” “choosing” to sin and reject God anymore than the elect “choose” to love God and hate sin (the elect after all have no choice in the matter either since God will always succeed in calling his elect).

You also left a very long quote of a calvinist:

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.

And why doesn’t he obey God’s law? Why doesn’t he trust in Christ? Why doesn’t he love God? According to this guy, it’s because of the “desires of his heart.” Men “...loves sin and hates righteousness.”

So how can man be and do otherwise? They can’t unless they’re part of the elect, as you said: “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. ...”

So basically, you’re telling me that non-elect man does not obey God and worship him because he has no desire to, and this desire only comes from God, and then God condemns them for actions that they did because they did not have the desire, a desire which only comes from God. God is at fault (and is thus evil), not them, because he condemns them for not acting upon a desire that only he could provide! They can’t help it if they don’t have that desire.