# Predestination, hell,and the nature of God's love



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2007)

If God delights to save all, why does He not do it? Does He not want to, or can He not? If He does not want to, does this impugn His goodness? If He cannot does this impugn His omnipotence?

If heaven rejoices over one saved sheep, why did God not make more sheep and why did He make so many goats?

If God can sovereingly predestinate ALL, why does he only seem to predestinate some and pass over the others in wrath? 

Because of His good pleasure? 

What sort of good pleasure would delight greater in letting some suffer than from saving all? Must God’s glory be bought at the creatures expense?

Why does God save the number He does? Why does He not save more? Is the road to heaven going to be traveled by many or few?




How would you answer these questions to a child?


----------



## A5pointer (Oct 29, 2007)

Paul has the answer

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" *20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?* "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 29, 2007)

Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2007)

HOw do we explain that God is not just a big bully?


----------



## CDM (Oct 29, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> HOw do we explain that God is not just a big bully?



bul·ly
n., pl. -lies.

*1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.*
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.​
Assuming you mean the first definition; is giving a criminal what he deserves cruel? Is being fair cruel? Or is being merciful cruel too? What about dying for ones enemies so they are reconciled with their creator? Is this also cruel?

I do not see what it is we are to explain.


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 29, 2007)

In response to those questions, I would say that everyone deserves to go to hell, God's justice demands that there is punishment for sin, and that God does not have the obligation to save anyone. The idea that God is not fair to the non-elect is based on the false assumption that God has the obligation to save anyone. Saying that God has the obligation to save everyone is like saying our justice system has the obligation to pardon all of the criminals on death row. If people get what they deserve, would you find fault with God? 

Why does God save the number He does? The Bible does not tell us. God does as He pleases. He alone decides who the elect are and who the non-elect are. Man does not determine whom God chooses to save or not save.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 29, 2007)

Wow, your post is timely for me. I spent yesterday reflecting on the reailty of hell and I know what you're getting at. We sometimes treat this issue as if it were doctrine to analyze, but think of it in terms of the worse cancer diagnosis times infinity...I mean, there will be people in hell...neverending objects of God's wrath...think of your worst fear and it is a grain of sand on the beach compared to the oceans of utter horror that hell is.

It really makes me want to be a universalist when this doctrine hits me in the gut...I even fear for myself just out the potential that as a sinner, I could somehow be believing I am his child, yet to find out I was wrong.

I know Paul responds with a rhetorical question - "Who are you, O Man, to talk back to God?", and surely he is right...for it is Scripture, yet also in line with the nature of God/man...if God is supremely ruler over all, then he does as he pleases. 

But, his justice MUST be seen in light of the cross or else despair is all that can result. His compassion is as perfect as His justice...it is there for the taking.

Sorry...this is less of a response to your question and more my own reflection I had after deealing with my own emotion over the reality of hell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2007)

get to the heart of the matter.

Pergamum is not asking how God can be just in sending cosmic traitors to hell That's a given. Traitors must go to hell. The deeper question is this:

"How come God didn't create a universe (best Possible World Theory) where this wouldn't be a reality?" In this case, there are no traitors to send to hell. Therefore, either God is not all-loving, or all-powerful. 

Same old problem, revamped in modern categories.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 29, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> Pergamum is not asking how God can be just in sending cosmic traitors to hell That's a given. Traitors must go to hell. The deeper question is this:
> 
> ...



Indeed, that is the heart of the matter and it can make one weep.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > get to the heart of the matter.
> ...



And a traditional Arminian can no more answer this question than the Calvinist. The Arminian still has to face the horro that billions of people never even had a chance to exercise the free will, so they go to hell. The Calvinist has a logical (if cold) answer. The Arminian still has to answer the question why God didn't create the world in such a way to allow ALL sinners to exercise their free will.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 29, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



The Arminian is, in my opinion, worse off than the Calvinist because he has to deal with the fact that, given the Arminian system in which man can freely accept or reject God without divine intervention, God created the world in this way, knowing beforehand that so many would reject him and be consigned to hell. I think the problem is partially what leads to Open Theism.


----------



## Davidius (Oct 29, 2007)

cih1355 said:


> In response to those questions, I would say that everyone deserves to go to hell, God's justice demands that there is punishment for sin, and that God does not have the obligation to save anyone. The idea that God is not fair to the non-elect is based on the false assumption that God has the obligation to save anyone. Saying that God has the obligation to save everyone is like saying our justice system has the obligation to pardon all of the criminals on death row. If people get what they deserve, would you find fault with God?
> 
> Why does God save the number He does? The Bible does not tell us. God does as He pleases. He alone decides who the elect are and who the non-elect are. Man does not determine whom God chooses to save or not save.



The problem is that we have to go back to Adam and ask why Adam fell. Did Adam have free will? Or wouldn't most Calvinists say that Adam's fall was ordained like everything else? In this system we don't just have people who deserve to go to hell because they all equally chose to sin. We have a system in which one man, as the representative of all mankind, was _ordained by God_ to sin, and then everyone else inherited the representative's guilt and sin nature. 

So yes, in a sense, people do deserve what they get, but they also didn't exactly have a say in the matter concerning their inheritance from Adam.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 29, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > In response to those questions, I would say that everyone deserves to go to hell, God's justice demands that there is punishment for sin, and that God does not have the obligation to save anyone. The idea that God is not fair to the non-elect is based on the false assumption that God has the obligation to save anyone. Saying that God has the obligation to save everyone is like saying our justice system has the obligation to pardon all of the criminals on death row. If people get what they deserve, would you find fault with God?
> ...



It is this "no say in the matter" that strikes me as why an Arminian theology is attractive. It is much easier to live with the fact that people who go to hell outright reject the grace of God rather than never having a true choice. Of course, this doesn't deal with the other issue of the fate of those who have never heard in order to make a choice.


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 29, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> get to the heart of the matter.
> 
> Pergamum is not asking how God can be just in sending cosmic traitors to hell That's a given. Traitors must go to hell. The deeper question is this:
> 
> ...



The Arminian response would be, "If God did not allow man to choose evil, then everyone would be a robot. Man would not have any choices if he were not capable of doing evil.". This kind of response is weak.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2007)

It seems that God could have defeated the devil and thrown him in hell and not a single human soul need end up there. I/e a clean sweep (Devil - 0, GOd - 100) on the scoreboard. But why the devil was allowed to fall, to deceive many and for these many to end up in hell, is beyond me. 



..Except that the road is narrow and that hell is eternal according to Jesus' very words. As atttractive as universalims might be, thereis no getting around Christ's words. BUt why IS universalism attractive is it is wrong?


----------



## sotzo (Oct 29, 2007)

> ..Except that the road is narrow and that hell is eternal according to Jesus' very words. As atttractive as universalims might be, thereis no getting around Christ's words. BUt why IS universalism attractive is it is wrong?



Universalism is attractive because, if true, then hope is for everyone. Gone would be questions about those who have never heard the gospel. Gone would be the questions at the bedside of a dying child. Gone would be debates over what constitutes the visible church. 

I've often there are 2 things that would ease the mental / emotional burden of these matters - 1) universalism, or 2) complete ignorance of or concern for spiritual matters.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 29, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> If God delights to save all, why does He not do it? Does He not want to, or can He not? If He does not want to, does this impugn His goodness? If He cannot does this impugn His omnipotence?
> 
> If heaven rejoices over one saved sheep, why did God not make more sheep and why did He make so many goats?
> 
> ...



First, i would stop the child from asking 17 questions in one post....

Just have them read Job and go to bed....


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 29, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> It seems that God could have defeated the devil and thrown him in hell and not a single human soul need end up there. I/e a clean sweep (Devil - 0, GOd - 100) on the scoreboard. But why the devil was allowed to fall, to deceive many and for these many to end up in hell, is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> ..Except that the road is narrow and that hell is eternal according to Jesus' very words. As atttractive as universalims might be, thereis no getting around Christ's words. BUt why IS universalism attractive is it is wrong?



I would explain this in part by looking at Job 38/39 when God answers Job with all those questions.
Also using the confession of faith like here
1. God hath (a) Decreed in himself from all Eternity, by the most wise and holy Councel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever comes to passe; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin, (b) nor hath fellowship with any therein, nor is violence offered to the will of the Creature, nor yet is the liberty, or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather (c) established, in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power, and faithfulness (d) in accomplishing his Decree.



If talking to a child you could simplify it,ie, God could have made us all bumble bee's, but in wisdom He made us to be image bearer's. We do not know what is the wisest thing to do, but God does. That is why He is the potter and we are clay. As created beings we are not going to know better than the Creator.
Paul did this type of thing in Acts 17.
Angels also desire to look into the things of salvation.Some of redemptive history is to be instructive to angels who did not sin might also figure into this.
In wisdom God ordained the events of the cross to fully manifest,His goodness ,and severity.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 29, 2007)

One could become a Barthian universalist. That is much closer to the truth than Arminianism, or free will salvation. At least Barth spoke of the Sovereignty of God and the power of the death of Christ saving people, not just making it possible..


----------



## sotzo (Oct 29, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> One could become a Barthian universalist. That is much closer to the truth than Arminianism, or free will salvation. At least Barth spoke of the Sovereignty of God and the power of the death of Christ saving people, not just making it possible..



Where does Barth describe this? In his _Dogmatics_?

Would love to get some explanation / links from you on this.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

My struggle is - I know what God DID say - but I also know what I WISH God had said. ANd I wish universalism was found in Scripture. It seems attractive, but it seems sinful to desire what God has not decreed or taught. If the road is narrow and few there be that enter - SHOULD that make us happy?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

God wouldn't be able to manifest his attribute of justice, or love, to the maximal degree. God seeks to glorify himself cross-attributinally. Why think he'd leave an atribute out? God *desires* to show his wrath:

Rom 9:22 What if God, *desiring to show his wrath* and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

Anyway, that's my finite take on it....


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

More apropos to the child.... my son feels more loved because my love for him is discriminatory. If I loved every little boy in the world in the same way that I love him, would he feel as special? As loved? Ask your child if he would feel as loved if you tucked in every little boy in the world, read to them, and kissed them goodnight. It seems to me that part of why true love is so special is precisely because it is discriminatory.


----------



## clstamper (Oct 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> HOw do we explain that God is not just a big bully?



Franky Schaeffer thinks so. This comes up in his rants against Calvinism.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

If God were punished for all the sins of all the people, then God's justice WOULD be satisfied.

But why is Christ's death only limited to His elect if sufficient to save all?


To show God's discriminatory love?

To show this, God could have made an example out of Satan alone. Or Satan and the angels.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 30, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> More apropos to the child.... my son feels more loved because my love for him is discriminatory. If I loved every little boy in the world in the same way that I love him, would he feel as special? As loved? Ask your child if he would feel as loved if you tucked in every little boy in the world, read to them, and kissed them goodnight. It seems to me that part of why true love is so special is precisely because it is discriminatory.



Yes, but this analogy breaks down...a closer analogy would be that not only do you not love the other little boys, but that you also set your purposes on mowing them down with a shotgun. That is even a weak analogy, because hell is eternal whereas the fatal shotgun blast is temporal.

Anyway, Pergamum is right....the difficulty is that on the one hand this is exceedingly difficult to stomach and you can wish it were otherwise, but the reality is that the Bible teaches about hell. I guess the only thing one can do is believe that destruction of people can be a good thing, as the destruction of Jesus was a good thing. Not in the same _way_ precisely, but in the same way generally.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > More apropos to the child.... my son feels more loved because my love for him is discriminatory. If I loved every little boy in the world in the same way that I love him, would he feel as special? As loved? Ask your child if he would feel as loved if you tucked in every little boy in the world, read to them, and kissed them goodnight. It seems to me that part of why true love is so special is precisely because it is discriminatory.
> ...



But with humans, we don't have to directly harm the other boys as the only alternative to loving them like sons. Since we are finite and don't know everyone well, there is a "middle ground" for us so to speak, since there are scores of people we see every day whom we don't embrace and love as our own children, but whom we don't take a "shotgun approach" to dealing with them, either - basically because we don't deal with or relate to them _at all_. But God _does_ necessarily have a relationship everyone (since He created them) and deal with everyone in some way (in light of His providence). Because of His universal transcendence, omnipresence and role as Creator, the "middle ground" or "neutrality" option is logically non-existent on His part; for Him, the only alternative to loving and embracing someone is to abandon them and leave them to themselves, separate from any contact with or benefit from Him - and is that not precisely what hell is?

So I think Paul's analogy follows: Our deepest and most valuable love for people like family still has a necessary, truly discriminatory element just as God's love for His children does; it's just that the Creator/creature distinction results in us having a different number of _alternatives_ to that discriminatory love than God has - but in both cases, the existence and use of the alternatives seem just as key to the fullness of the love to be displayed.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> If God were punished for all the sins of all the people, then God's justice WOULD be satisfied.
> 
> But why is Christ's death only limited to His elect if sufficient to save all?
> 
> ...



Seems a bit odd, why are you willing to have God *punish* himself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it is a *real* trade (between sinner and God), then not much has changed. Seems like you don't have a problem with God being a big meany and subjecting an innocent man to death for the crimes of others. 

I don't see how God "could have made an example out of Satan." It wouldn't be much of a discrimination for my son if he saw me loving every other human boy in the world while hating a slug. Moreover, why punish Satan? Is God a big meany again? Why not let Satan off?

Thus I think you're answers show you don't really have that big of a problem. Indeed, to say that *Satan,* but not humans, could be punished shows me precisely where the error of this thinking lies (not your thinking, of course, the hypotheticals your raising). The error is: Humanism. Assume humanism, and of course it is "mean" and "unfair" and "unloving" for humans to suffer. God is the greatest good. Not man. If something wrongs man that does not make it necessarily wrong. 

(Christ's death limited to the elect is for many reasons, but that would take us beyond the scope of the post. For one, it is how he shows his *greatest love to his friends.* Say that I could show my *great* love to my wife by buying flowers (just suppose). Now, would she feel loved if I gave her, and every other woman in the world, flowers? I just said something by which she could distinguish my great love *for her* and then went and did the same thing for every one else.)


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > More apropos to the child.... my son feels more loved because my love for him is discriminatory. If I loved every little boy in the world in the same way that I love him, would he feel as special? As loved? Ask your child if he would feel as loved if you tucked in every little boy in the world, read to them, and kissed them goodnight. It seems to me that part of why true love is so special is precisely because it is discriminatory.
> ...



I never said it was a perfect analogy (none are). I never denied it was a difficult doctrine. But, that doesn't mean that things can't be said. That we can give hints of answers. The point in my analogy *does stand.* And *that point* is that my son would not feel as loved. I think it is greater to love some specially than all in the same way. I think the very nature of discrimination makes the love worth more. That's why you hear some people say, "I don't even say 'I love you anymore,' that word has lost its meaning." Now, however wrong, they're partially right. What they mean is that people say "I love you" all the time, for almost every trivial thing, to almost any random person, and so that phrase has lost meaning. It's because we know that true love is special, discriminatory, not superfluous.

Now, let's me accept your analogy. Here's where you're off, though. So, say I love my son and then kill all the others. But, your analogy left it at that. Say all the other little boys were criminals of the worst sort. Say they even wanted to devour my son. I would then be justified in mowing them down with a shotgun. I would also not be a big meany for doing so.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

Oh...but why doesn't God want MORE friends to show His love to?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

What percentage of the human race must be damned before the Elect feel adequately special? 51% so that a majority burns and we are the blessed few?


It appears that we are dealing with arbitariness. BY arbitrary I mean that there are no outside forces acting upon God to chose to save 30 million versus 50 million. 

God MUST be free to save whom He pleases or else we would change His mercy into justice and say "God owes us something"...but why He saves only the number He does, who can tell...

I know that God is all God, so that God will do what is best... but why does BEST not include just saving one more soul?



How do I explain THAT to a child....or even myself?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

I am stuck at the far reaches of available light and must trust God that He really is all Good. Perhaps a child could better teach me in that regard.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> What percentage of the human race must be damned before the Elect feel adequately special? 51% so that a majority burns and we are the blessed few?
> 
> 
> It appears that we are dealing with arbitariness. BY arbitrary I mean that there are no outside forces acting upon God to chose to save 30 million versus 50 million.
> ...




God is not arbitrary, God is not mailicious, God is not Capricious. Pergy, There will be a multitude no man can number.

As far as your first statement about what percentage. It should be ZERO.

We should all repeat what John Bradford spoke while awaiting his execution at Smithfield.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

Thats how I look at the damned this side of the grave.

Yet in Glory there will be a celebration over their burning.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 30, 2007)

> God is not arbitrary, God is not mailicious, God is not Capricious. Pergy, There will be a multitude no man can number.
> 
> As far as your first statement about what percentage. It should be ZERO.
> 
> ...



This has to top the list of the things nobody ever told me about Christianity growing up. Dealing with this doctrine now is painful and has not led to peace....for those like me, I hope God uses it for his pleasure and the turning of many more to His great salvation...otherwise, the abyss is just too much to handle.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 30, 2007)

I went through a similar struggle not long ago, brother, and that makes me very concerned for you. I'm no theologian, just a layman, so I can't give you any grand dissertation that will answer your questions. But I can say that my relief came with the acceptance that what our good God does is always far more righteous than what we mere specks of dust can conceive of. Our ideas of what would be better are tainted with sin and come from a perspective of near complete ignorance of the realities of God's creation. The ultimate truth is that all of the history of creation will redound to God's glory in the end, even if we can't comprehend any of it. And that is the highest and best purpose there is.

I'll be praying for you, Perg.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Oh...but why doesn't God want MORE friends to show His love to?



Well, offer your argument why "not more" = less loving. 

And, your comment is irrelevant. My point was that there was a discrimination. You haven't addressed that point.

And, you're assuming humanism. Humans are the ultimate good, and so "more" would be "better." So, perhaps you should teach "the children" to reject humanism.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> What percentage of the human race must be damned before the Elect feel adequately special? 51% so that a majority burns and we are the blessed few?
> 
> 
> It appears that we are dealing with arbitariness. BY arbitrary I mean that there are no outside forces acting upon God to chose to save 30 million versus 50 million.
> ...




The % doesn't matter. The relevant point of my argument is the discrimination. You don't know what % are saved. You're arguing from ignorance here.

Anyway, I've presented reasons and arguments for how I'd answer a someone. You're not coming back with responses but with "coulda, shoulda, woulda" rejoinders. Your original point had to do with the justice of God. Where is your relevant argument addressing that point?


----------



## sotzo (Oct 30, 2007)

> The % doesn't matter. The relevant point of my argument is the discrimination. You don't know what % are saved. You're arguing from ignorance here.
> 
> Anyway, I've presented reasons and arguments for how I'd answer a someone. You're not coming back with responses but with "coulda, shoulda, woulda" rejoinders. Your original point had to do with the justice of God. Where is your relevant argument addressing that point?



I don't think Perg is having difficulty understanding the doctrine...rather, he is dealing with what a person deals with when they are facing truth that hurts down deep. It is like some of the southern cal folks who went back home to their homes burned to the ground...talking to them about how fire works, why the conditions were right for the blaze, etc doesn't help when someone is dealing with their house burning down. Likewise, when a person is reckoning with the infinite suffering of people, why is there a problem in lamenting by questioning? Isn't this precisely what Job did? 

I guess what I'm saying is that I think believers reckoning with the truth of God's sovereignty of eternal matters should be comforted and not hit over the head with more arguments for God's sovereignty.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > The % doesn't matter. The relevant point of my argument is the discrimination. You don't know what % are saved. You're arguing from ignorance here.
> >
> > Anyway, I've presented reasons and arguments for how I'd answer a someone. You're not coming back with responses but with "coulda, shoulda, woulda" rejoinders. Your original point had to do with the justice of God. Where is your relevant argument addressing that point?
> 
> ...




I'm not just giving the mechanics, though.

I actually made a *relevant* argument. One of my arguments was that, contrary to our fallen assumptions, IT IS MORE LOVING OF GOD TO SET HIS LOVE ON A FEW. I thus turned the argument against itself. Thus I tried to offer consolation to the heart.

I also argued that the assumption was baed on *humanism.* That is, the question is arising partly because - as has been borne out in these posts, I think - we think man is the highest good. So, when x% of man is saved it would automatically be "more good" of x+1% of men were saved. Since man is of such worth, the more men saved the better. Like money. Money has such worth such that 2 dollars is "better" than 1 dollar. Thus if we deny this presupposition, perhaps we'll see that our objection comes from the wrong perspective. Change the perspective, see a different vista.

Next, God gave Job *docrtine.* So, we can see that giving doctrine is relevant to the heart. So, why not call God out for "hitting Job over the head with doctrine?"

Lastly, you've made this thread disengenuous. What you're saying is that it was assumed a priori that no answer would satisy. So, why not just post a rant and not ask others for their opinion? 

I think you've constantly misread my intentions in this entire thread. So, if you don't like what I've said, don;t find it relevant, pass it up. Maybe someone else has, though. I didn't just post for you and Perg.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 30, 2007)

> Lastly, you've made this thread disengenuous. What you're saying is that it was assumed a priori that no answer would satisy. So, why not just post a rant and not ask others for their opinion?



I've not assumed that no answer would satisfy the _intellect_. However, if I understand you correctly, then I do disagree that there are only two options - asking a question to get intellectual satisfaction or ranting. 



> I think you've constantly misread my intentions in this entire thread. So, if you don't like what I've said, don;t find it relevant, pass it up. Maybe someone else has, though. I didn't just post for you and Perg.



I feel quite confident that your intentions and your resulting posts are from right intentions. Your posts have helped me sort through my own thoughts on this matter so I am thankful. 

My point on Job was not with regard to God's response, but with regard to Job lamenting through questioning. 

Perhaps this is one of those things better discussed in person.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 30, 2007)

*Are you getting stressed out?*



Pergamum said:


> What percentage of the human race must be damned before the Elect feel adequately special? 51% so that a majority burns and we are the blessed few?
> 
> 
> It appears that we are dealing with arbitariness. BY arbitrary I mean that there are no outside forces acting upon God to chose to save 30 million versus 50 million.
> ...



I am not sure I am following the direction of your questions. Are you okay? The scripture tells us the God of all the earth will do right Gen.18:25. Do you believe this word? Do you believe God is Holy,Holy, Holy? Isaiah saw this and was more than overwhelmed by what He saw and came to understand.
It is one thing to raise questions with a view to understand more about God and theological questions. We all do this and sometimes drift into wrong thoughts towards some of the teaching. However, there is a questioning that 
crosses into sinful doubt about God or His attributes as they are clearly revealed in scripture.
This type of questions usually comes from those still in rebellion to God and His word as here in psalm 50

16But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? 

17Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee. 

18When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. 

19Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. 

20Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. 

21These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. 

22Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. 

23Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.


I might not be following what you are asking correctly, so if you could explain it differently then maybe these questions would not come across as they are. As sinners and created beings it just seems like a fools errand to 
suggest hypothetical ideas about what God might have done,or could have done better that what he declares to us in His word. Sin and death are radical and have to be dealt with radically. God in His infinite wisdom has
ordained the cross as His Holy,Just, and Loving solution. The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world is the only answer. He has come to provide redemption for ALL The Father has given Jn 6;37-44.
God has chosen to save All He can possibly save according to His infinite wisdom. No more, No less.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > Lastly, you've made this thread disengenuous. What you're saying is that it was assumed a priori that no answer would satisy. So, why not just post a rant and not ask others for their opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




if you read the original post you'll see that the questions were framed as *rational* problems we have trying to *reconcile* (another rational term) certain *doctrines* found in the Bible or in our interpretation of the Bible.

Anyway, I deny that trying to show that: love shown specially for a few is actually *a greater expression of love,* was to *merely* offer a "rational answer."

I also think that pointing out an attitude which drives the question - humanism - is helpful for *more than* rational reasons.

Lastly, there are people who would use these questions as supposed *rational reasons* to reject the faith. So, offering rational rejoinders (though not all I did) served a purpose here as well.

I don't deny the subjective difficulty with the Bible's doctrine, but I think much of that subjective and emotional difficulty is borne out of faulty *thinking.* That is, in some instances the questions wouldn't arise if we were thinking more clearly.

I also tried to offer more than the "trust God and don't ask these questions" response. Though valid in many circumstances, I find that I often don't need to play that trump card.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

OK, my purposes for asking these questions:


--I live around non Christians all the time. They love their children, dote on them and excel me in many traits. Therefore, the doctrine of hell is a painful truth. To see people weep and mourn for children and relatives who are sick and dying is very trying. 

---I think that many Calvinists think of hell in the abstract and the reality of it often does not hit them square between the eyes.

---I want to know how to respond to these objections..when I think of them too sometimes. HOw DO I explain these answers to a child except to say Because God says so... If we believe in a rational and good God than His ways should make sense.


--I see Scriptural evidence against universalism, but I fail to see a logical argument as to why God would not Elect more or why His sovereign will would not will to Elect more.

---I know that God is all good and He does all things because He wants to. It appears that He wants to do the best thing. But human reason seems to indicate that God would SEEM more loving to save more. 

---The death of Christ is adequate to show God's justice and wrath adequately. It need not be poured out too on humans for God to communicate His attributes. 

---Given that some are saved, why not more?

---If GOd REALLY has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and has the power to regenerate sinful man, then God is withholding a good that He could freely give - namely, granting the New Birth to more souls.


The argument from discrimination makes sense. But it does not explain what percentages. 

The harmony of opposites and the black hues on a painting make the bright hues more glorious. The wrath on the evil damned show forth God's mercy to His elect all the more. But it is hard to fathom why so many dark hues are needed to further show forth GOd's glory in painting the white hues of the Elect.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 30, 2007)

P.S. Some answers that Calvinists give can be intellectually satisfying but emotionally unsatisfying. 

Eg. I heard one old lady in a calvy church tell a family member of a very sick person, "If the Lord wills that they live..then they will live.." That is technically true, but not the most comforting.

God is a logical God, but also a God of love. ANy formulation we use should not be a cold arithmetic, but - if truth - should make some sort of glimmer of sense to our emotions too. 

Which, I guess, is why Scripture reminds us that the Judge of the Whole Earth shall do right.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 30, 2007)

sotzo said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that I think believers reckoning with the truth of God's sovereignty of eternal matters should be comforted and not hit over the head with more arguments for God's sovereignty.



I'd also say that I don't even recall offering "an argument from sovereignty." You must have my thoughts mixed up with someone else's.



> Likewise, when a person is reckoning with the infinite suffering of people, why is there a problem in lamenting by questioning?



There's not, necessarily. But how come I don't see specifics? Why don't I hear people sufferinmg and having trouble accepting and dealing with, say, the everlasting punishment of these people:

this guy 

this guy

this guy

this guy

etc...

I think a long, deep, and honest look into the heart of man - indeed, our own - would spawn the question: I can't fathom how God could save even _one_ of us!

Let's remember that election does not take into account merit, but reprobation takes demerit into account. God does not predestine any to hell for amoral reasons, viz., apart from sin.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> OK, my purposes for asking these questions:
> 
> 
> --I live around non Christians all the time. They love their children, dote on them and excel me in many traits. Therefore, the doctrine of hell is a painful truth. To see people weep and mourn for children and relatives who are sick and dying is very trying.
> ...




The percentages response of yours is based on an argumentum ad ignorantium. You don't know how many are going to hell and how many are going to heaven.

If you say, "Well, whatever the number, why not more?", where is the supporting argument that "more" is *morally* better? Why does adding *more* humans mean adding moral goodness?

I already addressed the death of Christ response. Why have God punish an innocent man? Isn't that "mean?" If a non-Christian uses this he's just sold the farm. He's inconsistent with his argumentation. If Jesus' death equals the punishemt those he died for are to receive then you have only moved the problem over to Jesus, you've thus not answered anything.


In what sense does God not take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Have these non-Christian friends supplied any exegetical arguments, or is this all based on emotion? Romans 9:22 What if God, *desiring* to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,...

So, *both* verses should be used. To those who use the verses you cited, they can't just *ignore* verses like those I just cited. Thus the questioners seem to be *selective.*


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> P.S. Some answers that Calvinists give can be intellectually satisfying but emotionally unsatisfying.
> 
> Eg. I heard one old lady in a calvy church tell a family member of a very sick person, "If the Lord wills that they live..then they will live.." That is technically true, but not the most comforting.
> 
> ...



And which is why I argued that it is a greater maximalization of God's *love* that he discriminate.

If the non-Christian doesn't like that answer, tell him that you're going to sleep with _his_ wife! After all, we should love _everyone_ equally!

Don't think he'll like that too much. Why not? Why does he favor *limited* love here, but not with God? What, is he better than God?


----------



## sotzo (Oct 31, 2007)

Perhaps the issue here is that the illustrations of an affair, the discriminate love for a son, etc...all these temporal things seem ridiculously small compared to eternal suffering. I'm not saying _trivial_...what I'm saying is that when you think about the fact that _real_ souls will experience _real_ unending suffering, it is just difficult to get your mind around that. Perhaps it is the concept of eternity that is the principle difficulty...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Perhaps the issue here is that the illustrations of an affair, the discriminate love for a son, etc...all these temporal things seem ridiculously small compared to eternal suffering. I'm not saying _trivial_...what I'm saying is that when you think about the fact that _real_ souls will experience _real_ unending suffering, it is just difficult to get your mind around that. Perhaps it is the concept of eternity that is the principle difficulty...




why? 

Also, if we grant that love is more meaningful and shown more maximally when shown specially and discriminatorily, why not think this would be done for ever?

Further, let me add this. I am of the belief that those in hell will continue to sin. They will sin on a day to day basis. So, it doesn't even need to be that their punishment for temporal crimes received an infinite punishment, we could also say that when sentenced to hell they will continue to compound that punishment. Given that, why is it so bad to think of people continuing to break laws as continuing to receive more punishment? If I get sent to jail for theft, kill someone in jail, I'll get a murder rap added.

Also, let me throw this out there: We believe that God will glorify, make manifest and continue to maximalize his attribute of love.... why not that of showing wrath and executing justice, which is a functional expression of his attribute of holiness. Showing wrath against sinners is thus one way - a major or even a main way - God maintains his holiness. Thus God will lavish love upon us for ever and ever, why should he not lavish wrath upon sinners for ever and ever?


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum,

The prospect of the second death is indeed fearful. The people you are trying to reach are right to be concerned about their family members. I think most of us who have posted responses are expressing a concern that is true
for those you are reaching, and for those we speak to where we are.
If we are going to be of any help to any of these people, we must establish the truth as it is in the word of God.
Human philosophy and emotional empathy have a place in personal relationships. That place is secondary to Divinely revealed truth and commands. Man by wisdom does not know God.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 

20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 


You posted this ----
---I know that God is all good and He does all things because He wants to. It appears that He wants to do the best thing. But human reason seems to indicate that God would SEEM more loving to save more. 

When you say "it appears"/ but human reason seems to indicate---- I would not want to trust human reason to come up with anything of such importance.
You also post asking "if" God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked----- Ezekiel 18 is clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Yet it is also clear that the soul that sins shall die. There is no "if


The idea of questioning the motives of God's actions cannot be helpful. This can only lead to endless,and fruitless speculations, 1] Why does Jesus not send angels on Larry King?
2] Why does not THe 900ft tall angels oral roberts said he talked to,appear on earth 
preaching the everlasting gospel?
3] Why does God not strike all muslims dead when they blaspheme?
4] Why does suffering have to exist as part of the curse?
We can only know what is revealed to us from God. We are all confessional because we believe that the answers to all these questions are only to be found in scripture. All of the confessions reflect this. You might need to pray about helping those you have a chance to reach understand the truth in language that they can comprehend, but the truth does not change no matter what situation you find yourself in.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 31, 2007)

> Ezekiel 18 is clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked



So we will not celebrate the eternal death of the wicked in hell right?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > Ezekiel 18 is clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked
> 
> 
> 
> So we will not celebrate the eternal death of the wicked in hell right?




As an aside, let's also remember that he's speaking only to the covenant community. He's giving the exiles hope for the future. God did not abandon them to die in exile. If they repent, their past rebellion will be forgiven. This verse can't really be used to support a universalism.

Now, when we look at a kind of type of hell, a type of future judgment against God's enemies, we find this:

137: 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, 
*happy is he who repays you *
for what you have done to us- 

9 he who seizes your infants 
and dashes them against the rocks.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > Ezekiel 18 is clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked
> 
> 
> 
> So we will not celebrate the eternal death of the wicked in hell right?



In a way yes we will. It will come out of pure unadutered love of God. 

The Revelation to John.

6:10, and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird."

then all those who love the LORD will surely rejoice. "1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in Heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and Glory, and Honour, and Power, unto the LORD our God: 2 for True and Righteous are His Judgments: for He hath judged the Great Whore, which did corrupt the Earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand. 3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever" (Revelation 19:1-3

Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double."

5 Let the Saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. 6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; 7 to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; 8 to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; 9 to execute upon them the Judgment written: this honour have all His Saints. Praise ye the LORD" (Psalm 149:5-9)

20 Rejoice over her, thou Heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.


Scripture yes the elect will celebrate.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 31, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > Ezekiel 18 is clear that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked
> 
> 
> 
> So we will not celebrate the eternal death of the wicked in hell right?



In Heaven saints rejoice at the righteous judgment of God. God is glorified in salvation of the elect,and damnation
of the ungodly. I do not think this means we celebrate or take pleasure in the fact of their eternal torment.
The saints in Rev.6:9-11 are looking for God to vindicate His name,and those who put them to death 
for their obedience to the Gospel.
The praise in Rev. 19 is for the righteous judgment and the nature of it.
I think this is indicated in Rev.22
11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 

Do you see this differently? Let me know where we differ.


----------



## sotzo (Oct 31, 2007)

> Do you see this differently? Let me know where we differ.



No, I agree that the Scriptures are clear as you've stated it.

As Tom B and others know from other posts of mine here, this is hitting me hard right now. I have always believed the doctrine of election...however, the Holy Spirit is pressing it down to my heart and I am struggling. I am praying to come out of this:

1. Understanding that this is really a symptom of me trying to put myself on the Throne
2. Retaining a desire to see the lost won for Christ
3. Clinging to the cross as desparately as a man in a Category 5 hurricane
4. Longing more than ever to see Him glorify Himself 

Finally, a deep, abiding assurance of salvation.


Thanks.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2007)

Yes, I agree that in heaven we will say Amen to all that God says amen too. So that there we will celebrate God's wrath upon the damned.

But here on earth, we weep for the lost (while they still have hope) and wonder why God woiuld not save more.


Paul even wished himself accursed for the sake of his brethren.


----------



## BJClark (Oct 31, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist;



> The problem is that we have to go back to Adam and ask why Adam fell. Did Adam have free will? Or wouldn't most Calvinists say that Adam's fall was ordained like everything else? In this system we don't just have people who deserve to go to hell because they all equally chose to sin. We have a system in which one man, as the representative of all mankind, was _ordained by God_ to sin, and then everyone else inherited the representative's guilt and sin nature.
> 
> So yes, in a sense, people do deserve what they get, but they also didn't exactly have a say in the matter concerning their inheritance from Adam.



But we also didn't have a say in whether or not Christ went to the cross either...

And couldn't we ask the same questions concerning Christ? We know that He is God, and that He can only act within His own Will in that respect, so did He have a free-will to choose to go to the Cross or not? When in fact it was His choice to go to begin with? Could He have acted against His own will and not have gone?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2007)

The other side of the coin is asking and fretting over why God does not damn one more deserving sinner..when we ALL deserve it. If God saved even one of us he would be merciful. Yet, He does and can save many of us.

But I have chosen to only address our side of the issue, who are born in Adam's sin and my nature is corrupt due to the actions of another (or, me in the loins of that other...of course, I don't rememebr any of this)...

Those born overseas in some remote places where God's special revelation is not available have only God's general revealtion to go by - which can never save. Therefore, they are not only born corrupt and live under the bondage of sin, but they have no hope and die without ever even hearing about Christ.




The biggest issue is this: If a docrine were true; we would be happy about believing it. 

But even many reformed Christians say, "I would like to NOT believe in hell - but I have no choice..." ie. we grudgingly agree with God because His Word says. Many people would LOVE to be universalists, if only those verses about hell could be deleted. 

Even Paul wished that God would save more than God does choose to save. Paul was not happy with GOd's will. Even Jesus seemed to weep for Jerusalem and desire to gather than like a hen gathers chicks.

But, if we believed that God will get glory from damning sinners, we should be HAPPY that there is hell. But this is contrary to human nature. 

If God willed the universe to end a certain way and has designated the end results of everything we should be happy about those end results. But we are not, at least in this life, about hell. It appears that part of sanctification may be, logically, in delighting in the doctrine of hell. It appears that getting closer to God is being able thus to say AMEN to all that God says AMEN to, namely inflicting eternal and horrible punishment for some who have never even heard of the one name under heaven by which man can be saved. But in this life, our emotions have a hard time agreeing with what God has willed and we only often grudgingly believe in hell. Hell being true and a place where God's glory is to be exalted should be a place for which we are happy about! 

In Revelation we rejoice over the smoke of their burning...why not now!




The argument from discrimination does seem to be sound, by the way..at least logically. By there is a wide distance between logical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction on this issue.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Many people would LOVE to be universalists,



I'd love for the oceans to be made out of chocolate milk....

Wouldn't that have been a "better" world?

God could have done that, it would make us happy, why didn't he?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> By there is a wide distance between logical satisfaction and emotional satisfaction on this issue.



Part of that stems from the improper disjunction between head and heart....


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2007)

WHat is a proper disjunction between head and heart then?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> WHat is a proper disjunction between head and heart then?



I don't think there is one. Both are fallen, both are in need of regeneration, both need to submit to God's authority.

If truth pulls your "head" one way, it should pull your heart along. If your emotion (or heart) is a proper reaction to, say, sin, then your head should have that reaction.

So, I deny the head/heart dichotomy. I think it may have roots in the improper disjunction between faith and reason.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2007)

So, why can we agree on the doctrine of hell, but we get no pleasure out of it. God has said amen to it, yet we cringe from it. We should be happy in all things that God has disposed, but we find ourselves wishing that God would do otherwise. Thus, logically we can make arguments for hell, but heart wise we cry out against it. THe head goes one way and the heart the other...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

I don't think I've argued for the proposition that we should take *pleasure* in hell.

None of my *logical* arguments have as their conclusion: "We should take pleasure in hell."

I think you're equivocating, subtly. The "arguments for hell" that your "head goes along with" is not what your "heart should cry out against." One example, hell is just, even good. Why would your emotions be for injustice?! That's where you have to get your emotions in check.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 1, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> I don't think I've argued for the proposition that we should take *pleasure* in hell.
> 
> None of my *logical* arguments have as their conclusion: "We should take pleasure in hell."
> 
> I think you're equivocating, subtly. The "arguments for hell" that your "head goes along with" is not what your "heart should cry out against." One example, hell is just, even good. Why would your emotions be for injustice?! That's where you have to get your emotions in check.



Just want to understand your last paragraph there because this thread and some days of prayer are beginning to help me with this issue.

Do you mean that to go along in your head with hell, but not with your heart is really like saying "I'm for justice in my head, but emotionally for injustice"?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

I was building off some of my argumentation in this thread. Some of my arguments tried to show the goodness and justice of hell. Now, if you're saying that you agree with those arguments "in your head" but not "in your heart" then, yes, it sounds like you're saying "my head is for justice and my heart is for injustice."

My point was that I think Perg was referring to two separate things when he said his head went one way and his heart went the other. I agree we shouldn't take *pleasure* in people suffering (where pleasure is taken to be some kind of sadistic state), but then I *never argued* (head) that we should.

Does that make sense or are we one different pages?


----------



## sotzo (Nov 1, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> I was building off some of my argumentation in this thread. Some of my arguments tried to show the goodness and justice of hell. Now, if you're saying that you agree with those arguments "in your head" but not "in your heart" then, yes, it sounds like you're saying "my head is for justice and my heart is for injustice."
> 
> My point was that I think Perg was referring to two separate things when he said his head went one way and his heart went the other. I agree we shouldn't take *pleasure* in people suffering (where pleasure is taken to be some kind of sadistic state), but then I *never argued* (head) that we should.
> 
> Does that make sense or are we one different pages?



We're on the same page. I think what is becoming clear is to me is that my understanding of God's pleasure needs to ratchet up to align with the Bible. His good pleasure with respect to hell is not some Patton-esque "we gave 'em hell", but a satisfaction of his own character. Therefore, if we are to sanctify ourselves by aligning our thoughts / actions to him, our taking pleasure in hell has nothing to do with being happy about it...at least not in the trite sense of the word. Rather our reaction should be aligned with His word which is perhaps best summed up as:

1. Go to all the world and preach the Gospel
2. Always remember and keep the primacy of God's glory 

Exercising both of these help retain the tension in our minds/hearts with respect to the twin realities of God's justice (number 2 above) and His compassion (number 1 above). Of course, both items 1 and 2 have aspects of both his justice and compassion as the cross clearly demonstrates.

Is this on track with what you've been saying?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2007)

I am saying that we MUSt take pleasure in the doctrine of hell. We should delight in the truth, right? ANd if God has created the world in this manner, then we should rejoice that it is so, right? 

Also, the saints in heaven will delight over hell, will they not? They will praise God as the smoke of the damned goes up forever.

God is the one who inflicts the punishment of hell, and yet He is still perfectly happy and unmoved by this pain. It seems we will be too...in heaven. On earth, however, is a wholly different matter.


*IF* God had Elected all, then we would need not desire injustice. GOd's Election would be just and also sinners would be saved. THerefore, I need not choose between my emotional desires or God's justice - if God had elected all - or at least more - than I could have both.


I want to explore the argument from discrimination more. Can anyone state this again, clearer.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

I don't know how you're defining 'pleasure.'

I think you're equivocating. The 'pleasure' in your first sentence isn't how I take the pleasure referred to be "on earth it's a wholly different matter."

Lastly, I gave arguments for God's pouring out wrath to manifest his attribute of holiness. 

If your "head" says that sending people to hell is "just" then if your "heart" contradicts that, then your heart must be pulled toward "injustice." it's a simple matter of logic, really.

I stated the arguments from discrimination. You can re-read them and state specific problems you have with them.

Also, I think you're trying to "hang on" to your unargued position in this thread - which has been of conjectures and just so stories - and so you'll just question every single thing I say, like an iterative skeptic. I find this uninteresting now. 

Perhaps we'll have to let our convo wind down. I don't find that I'm saying anything new, and so am not using my time wisely.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2007)

Thanks brother for telling me I've wasted your time. I am sure you have "proved" everything in your own mind. You too have failed to answer some of my questions.

BY "pleasure" I mean that we get satisfaction out of something or we can affirm that it was better that it be than it not be. 

The argument of discrimination. You have not fully developed this.




God HAS already maximized his attribute of wrath and justice in the death of Christ. Additional glorificationof Himself in his wrath upon sinners is unneeded.


Plus, if God's justice must be repaid for God to be satisfied with the outpouring of His wrath, Christ's death satisfied God's wrath, but the punishment of sinners in hell NEVER can because they are always trying to pay the last farthing and that last farthing is NEVER paid (hence the need for eternal punishment)...therefore, God would be waiting for eternity to see His justice satisfied.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

I didn't say you wasted my time.

I don't know what you mean by 'satisfaction.' I don't know what you mean by 'better.' If you mean "morally better" then above you've said that your "head" can affirm that hell is a moral good, but then you say your "heart" doesn't agree. okay, then that must mean your heart is inclined toward "immoral."

I've developed the argument from discrimination enough. You need to raise challenges to it. I don't pretend I've written a dissertation on it.

Regarding your Jesus paid rejoinder, I have offered *two* arguments against that. You haven't interacted with them. You're thus re-stating comments that I've addressed without addressing my responses. Thus you're not moving the discussion forward.

Lastly, God would not be waiting for an eternity for his justice to be satisfied. It is by sentencing them to hell. But, they continue to sin in hell. He therefore can *always* manifest his holiness by using his wrath as a function of displaying that attribute. Thus for ever and ever God will proclaim and make manifest his holiness in the punishment of sinners. Pouring out wrath on new sin, that will always be committed, need not entail "wating" for justice to be satisfied.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> HOw do we explain that God is not just a big bully?




because bullies pick on people unjustly, not the case with God.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> BUt why IS universalism attractive?



Because we're humanists. Anthroprocentrithists. If man is of such worth that anything "bad" done to him is bad, and anything "good" done to him is good, then of course, the "more" that are in heaven, the "more" moral good that has been done.

To base our theology on what is attrictive makes for some interesting discussions.

What about the doctrine of creation? Why didn't God make chocolate oceans.

Why didn't God place big lollipops in the sky?

Why make babies cry....all hours of the night?

Why allow male pattern baldness? Spare tires around our stomachs?

A world with/without the above would have been "more attractive."

Man is so special, he deserves chocolate milk oceans.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 1, 2007)

> Man is so special, he deserves chocolate milk oceans.


Or at least Corona creeks!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 1, 2007)

Brad said:


> > Man is so special, he deserves chocolate milk oceans.
> 
> 
> Or at least Corona creeks!




and cigars growing on trees


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 1, 2007)

> Man is so special, he deserves chocolate milk oceans.


Or a land flowing with chocolate milk and honey?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

Brad said:


> > Man is so special, he deserves chocolate milk oceans.
> 
> 
> Or a land flowing with chocolate milk and honey?



Nay, not just honey, peanut butter too. Wash down a PB & H with the chocolate milk.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

Let me also add that D.A. Carson's The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God is a good read for this subject


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 2, 2007)

*satisfaction has been made*



Pergamum said:


> Thanks brother for telling me I've wasted your time. I am sure you have "proved" everything in your own mind. You too have failed to answer some of my questions.
> 
> BY "pleasure" I mean that we get satisfaction out of something or we can affirm that it was better that it be than it not be.
> 
> ...



You say in this post the following/ God HAS already maximized his attribute of wrath and justice in the death of Christ. Additional glorificationof Himself in his wrath upon sinners is unneeded

This is not true. All sin must be punished. All sin will be punished. Either in the Divine substitute and sin bearer
or In the person of the sinner himself. 
Jesus died a covenant death for the elect. Non elect persons will pay for their own sin as you indicate
eternally in the second death.
God does not wait for His justice to be satisfied,it already is according to Isa 53
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
REV.22:11 -15shows why the seperation of the second death is eternal, they will eternally be unclean.

They remain without/ 11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 

12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 

13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 

14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 

15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 

Owen in the Death of Death, starting on page 152- deals with the topic of reconciliation,and satisfaction being made only for the people of God.I cannot improve on his well thought out scripturally based reasons.
Do you have access to this book? Reading and understanding more of our great salvation also helps to understand the need for the severe judgment on sin ,to those who die without mercy justly for their sin.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 2, 2007)

Corona creeks? This reminds me of the song, Big Rock Candy Mountain - the bum's paradise, where the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the cops have wooden legs (and the chickens lay hard boiled eggs).



About the justice argument:


God's wrath is not satisfied at the sentencing, but in the carrying out of the wrath. WHen a murderer is sentenced, that does not pay for his crimes..he still must serve out his time for this payment to be complete. The payment is rendered once the punishment is borne. The punishment in hell is never ending and never complete. Thus, the sinner thus can never serve out his time. Only viewed from all eternity is God's justcie satisfied though the torment of sinners in hell. And as you point out, the sinner sins more and more through all eternity. Therefore, there is always a time in which God is waiting for His justice to be satisfied by payment in full from the sinner, since that last farthing is never paid.

Only the death of Christ is infinitely satisfying to God. And if Christ's death satisfied God's judgment and shows this attribute of God in a maximum way, there is no need for any human to be judged if GOd desired to elect them all.


Again, the argument from discrimination could be fulfilled by God damning the devil alone and no human need not be punished. There is no logical neccesity for God to send any person to hell - only His good pleasure.

The only logical argument for why God did not eelct more was that the universe would be more beautiful or symmetrical or God's love to the Elect be shown more fully by God damning more of the reprobate to hell.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 2, 2007)

Iconoclast said:


> You say in this post the following/ God HAS already maximized his attribute of wrath and justice in the death of Christ. Additional glorificationof Himself in his wrath upon sinners is unneeded
> 
> This is not true. All sin must be punished. All sin will be punished. Either in the Divine substitute and sin bearer
> or In the person of the sinner himself.




Anthony, you are not understanding my argument. 

Of course, every single sin deserves eternal punishment. I never argued contrary. 

But if God did die for every single sin or every single person, then all could go to heaven. God has ALREADY maximized his attribute of Justice in the death of Christ. There is no need for anyone to fall outside the scope of the atonement. God COULD save all and STILL maximize justice b/c of Christ - but he chooses not to. Further torment of sinners need not occur for God's glory to be maximized.

I see no logical neccessity for the existence of hell; only God's free choice not to elect all.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 2, 2007)

> Further torment of sinners need not occur for God's glory to be maximized.


Perg, this statement is incoherent in light of God's holiness and infinite wisdom. He has ordained only exactly that which *maximizes His glory*. As has been amply pointed out, any human idea of what that might be is inherently wrong.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

> God's wrath is not satisfied at the sentencing, but in the carrying out of the wrath. WHen a murderer is sentenced, that does not pay for his crimes..he still must serve out his time for this payment to be complete. The payment is rendered once the punishment is borne. The punishment in hell is never ending and never complete.



That's only if you assume (without responding to what I've already said in this post) that they are punished forever for past sins, and not for new sins that they'll be committing in hell. And, I deny that God's justice isn't shown by the sentencing and carrying out of that sentencing. Indeed, even in our own little world, we will hear many times a victim say, "Justice was served today" when the man who raped his wife was sentenced to...whatever X....

Lastly, I don't know how you can continue to bring up your "Jesus could have paid for everyone" argument without addressing my *two* arguments.

Here is one of them:  How come you get to have your cake and eat it too? Why is God not a "big meany" for sentencing Jesus to death and degradation? In fact, what you're saying is that man is sooooo special that God should not punish him infinititely, rather he should punish one man - the God-man! Now, if Jesus death really *EQUALS* the death of all those other humans, then you've only *SHIFTED* your problem to Jesus. Thus you've not answered anything. You still have the same problem, wraped up in different garb.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 2, 2007)

Tom:

You are verging on sarcastic. You have said you were bored and you accuse me of not answering your post.


_"...Why is God not a "big meany" for sentencing Jesus to death and degradation? In fact, what you're saying is that man is sooooo special that God should not punish him infinititely.."_

This sounds sarcastic. Just a reminder: I would never let someone talk sarcasticaly like that to my face. Because I do not know your intentions, I will let this go. I am sure you didnot mean it.


God is just, yes. Jesus VOLUNTEERED out of His free will to die as a replacement for sinners. God is not a big meany for sentencing Christ because Christ presented Himself as a sacrifice. I don't know what you mean by having my cake and eating it too. You are assuming that your answers are clear and obvious and complete when you have not answered ANY of my questions fully - except perhaps in your own mind.





Brad: 

That is precisely my argument. God has ordained the best of all possible worlds. A world where God's justice is vindicated AND no human is sent to hell appears to be the best of all possible worlds - a better world than Christ providing an atonement for only a portion of humanity and a large part being tormented for eternity when - if God had so chosen - God could have elected all to salvation since His wrath was infinitely "paid off" in the death of Christ. 

From the argumentation above, it is obvious that sinners in hell never ever finish paying off their sins. Thus, Christ's death on the cross is more satisfying to God it appears than sinners being consigned to hell.

Christ paid in a moment what sinners fail to pay off for all eternity. 

Thus, if all persons were elected then this would appear logically to be the best of all possible worlds.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 2, 2007)

> I see no logical necessity for the existence of hell; only God's free choice not to elect all.



I don't see the problem with this? He choses what He chooses for His glory. That's all I need to know. To God be the glory even if it isn't "logical" to me.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 2, 2007)

Adam: 

Yep, you're right. 

I think I have reached the limits of logic here. 

I guess that is why it is revealed religion instead of merely reasoned religion. God is a logical being and He has his reasons, but I certainly cannot see why He would get greater pleasure over X number of Elect than Y number of elect, if heaven is said to rejoice over every sinner who repents.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 2, 2007)

Maybe they rejoice because it's so rare? Isn't God's grace more "special" the more rare it is, like anything at all that's rare?


----------



## lwadkins (Nov 2, 2007)

God has told us all we need to know. We as humans will always kick at the goads and demand a better explanation of God's "works." We will always struggle with our imperfect human understanding of the things of God and demand "just a little more insight" into the things He has not revealed or has not revealed fully. In fact He has given us that insight.

Ge 1:27

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. 
ESV

We were created by God and belong to Him, to do with as He will. That is true of both elect and non-elect.

Then throughout Scripture God has demonstrated His Loving Kindness, Justice, Faithfulness, Unchanging Nature, Mercy, etc.

Struggle as mightily as we will with the mysterious things of God, rightly searching the Scriptures for answers, and still we return full circle, to be face to face with the God who IS.

If we believe that God is who Scripture says He is then where better can we place our trust?

Ultimately many biblical issues come down to the *unsatisfying* (to our human natures anyway) answer of (we who are His people) trusting (He who is our God) where He has not chosen to speak or not spoken fully. Trusting the answers He has given, where we would *wish* for more understanding.

I guess the question is really; What is a *satisfying* answer to the question?

I guess we can be satisfied in trusting a God who is good!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 2, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> God is just, yes. Jesus VOLUNTEERED out of His free will to die as a replacement for sinners. God is not a big meany for sentencing Christ because Christ presented Himself as a sacrifice. I don't know what you mean by having my cake and eating it too. You are assuming that your answers are clear and obvious and complete when you have not answered ANY of my questions fully - except perhaps in your own mind.



And men VOLUNTARILY choose hell out of their own free will.

Also, you've been hoisted by your own petard. I said on p.1 that Jesus death was the (actually, one of the) undoing of your argument. If you really believe it was VOLUNTARY then why have a problem with how many he died for? It's like if I VOLUNTEERED to clean the beach, would you hold me accountable for not picking up the trash in the mountains?

And, we can play your game too. Why did God have to send Jesus to do it? Why that much suffering? Did he really need to be spit on? Betrayed by a friend? Couldn't he have just died in child birth? His death and suffering seems, so, well, "mean." I mean, my head understands the logic, but my heart doesn't.

I have answered your questions. There's no requirement for you to *accept* them, though. Especially if you want to play the child and ask "why" to everything, then there can be no answer. In fact, I think you don't *want* to be answered.

At the end of the day, you've admitted that your "head" agrees hell is just, but your "heart" doesn't. Thus you have admitted that your "heart" is for "injustice."

Have a good one.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 3, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > God is just, yes. Jesus VOLUNTEERED out of His free will to die as a replacement for sinners. God is not a big meany for sentencing Christ because Christ presented Himself as a sacrifice. I don't know what you mean by having my cake and eating it too. You are assuming that your answers are clear and obvious and complete when you have not answered ANY of my questions fully - except perhaps in your own mind.
> ...



Brother:

Many thanks for your posts within this thread. They have indeed helped me a great deal.

On the other hand, I do not think you leave room for Jesus to weep at the tomb of Lazarus nor a man for the lost he is serving. God's soveriegnty is _true_ yet not _easy_. I know you have never said it was easy, but to some extent the way you have stoically packaged your replies leaves me wondering if I should be chastized as a "child" for lamenting over the lost, the death of a loved one or the general state in which the Fall has left the world. It sounds like your counsel would be "get your heart aligned with your head and all will be fine".

We have no directives to such stoicism in Scripture. In particular when dealing with the community of believers the directives are to bear patiently with one another in love. This doesn't mean relativism or Emergent Theology or not giving direct counsel...it _does_ mean dealing with each other without suspicion (ie, "I don't think you want to be answered") and with humility.

Thanks again...indeed your posts have helped, but I wanted to make these observations.

JB


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 3, 2007)

Joel,

I don't see how I've done that. I even said above that we shouldn't take *pleasure* (defined has gleeful, sadistic gratification in the death of others) in their death.

If someone wants to talk about how sad it is, we can have that discussion, and I'll agree!

But we weren't having that discussion. In fact, Perg said he had *non-Christians* who were asking thisd kind of stuff. I was engaging in apologetics, then.

The question: Why would God send people to hell, not save everyone, etc.,?

is different than this question: "Isn't it sad that men choose death over life and spend eternity in hell."

I was answering the first, not the second.

You're welcome, and thanks for conversing.


----------



## sotzo (Nov 3, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Joel,
> 
> I don't see how I've done that. I even said above that we shouldn't take *pleasure* (defined has gleeful, sadistic gratification in the death of others) in their death.
> 
> ...



Thanks again!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 3, 2007)

Well - this has been an interesting thread and should give our guests an good idea that even though we are Calvinistic, we still "work out our own salvation" and the practical application of our doctrine. It's not always pretty...or simple...or "sweet baby cakes" loving, but it is the truth.

Bottom line - how can we trust that God is not cruel? Why doesn't He save everyone?

You can trust God, because you can trust Christ.

Christ displayed the character of God in that He showed an abundance of love toward His children, even asking forgiveness for those that crucified Him, yet was ruthless toward those that dishonored the Father.

If you don't trust Christ, you are a son of the devil and deserve the fate of the enemy of God.

Mercy's preciousness is measured by it's rarity, otherwise there is no true justice.

That is why not ALL are saved.

Remember, cause 1 - Man's rebellion - everyone WAS saved - WE screwed it up - and if you think you would have done differently, you are FOOLING yourself and should examine yourself for sinning in pride. If God does not punish His enemies and the bearer of His image for rebellion, He is a liar and there is no true justice.

If He does not display mercy, there is no true love.

Remember, God is the only one capable of true justice, not Man. We are, however, capable of expressing love, imperfect though it may be, thus our mandate in the second part of the greatest commandment.

We will rejoice at God's righteous and just punishment of the reprobate and rejoice that we have been saved from among them, not because of our worthiness, but because of God's mercy.

Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 4, 2007)

Good summary, brother... God will do right. When we go to HIm or He comes in His glory, then these questions will melt away.


----------



## jacobiloved (Nov 14, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> HOw do we explain that God is not just a big bully?



By explaining Divine Condescension.


----------

