Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
Post 342: Cheryl, thank you for explaining — I did indeed miss your point. I’m going to have to move this to my blog, but I’ve got a huge backlog; I’m preparing a post for it, but I’ll have to finish my Romans post first.
-Wm
John, I don’t want to repeat this yet again. Not all Calvinists insist that God’s providence for us (which is meticulous, down to the hairs on our head) is planned as part of God’s decree. The Bible doesn’t say. It’s not required by the purposes for the decree that are revealed to us.
It’s a lot more complicated than that! If it were that simple your position would be philosophically untenable, because you agree that God is the Prime Mover (and by definition there is only one).
In that case, I took the word from Wikipedia. I went there because I don’t have a lapsarian position.
First, ‘foreordination’ is a specific term; God foreordained Christ’s work, our conformance to His likeness, and a few other glorious things. He is never said to foreordain sin or doom. In Calvinist thought, the terms are kept separate.
Second, the reason given in the Bible that all men sin is the fall, not God’s “dooming”. This reason is sufficient! You cannot argue that it’s not true that all men are doomed to be sinners; we are. You can shift the blame for that to God or man, but either way the doom remains.
Not if words have any meaning. Those words refer to whether God’s decree of salvation came before or after the fall in logical order.
Of course God knew which individuals would go to hell — that’s part of omniscience and omnipotence, not part of lapsarianism.
After the fall, yes. That is indeed the situation in which the Bible clearly describes us.
-Wm
Of course we have a choice! We wouldn’t deserve to perish if we hadn’t chosen. (Frankly, I don’t think we’re going to ever resolve this — you won’t even admit that our definition of “choice” is logically possible, which it is.)
Again, I’m amazed that you can ask me this question when Paul has already answered it almost verbatim. Do I have more authority than Paul in your hermeneutic? 🙂 Does Paul’s answer just make no sense to you? Or do you think that the context gives the question a very different meaning than Paul give it, and it’s just pure coincidence that the argument Calvinists give on the basis of Romans 8-9 always generates the same objection Paul answers in Romans 9?
I’m trying to do an analysis of the text, but it’s a huge text and I’m kinda busy, so it’s taking me a long time.
-Wm
William,
I don’t think we will ever resolve this either! It hasn’t been resolved in the church as a whole in what, about 350 years? So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t resolve it in a debate that goes on over several months on one thread or another here.
The problem is, as a whole, as I have said before, that to harmonize the Romans 9 chapter or the whole Calvinist theology with the rest of Scripture hasn’t been done in a very convincing way by Calvinists in general as I and many others see it. (I am not saying that it has been done in a very convincing way by Arminians either.)
II Peter3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
I wonder what you do with that verse? I suppose you are going to say that all doesn’t mean all men? Only some of all kinds of men? But how does that make sense in the rest of the verse? If the Calvinist position is true and He gives irrestible grace to the elect so that He can’t make any other choice but to come, why is God having to wait with judment until all people come to repentance? Why doesn’t He just “zap” them with that grace now? There certainly seems to be an implication here that people are being allowed time to make that choice. Which, as I said, doesn’t seem to make sense if God in the end is just going to “zap” the ones that will come with “irrestible grace”. (I’m not at all sure I have explained myself here very well at all. Hope you can understand my point.)
Cheryl suggested some time ago, that if we sin, it is because God created us in such a way that we CAN sin.
Therefore: if we sin, the question is, isn’t it God’s fault? Because God has made us in such a way that we can sin.
Why didn’t God make us perfect, instead? Why did he create the possibility of sin?
For that matter: why did God create Satan, the author of sin?
Has anyone answered this yet?
Re post 350
Tanksley wrote, “John, that’s disappointing. There’s absolutely no reason why what you said applies to Calvinism more than Arminianism. [in reference to my post 348]”
Yes. It applies only to Calvinism and not to Arminianism. No Calvinist can know if there are one of the ones that were never elect but only looked like it for a while. While it is possible for every Arminian to reject God, every Arminian can be confident that there are not misled. That is, if they are following Jesus now, then they are saved. Whereas if a Calvinist appears to be following God, that appearance is no assurance that one is of the elect. Only God knows who he has elected.
It’s got nothing to do with plucking out of God’s hand. According to Calvinists, that will never happen to one of the elect, but it is not possible for a Calvinist to know if they are one of the elect (they could be one of the temporary Christ followers). A Calvinist’s daily life is no assurance that he/she is one of the elect. In fact it is irrelevant. If one is elect, one can be one of those whom God let’s sin a great deal even though elect.
Tanksley, “Our assurance comes from seeing those effects and acknowledging that they are the result of God working within us — and that His work is permanent.” No it doesn’t, not for a Calvinist. The person who has effects in their life, may only be having temporary effects which will eventually stop if they are not elect. That is because Calvinists have only two, unbiblical, explanations for the person who lives like a Christian for a while and then sins till they die: (1) they are elect and are going to heaven despite all the sin, or (2) they were not elect and their Christlike lives were only a temporary phenomenom.
“could lose their salvation tomorrow”: no, Arminians can’t lose their salvation. It takes rejection of God, a wholesale deliberate turning away from Him.
Re post 352
Tanksley wrote, “Not all Calvinists insist that God’s providence for us (which is meticulous, down to the hairs on our head) is planned as part of God’s decree.” Every Calvinist I’ve ever read has stated that, so perhaps you could supply some references for me to check out, please.
Tanksley wrote, “It’s a lot more complicated than that! If it were that simple your position would be philosophically untenable, “. Nope, it is that simple and it is tenable. You also have to pay attention to my use of “prime mover” I’m not using it in the cosmological sense, but as I indicated with respect to one’s actions. By prime mover I mean that one’s will is solely responsible for, and solely determinant of, the resultant action. The range of choices before one may be broad or may be limited, but one’s choice is not determined by the immediately prior state of the material universe and one’s immediately prior desires.
WmT, you didn’t actually provide your definition of “permit”.
Tanksley wrote (in 352), “Second, the reason given in the Bible that all men sin is the fall, not God’s “dooming”.” God ordained the fall, hence, He ordained people to hell. Calvin himself stated that God did so (as I have quoted earlier), so if you disagree with him, perhaps you could indicate why. It does not matter in what order the fall happened, because it results in people being ordained to hell.
Tanksley wrote, “Of course we have a choice!”. The Calvinist definition of choice is not at all like the one used in the Bible, or by ordinary people in normal language, nor by any one except determinists and compatibilists (which is a determinism that alleges it provides for moral responsibility). For a Calvinists “choice” means “choose one thing” (i.e., choose what you desire most at any one moment). For every one else, including the Bible, choice means selection between alternatives or from a range of possibilities. Those who are not elect have will only choose to reject God, to sin, and to follow satan, because that is what their “choices” are limited to.
Tanksley wrote, “Again, I’m amazed that you can ask me this question when Paul has already answered it almost verbatim.” Except that the interpretation Tanksley put forward is not “Paul’s answer” and is not what he meant. So, in fact, cherylu is correct to ask the question because Paul has not answered it in the way Tanksley believes.
regards
#John
I’m not convinced that’s either true or convincing. The Calvinist exegesis of Romans 9, John 6, Eph 2, and so on is powerful and convincing; I know of some problem verses (I’ve got a list of them in my backlog), but all of them are able to be exegeted to comport with the Calvinist interpretation, often to support it rather than fight with it (such as II Pet 3:9, below).
I think a lot of people put harmonization before exegesis, and I think that’s a huge mistake. Before you can harmonize two passages, you have to first work to understand their message. THEN you can see if the messages are complementary. If they’re not, you go back to one or both and try to exegete again. You should _never_, however, insert meaning into one passage that isn’t actually in its solo exegesis. (This is what you and John were doing to I John 4:8.)
I don’t have to spend a few hours exegeting this one — the meaning jumps out.
The verse says “but is patient TOWARD YOU.” The Lord isn’t willing that any of the Elect should perish; He’s waiting until we all come to repentance. Note that in context Peter can’t be talking about All Men in general, because he’s quoting the prophecy (vv. 1-8) that evil people will be judged and destroyed, and he’s looking forward to it as a promise.
The answer is that “grace” doesn’t work that way. In fact, “grace” doesn’t do any work at all; it’s not a thing that causes salvation, but is rather the manner in which God delivers salvation. Salvation is accomplished by Christ, through our faith, in the gospel. Without us hearing the Gospel first, we will not come to salvation. God is gracious in delivering this to us — but “grace” is a word that’s similar to “kindness” or “freedom”; you can’t ask “why didn’t God just zap us with his…
Continued:
… you can’t ask “why didn’t God just zap us with his kindness?”
God is working through His people, the Church, to deliver the Gospel to the entire Church. That’s why we wait.
-Wm
I’m sorry William, but your meaning does not “jump out” to me at all. And I don’t think it “jumps out” to anyone that hasn’t already decided that the Calvinist understanding is the correct one.
I think the difference between us is that Calvinists have adopted the verses in Romans 9 and similar verses as your base understanding for the whole rest of the Bible–therefore everything else is seen through that lens. And sometimes the understanding you have of the rest of Scripture because of that is, to the rest of us, “tortured” at best.
We have a totally different paradigm that we see all of Scripture through, so we come to totally different conclusions about the meaning of particular verses. And what jumps out to you, doesn’t jump out to the rest of us at all.
That is why we harmonize things much differently, it seems to me.
And these differences have been going on in the church for centuries!
False Hope
John Frame (Calvinist theologian and bible scholar) states God’s eternal decree to damn “does not prejudice our assurance of salvation” because our “assurance is not based on our reading of the eternal decrees of God, which are secret unless God reveals them, but on the promises of God” (The Doctrine of God, 334). Thus one’s ability to believe the promises of God in a saving manner is conditional upon God’s eternal decree. Consequently, in order to have assurance one needs to know the status of one’s election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known.
It is for that reason that Calvinism offers no real basis for assurance of salvation and has developed the theory of the “false hope” in which God temporally enlightens some people to have the fruit of salvation, only to draw away His temporary grace and damn the person ultimately. True, you could have the fruit of election now, but one must not confuse regeneration (or alleged regeneration) with election. If you are a Calvinist, how can you possibly know for sure that God loves you and will give you the grace you need to persevere? The only way to know that is to know you are elect, and that lies in the secret and unrevealed counsel of God. If you fall into sin or begin to doubt or get depressed, there is no support for you whatsoever. God may just be dangling salvation in front of you for a time only to withdraw it later for His “glory.”
John Owen’s treatment of assurance makes claims that are both incredible and terrifying. Owen asserts that an insincere believer (one that is not truly saved) can be “enlightened” yet not changed, renewed, or transformed. He or she may “taste of the heavenly gift,” meaning the Holy Spirit, yet still not experience the regenerating work of the Spirit. Wow! He actually argues that one may even experience gifting of the Spirit (like Simon Magus did [Acts 8:15-21]), yet fail to taste “the goodness of God, and the powers to come”. Conclusion: one can have the experiences of a Christian, yet not be a genuine Christian.
In Arminianism, by contrast, if one is currently “tasting the fruits” one does not have to worry about having them taken away later because one is not elect. If one has fruit, one is truly saved.
Re post 358
Tanksley writes, “(This is what you and John were doing to I John 4:8.)” Hunh? I don’t see where Tanksley has shown any eisegesis (reading meaning into scripture) in my posts 245, 250, 283, and 287. Tanksley looks only at the application of the apostles reasoning about love (the apostle applies it to fellow / brother christians) and so concludes that the statement “God is love” means only “God loves the brethren”. That is, “God loves the elect christians, and so you should love them too / being brother christians you should love each other the way that God loves christians”. I showed in my exegesis that there was no such restriction on the scope of God’s love in that passage and that the apostle’s reasoning makes sense only if “God is love” has a much broader meaning. Furthermore, I showed that the both the larger structure of the book and the unique grammatical construction supported my interpretation, not Tanksely’s.
regards,
#John
#John,
I agree with you 100%. I don’t see where either one of us are guilty of “inserting meaning”, (eisegesis) into the I John 4:8 passage. It seems to me that if anything, William is guilty of SUBTRACTING meaning from it!
Cheryl, post 360:
Your question to me wasn’t “what meaning is obvious”, but rather “how do Calvinists explain this.” I answered that, and in addition I showed very simply how the meaning you originally assigned (that Peter was saying that God wanted absolutely everyone to be saved) wasn’t possible in this context. (I’m not saying it’s not true in every possible sense; I’m saying that Peter can’t be saying it in this passage.)
Your response here is essentially “I didn’t think of it first.” That doesn’t invalidate my explanation. The purpose of the explanation was to help you see what I saw. Did it work?
I’ve read a lot of books on the topic citing tons of problem verses — many of them with very real problems. I’ve never seen one cited that created more problems for Calvinism than they did for Arminianism — often resulting in universalism or Pelagianism if interpreted in a way that can’t be harmonized with Calvinism.
This is what I’m talking about when I say that exegesis has to come before harmonization. When you harmonize, you have to start by exegeting _both_ passages. You can’t exegete one, assume the other, and throw away the exegesis; you have to do both. And you can’t interpret the other passage in a way that contradicts your own beliefs in order to make someone else’s beliefs seem invalid.
I’m going to post an exegesis of Romans 9 in “a while” :-), and hopefully we can discuss it. In the meantime, my examination of John 6 (I forget whether it was in this thread or the previous one) doesn’t seem to have been answered. That seems to be a problem text for Arminianism.
It’s one thing to claim that they harmonize poorly, but you haven’t attempted to exegete my passages, while I’ve done my best to exegete yours. (I’ll get to John 3:16-18; I think that was a great exegesis you did of it. The others I’ll also do, but since you didn’t exegete them yourself yet, I’ll do them later.)
-Wm
Willilam,
You said, “Your response here is essentially “I didn’t think of it first.” That doesn’t invalidate my explanation. The purpose of the explanation was to help you see what I saw. Did it work?”
Talk about putting words in someone’ mouth! That is not essentially what I said at all! In case I didn’t make myself clear enough in my last comment–I don’t see your meaning in that passage at all. So no, it didn’t work!
And I honestly don’t know what John 6 verses you are talking about. Guess they have gotten lost in shuffle here of all of our comments.
By the way William, I don’t believe you ever answered any of my questions in my last comment regarding the Ezekiel passages we were discussing either. Or my question regarding your seeming downplaying of the seriousness of hell. I would give you comment #’s but don’t have time to go looking for them now. All I know is they are way back up there somewhere!
Am babysitting my Grandaughter. She is taking a nap and I have to take advantage of the quiet time. She can tend to be extremely chatty. She told me once that her Mommy told her she talks too much! I tend to agree at times.
Temporary Disciples
Francis Turretin, famous Calvinist theologian, writes, “XV. Although the faith of the temporary is true in its own order because it truly receives the seed with joy and is not feigned by those who thus believe, who not only think they believe, but really and truly believe (hence they are even said “to believe,” ]n. 2:23; Lk. 8:13), still it is not a true and living justifying faith, in which sense it is even called hypocritical because it is emulous of the faith of the elect and has an external resemblance to it (although destitute of its truth); and so great is its similarity to it often that a greater is not seen between an image and its prototype. Hence not only others who see them are easily deceived by them, but the believers themselves also are deceived and impose upon themselves; not feigning, but believing that they are truly believers (God alone, who searches the innermost recesses of the heart, knowing the truth). Still it is certain that there is a manifold and most essential difference (as was said before) which shows that they mutually differ not only in degree or duration, but in very kind and nature.”
John Owen, another Calvinist in his Religious Affections, wrote, “And besides, it is to be considered that persons may have those impressions on their minds, which may not be of their own producing, nor from an evil spirit, but from the Spirit of God, and yet not be from any saving, but a common influence of the Spirit of God; and the subjects of such impressions may be of the number of those we read of, Heb. 6:4, 5, “that are once enlightened, and taste of the heavenly gift, and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and taste the good word of God, and the power of the world to come;” and yet may be wholly unacquainted with those “better things that accompany salvations” of spoken of ver. 9. . . .
“But with respect to love; it is plain by the Scripture, that persons may have a kind of religious love, and yet have no saving grace. Christ speaks of many professing Christians that have such love, whose love will not continue, and so shall fail of salvation, Matt. 24:12, 13: “And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Which latter words plainly show, that those spoken of before, whose love shall not endure to the end, but wax cold, should not be saved. . . .
” Thirdly, We have no certain rule to determine how far God’s own Spirit may go in those operations and convictions which in themselves are not spiritual and saving, and yet the person that is the subject of them never be converted, but fall short of salvation at last. . . .
“And as a seeming to have this distinctness as to steps and method, is no certain sign that a person is converted; so a being without it, is no evidence that a person is not converted.”
I can quote more, and from other authors should anyone be further…
Hmm, so it would seem that several famous Calvinists from the past don’t see acting like a Christian now–even if those actions come from the Spirit–mean that a person is saved. These people can be convinced that they have the faith of the elect, but really don’t and are not saved.
That is precisely the point I have tried to make–how can you possibly know in the Calvinist scheme of things if you are one of the elect or not until the end of your life.
Obviously, William, some of your fellow Calvinists from the past don’t think you can either.
Post 361(a):
I have to stop you here. Your conclusion is the opposite of the author’s; he says that our assurance is NOT based on God’s eternal decree. Unless you personally believe that God’s promises are unreliable, you should notice that Frame is saying that we have an assurance that’s based on something solid.
Absolutely not — this is based on numerous Bible texts in the practical epistles, as well as preaching by Christ himself. I will note that some Calvinists differ; they hold that these texts refer not to “false hope”, but rather to true covenant membership from people who participated fully in the Church, receiving baptism and communion, and yet who never accept Christ.
WOW! You’re expressing contempt for Owen’s words which shows no awareness whatsoever that every word you’re quoting is not from Owen, but from Hebrews 6! Is that contempt actually for those words?
Continue that sentence: one is truly saved FOR NOW. One might not be saved tomorrow. Arminians have to worry about what specifically they might have to watch out for that will remove that salvation. I counseled one man — a superb apologist — who was in existential fear because of that. He’d backslidden as a youth, and believed that if he’d died then he would have gone to hell — therefore, he realized that if he died a week from now, how could he know NOW? All for a sin mentioned once and never explained in the Bible!
The reason “Calvinist” assurance is secure is twofold. First, God always works through means; He doesn’t decree and then fail to enact the means required to bring that decree about. Second, God’s actions are carried out according to His promises and character; the means and results of salvation are clearly explained in Scripture.
-Wm
In regards to the entire topic of assurance of salvation:
John, and to a lesser extent Cheryl, are implicitly assuming that because a Calvinist may be wrong about his salvation, that therefore it’s impossible to be assured of one’s salvation.
The underlying error is, I believe, a mistake about the nature of knowledge. We finite beings cannot ever know anything with certainty. All we can do is work for greater accuracy, never certainty.
So assurance doesn’t mean total certainty. Rather, it means being about to rest in the finished work of Christ, confident that it has been applied to you.
John claims that Arminians don’t have this problem. But how not? Both Arminians and Calvinists read the exact same signs in order to tell whether or not they’re saved! The only difference in respect to assurance is that Calvinists believe that once they’re saved, they’re always saved, while Arminians believe that even a truly saved person can fall away somehow and become unsaved. So given a Calvinist and an Arminian who have both “worked out their salvation with awe and reverence” and become confident that they’ve accurately assessed their salvation, both using the same Biblical tests, which one will be most assured that God is truly working in them right now? Which one will be most assured that God will be working in the a year from now? And which one is most assured that Heaven is waiting after death?
Both know that they’re saved now; but only the Calvinist can be assured of the future as much as he’s assured of the present. The Arminian has to admit that something could possibly happen to make him change his mind — even if he’s totally correct that he’s saved now.
Now, I’m not saying here that you’re wrong. If the Bible supported you, I’d cheer for you. I’m just saying that your comparison of assurance is entirely misguided and backwards.
Can the Calvinist be wrong about his salvation? YES! But the Arminian can be wrong in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons.
-Wm
Hmm. Well, I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth– I was trying to understand why you would object to my explanation by simply saying that “it didn’t jump out to you”. Your meaning is clear now.
In review: 2 Pet 3:9 says that God “is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” You wish to interpret the last half of that verse as meaning that God wants no people to perish, and all people to come to repentance; but that simply ignores the context in the same sentence. God is patient towards whom? US. Why? Because He doesn’t want who to perish? If the answer is “all men”, then why does being patient toward *us* help God in that goal? It wouldn’t. God is patient toward us because He doesn’t want any *of us* to perish. Same sentence; same object.
For an additional argument, I also brought out additional context. That same verse mentions a “promise”, and assures us that there’s a reason it’s taking so long to receive that promise. What is being promised? “The day of His return,” and with it “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” If the point of this phrase were that God didn’t want anyone to perish, why would Peter utter it in the context of promising the day of God’s judgment and wrath?
-Wm
William,
I will agree with pretty much everything you said in your last comment except for one thing. The Arminian believe’s that Jesus is always there for him, as He is for everyone else in the world (if they believe in Him and receive Him), and He can base his faith on that even in the rough times of his life when he may be questioning his Christian life or sanctification–like maybe a lot of the folks in CMP’s recent article. The Calvinist, if he starts thinking and wondering about it can become desperately afraid that Jesus is not there for him–that maybe he is not one of the elect and that therefore Jesus did not die for him after all. I have read statements of Calvinists that have gone through that type of trauma. Even John Calvin in some quotes I read somewhere said that people can become very afraid in this situation, that it is a thought that will come to pretty much every thinking person, and if allowed to go on will totally shipwreck that person’s faith. So it is to be avoided at all costs. Think I am remembering the gist of what he said correctly here.
Both Calvinist’s and Arminian’s have their own areas where they can have problem’s with assurance.
However, I can not personally imagine a worse one myself than to start questioning if Jesus ever died for me in the first place.
Cheryl: we discussed the Ezekiel 33 passage at great length. I know you’re not convinced, and that’s okay; but we did discuss it.
I remember the message you accused of downplaying the seriousness of hell; I don’t know what you want in response aside from “oh, I don’t mean that.” I don’t recall the point I was trying to make at the time, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that hell is wonderful; I think it was more along the lines that hell is God’s way of expressing love even in judgment. I don’t see how it couldn’t be.
-Wm
Good point. The nice thing is that both have to be solved the same way: explain how you can tell that you’re saved, by examining your fruit with diligence. Assuming you’re elect won’t help the Calvinist; and working to save yourself won’t help the Arminian. Both are heresy, and neither one is taught by their respective doctrine.
And the presence of an awful error in the (nominally) Arminian camp doesn’t mean that everyone should be a Calvinist in order to avoid that error. And conversely — the presence of an awful error in the (nominally) Calvinist camp doesn’t mean that everyone should be an Arminian!
-Wm
William,
Who says “us” in the II Peter verse has to mean only the elect? Who says “us” doesn’t simply mean mankind in general? And when he is writing to Christians, why would “us” refer to all of the elect and not just to those he was already addressing–his fellow Christians? And if he is addressing just his fellow Christians, the argument would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And if He does indeed wish no man to perish as I believe this verse and others teach, then why wouldn’t He be slow in bringing about the promise of wrath–giving folks time to come to repentance even if His wrath is inevitable and must come?
Again this is a verse that I believe will only be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it if you are already persauded that Calvinism is the truly correct way to look at Scripture.
William,
I brought up a point from another Scripture that I really believed refuted your take on the Ezekiel passage in my last comment. That is the one that was never commented on.
And the comment on downplaying hell was reacting to comment #228, I believe, where you said, referring to hell, “I think this is intended to answer my immediately previous question. But it doesn’t get you out of the quandary. God knew what He was creating; if it was really going to be such a horrible situation as you’re describing (keep in mind — we both believe in the same situation!), wouldn’t the loving thing to do be NOT creating at all? Do you really think God’s wincing at the horror of what He’s done?”
Then you went on to comment that you believe it is somehow God’s way of showing love even in judgement.
Sorry, but your quote above certainly sounds like it is downplaing hell or
Sorry, I hit the submit button by mistake.
My last sentence should of read: “Sorry, but your quote above certainly sounds like it is downplaing hell or or the lake of fire that burns forever–a place Jesus taught us was to be avoided at all costs.” I can’t imagine a place any more horrible than a lake of fire that burns forever. Can you? So yes, it seems to me you were trying to downplay the seriousness of hell to make God seem more loving in sending anyone there.
Can you find a more precise target for “us” than Peter’s salutation in 2Pet 1:1 (plus himself, of course)? Is there any hint that Peter is talking to someone else? I don’t see it, but perhaps you do.
Furthermore, if “us” means mankind in general — I refer to my former argument. And here’s stronger evidence: read the entire book. Chapter 2 is absolutely scathing! The Lord isn’t reserving the unrighteous to give them a chance to repent; He’s reserving them for judgment.
I don’t understand. Is there a sense in which fellow Christians are not elect or the elect are not fellow Christians? And furthermore, if there were such a division, why would the argument stop making sense?
By the way, I didn’t use the term ‘elect’ when discussing this originally; you did. I’m fine with 2Pet 1:1.
As I said, this all means is that God’s procrastinating sheerly for the sake of procrastination, since if God had ended the world in AD 300, FAR fewer people would have been sent to hell than if He ended the world in AD 2010.
Let’s suppose that’s true. I’m fine with that; I’m answering your challenge in which you said “I wonder what you do with that verse?” I answered; that’s what I do.
But I answered — I think — a bit more powerfully. That verse not only does NOT defeat Calvinism; it actually makes more sense that way. I fully admit that this passage (in context) doesn’t singlehandedly prove Calvinism; it doesn’t really talk about it at all. The one thing it does talk about (and I think we’d agree) is that God is waiting for all the people to be saved that He wants to be saved.
We agree on that point, I suspect, but we disagree on whether God is going to get what He wants. You think He’s not going to get it (but He’s waiting anyhow); I think He’s going to get it.
-Wm
Let’s put it this way (and I said this before): picture the end of the Ages. We all stand at the Judgment Seat. God condemns each and every hell-deserving person to hell forever. We both agree that this will happen, right? And we both agree that “God is Love”, right? So that action — which we both agree He will do — must flow from His character as a God Who is Love. Then God turns around and allows a different group into everlasting happiness. That’s also how God demonstrates the Love that is His character and nature.
We both believe this. I don’t see how you can avoid this; it’s the only part of your reading of 1Joh 4:8 on which we agree. Are you saying that “God is Love” only applies when God’s NOT dealing with hell?
(Keep in mind that I’m not saying this to disagree with you on 1 John 4:8! I seem to believe this passage more than you do, when it comes to hell. And also keep in mind that I’m not saying that God’s love makes hell pleasant; I’m only saying that God must be displaying His love even in His judgment, and even to the people being judged, because it is His nature.)
-Wm
Okay William,
Again about the word “us”. You say it refers to the ones spoken of in II Peter 1:1. Who are they? Those that have obtained like precious faith–in other words Christians, “the elect.”
So, now all of a sudden in chapter 3 the Lord is withholding judgment on the world so that his elect, (that will persevere, remember?) and that already show they are the elect, because God has given them faith, (according to Calvinism, right?) will not perish??? How are the elect, the saved ones, the ones given “like precious faith” going to perish? So how in the world can they be the ones he is referring to as “us”???
And yes, chapter two is scathing–it is speaking of the end of ungodly, unrepentant people. However, weren’t we all ungodly people at one time? Elect and non elect alike? How about the example of the apostle Paul who was out to have all of the Christians he could put to death? He called himself at one point, “the chief of sinners.” And yet God saved him. So what makes you so sure God does not want to save any of those ungodly ones in chapter two?
Joe said:
I didn’t answer this earlier because I felt I’d addressed it a long time ago — but that WAS a long time ago. Let’s hit it again.
The shortest, most certain, and least satisfying answer is that “God had a good purpose for it.” I think all the theists (excluding the open theists) agree on this.
A more satisfying answer would have to be more precise: WHY did God want this situation? I’ve heard some imaginative answers; I think one of my favorite is the literary analogy, which says that God created the world for much the same reason that a great author creates a good story: to express himself. Every good story has a dragon :-), some evil that the hero can’t simply beat; but in every good story the hero does beat the dragon. Is God the hero? Well, God does actually enter into the book, as Christ. I think the Church is the hero, though.
The ideal answer would be entirely supported by Scripture and entirely satisfying. I don’t think an ideal answer is available; the above is very satisfying to me personally, but I don’t have direct Scriptural support (I can come up with elements of support, and I’m sure someone’s written a book, but the analogy itself isn’t present in Scripture). In fact, it’s definitely not complete; it’s not complex enough.
I think we can definitely give some specific answers that don’t work. God didn’t create on accident; Jesus spoke out against people who start work without counting the cost. God didn’t create for an evil reason, or for no reason (this means that He did have a reason). He didn’t create because He had to. He also didn’t create for a simple reason — His ways are far above our ways.
-Wm
No, I don’t think it is God’s love that is casting people into hell or that created hell. I believe God send’s people to hell when they have rejected His love and His offer of salvation. I believe that He at that point has to show them His wrath and His anger since they have refused His love that was offered to them.
What I am saying, again, is that I don’t see how He can be showing His love by decreeing before creation, as at least some Calvininists believe, that a good share of His creation will go to hell, which He Himself has described as a terrible place to be avoided at all costs.
That is simply illogical: “I am creating a terrible place and you need to avoid it all costs. But I in my love for you am going to be sure from before the creation of time that is exactly where you will spend eternity”. Huh??
I need to amend my last comment a bit. It is certainly God’s love that casts all sin and evil doers, the devil and his demons away from His saved people for all of eternity. In that way I can say that the creation of hell and casting people into it for eternity shows His love. BUT, I don’t believe it can be love to those being punished so or that it would be love to create them for such a punishment.
I did not intend that. “God is Love” does not mean only “God loves the brethren”. God is Love means, indeed, that Love is God’s nature, just as you said (and I agreed with). The problem is that this passage only explains God’s love in the context of the brethren; it doesn’t explain at all how God’s love manifests toward the unsaved (although we agree that it MUST).
John, I entirely agree with your exegesis — that is, with your interpretation of the passage, including your careful study of the specific grammar. Where we diverge is in your philosophical extrapolation that because “God is Love”, therefore God must love all people in the same manner, at least with respect to predestination.
The criticism I’m leveling against you isn’t that your conclusion is incorrect; it’s simply that your conclusion isn’t mentioned or implied by this specific text. Okay, God is Love. Okay, that means that Love is in God’s nature, that’s it’s fundamental to who He is. Okay, that means that every action will show forth that love. Must God therefore love all people in the exact same way? The text simply says nothing about that.
You are very specific about the way in which God loves all people equally. You say that He loves them all equally, specifically, by giving them all the same ability to be saved. Why do you stop there, though? Wouldn’t it be more equal to love them all by actually saving them all? The passage doesn’t specify, so if you’re going to say that one conclusion is required by the passage’s implication, why do you reject the other conclusion?
Your argument is eisegesis because it forces the idea of equal love into the passage, going beyond the simple fact that God is love by nature to add that everyone will receive that love in the same way and to the same amount.
-Wm
More on 1 John 4:
I think it’s significant that this passage doesn’t try to justify loving the brethren by comparing that to God’s treatment of all people; rather, we’re told to love the brethren as God loved the brethren. This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love non-Christians; rather, it means that John felt that God’s love for Christians was the model we should follow, and this suggests that, in some way, God’s love for Christians is different from God’s love for non-Christians.
Now, that difference may (as far as we can tell from this text) be very minimal, or even just a matter of perspective. Perhaps, for instance, Christians find it easier to understand God’s love for them simply because they’re directly experiencing it. (I don’t agree with this, but perhaps I’m wrong; this passage neither supports nor contradicts it.)
The passage doesn’t say. What IS clear from the passage is that John treats God’s love for Christians differently from how He treats God’s love for non-Christians. For you to claim that the two must be equal in action because of this passage alone is wrong, because the passage doesn’t support it.
-Wm
“What IS clear from the passage is that John treats God’s love for Christians differently from how He treats God’s love for non-Christians.”
Maybe that is clear to YOU, from the passage. To me the passage doesn’t say that at all. Ever hear the old saying, “Clear as mud”?
Clearly, such people exist. In fact, there are two types of such people: the ones who stay in the church, and the ones who don’t. The ones who leave the Church “went out from among us, because they were not of us.” Those who remain in the church must be under the authority of the church; if they sin, they should be confronted, and if they do not repent after the full process of church discipline, they should be treated as an unbeliever (Matt 18:15-17).
Does that mean that we can tell whether they’re saved? No. But we can tell that in both cases, the evidence shows that they weren’t. All we have is the evidence, not the actuality, and we should keep the humility to admit that we don’t know.
In neither case does the question of whether they were elect enter into how we should speak or act; it’s purely hypothetical from our point of view. Now, some of us will be surprised by who we see in Heaven; I suspect that some of these surprises will be in things like seeing that total druggie who never returned to the church, and rejected every attempt the church made to help.
Of course, other surprises will be from a category I didn’t mention: churches who didn’t confront their people in sin will find that “good members” don’t know about the seriousness of their sins, and thus never took the Gospel seriously, and were never saved. Does this mean that these churches thwarted God’s election? No, it means that these churches didn’t obey God, and so didn’t get to serve as gloriously as they could have. They didn’t thwart God; God still used them.
What do you mean by “it”, when you say “it takes rejection”? Don’t you mean “losing your salvation”? If not, then what DO you mean?
As far as I can tell, you believe that a Christian can be saved one day, and unsaved the next, by some action under that Christian’s control. If we say that the Christian “has salvation” the first day, and doesn’t have it the second, then can’t we say that the Christian has lost salvation?
-Wm
“A more satisfying answer would have to be more precise: WHY did God want this situation? I’ve heard some imaginative answers; I think one of my favorite is the literary analogy, which says that God created the world for much the same reason that a great author creates a good story: to express himself. Every good story has a dragon , some evil that the hero can’t simply beat; but in every good story the hero does beat the dragon. Is God the hero? Well, God does actually enter into the book, as Christ. I think the Church is the hero, though.”
Here’s what I don’t understand: “Well, God does actually enter into the book, as Christ. I think the Church is the hero, though.” Have I missed something here? How can the church be the hero if God has already determined who His elect are from the foundations of the earth? Is the church the final hero vis a vis this, or does that thinking in effect minimize the death of Christ on the cross, in favor of predestination of an elect group of folks who will win out in the end through perseverance? And how does that really differ from a works gospel?
Just asking.
Post 382:
I’m still confused, but let’s cut to the chase.
How are all these fine distinctions between creating hell (you agree), casting for eternity (you agree), being punished (you disagree), and creating for torment (you disagree) present, as you claim, in 1 John 4:8? The verse doesn’t even mention hell, creation, torment, or eternity.
It seems clear to me that you’ve defined a concept of “love” that excludes carrying out punishment and creation for punishment, but includes creating the punishment and condemning to it. That distinction may or may not be real, but it’s certainly not in this verse!
-Wm
Assuming that God is indeed love as His very essence, (which I think you agreed to above?), my problem is that God with that love couldn’t create people that He has decreed are going to hell before their creation AND be acting in that love as far as I can tell.
No, the verse does not say anything about hell, or torment, etc. What is does say is God IS love. What I say is IT IS NOT LOVE to create people decreed to be going to hell with no other option available.
It is one thing, it seems to me, to send people to hell who have lived in such a way that they have deserved it and who have refused His love. It is another thing to create people with the purpose of sending them to hell and giving them no possibility of salvation.
William,
By the way, you have repeatedly tried to convince us that in the Calvinist system people do really have a choice. It is just that they choose what they desire most. (Never mind that desire is the one and only one that God gave them.)
However, if the Calvinist belief in limited atonement is true, how can that possibly be the case? If Jesus never died for them in the first place, how in the world could they ever have a choice to choose Him even assuming their desire was for that at some time?? You can’t choose a salvation that isn’t even there for you, now can you?!?
No, in the Calvinist system people are decreed by God to be going to hell before they are even born, before the world began as a matter of fact. And Jesus had no intention of paying for their sins. And they can do nothing but sin because they were born dead in sin. COMPLETELY HOPELESS situtation for these folks.
Re posts about assurance of salvation
Re Tanksley’s 368. Tanksley misunderstands my point about Frame. Frame states that one cannot know who God has, by decree, elected to salvation. Therefore, there is no point in trying to find out what God decreed. Even John Piper has admitted, on his website, that it is possible that God may not have elected his children to salvation and that there is nothing he could do about that. My further point is that, under the Calvinist system, the degree to which one has assurance is one of the things ordained by God in His meticulous control of all things. (in Calvinism God knows what will happen in the future because he has ordained all that will happen).
Owen’s comments about not being able to tell who is elect, or even if oneself is elect, is not the words of Hebrews, but merely one of the many aberrant Calvinist misinterpretations of scripture. Moreover, I was not expressing contempt for Owen’s words, but rather horror.
Tanksley writes, “from people who participated fully in the Church, receiving baptism and communion, and yet who never accept Christ.” Great comfort there, so there are deluded people who believe that they believe in Christ, and have been baptized, etc., but who are not elect and so not saved. That means anyone could be mistaken. And if one reads testimonies of those who left the faith, one will read many testimonies of those who were fully convinced that (earlier in their lives) they were true believers with authentic conversion experiences and authentic lives in Christ. As Frame and Piper admit, no Calvinist can know if they are elect. If one cannot know if one is elect, and if one can show all the signs of being saved but yet not be elect, one can never have any final assurance at all. No wonder the calvinist Puritans tied themselves into knots trying to determine if they were truly saved or not.
It is important to note that the Calvinist assurance only works from God’s side of the secret decree of election. It has no application on the human side. What good is knowing that God will save exactly those whom He elected if I can’t know whether I’m elect?
Arminian belief does not entail the belief that one can lose one’s salvation like one can lose one’s car keys. That may be the colloquial way of expressing it, but that is not the correct concept nor is it how the concept is set out by Arminian theologians. One has to reject God to reject one’s salvation. Furthermore, such rejection is evidenced by the direction and character of one’s life. One sin, or even many, does not make one bound for hell. However, the many warning passages are real and are intended to make one conscious of sin and of rejecting God. In the Calvinist system, such warning passages are unintelligible and make no sense whatsoever. Piper is an example of Calvinists who waffle back and forth on what those passages mean.
I believe this part of the debate is now over; you have conceded the point being argued. The question of whether “it is not love to create people decreed to be going to hell with no other option available” is not, by your admission, answered in 1 John 4:8, either positively or negatively; it’s merely a matter of your own opinion.
1 John 4:8 is therefore not a prooftext against Calvinism (nor for it!), and should not have been brought into the debate.
I hope, but don’t expect, that this will reduce the number of posts per day. 🙂
-Wm
Regarding post 390: I’d love to discuss this, but let’s try to wind down the existing debates rather than creating new ones. Let it stand that you don’t accept our definition of choice as even vaguely logically consistent, so you’ll never accept anything we say on the topic unless we come to terms first.
Conversely, sadly, I don’t accept your definition of choice as being logically coherent; so I’m no different.
Perhaps in some other thread we’ll debate the nature and existence of “freedom of the will” (Edwards’ study on compatibilism); or perhaps we could take a Lutheran perspective and debate “the bondage of the will” (Luther’s Biblical refutation of Erasmus’ belief that sinners wills are not in slavery to sin). In one, we’d consider the definition of choice; in the other, we’d consider only what the Bible has to say, not the philosophy.
-Wm
re Tanksley’s post 369
Tanksley admits what other Calvinists admit, that is, a “Calvinist may be wrong about his salvation”. But then he goes on to state that a Calvinist may have confidence anyway. But for Tanksley confidence means less than 100%. In his next paragraph he states that the nature of knowledge is such that we can never have 100% certainty, and he agrees that assurance doesn’t mean 100% certainty.
But then he goes on to write about “resting” and “confidence”. But how can this be so if a Calvinist cannot know if he/she is elect? Or that no display of the fruits of the spirit and the sacraments of the faith is a certain indication of election but may only be a mark of temporary tasting of salvation that one has not been elected to?
Because Arminians do not believe in the doctrine of election on the basis of foreordination, they do not have such worries. If they believe in Christ they are elect, 100% for sure. Signs of the life of the Spirit in them, such as love, are true indication of salvation and not merely an indication of being ordained by God for a temporary tasting only but not lasting election. As the John writes in 1 John 4:15 “If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.” The Arminian has no worries about being a temporary disciple or having a false hope (i.e., a hope that one is elect even though one is not).
True, there is the possibility that a Christian may again turn away from God but (1) that is a fact that we observe happening anyway and which must be explained, and (2) that is the teaching of the Bible. All of us know people who were believers and who are no longer. How do we explain that? The Arminian reasons that that person turned away from God, took their hand off the plow, that their salvation was real when they were a believer. The implication though is that one can have full confidence in present salvation; there is no secret decree of God with the secret list of the elect.
The Calvinist, no the other hand, reasons that that person is either (a) still elect even though he/she lives like an apostate, or (b) that person was never elect and saved in the first place, but that we cannot know which it is. The result of this, though, is that one cannot have confidence in one’s present salvation: one could be non-elect even though one has apparent signs of salvation. The Calvinist thus cannot have confidence in the future either, because time could reveal that one was not elect but only temporarily “blessed’ with experiences in the Spirit and the body of Christ, and that in time it will be revealed that they were never elect. In time they will start to sin and be apostate because they were never elect. Of course, it could be that they are still elect but only foreordained to live like a sinner until death. It is only after death that one’s elect or non-elect status is revealed.
the whole discussion is moot because our sinful nature and numerous daily sins disqualify us in the first place, lol
a detailed rationalization of Romans 6:23 would be a suitable follow up to your philosophy
All Calvinists believe that God’s providence is meticulous — God takes care of us in every way, and allows nothing to happen “apart from His will” (the Bible says so). Some believe that God’s sovereignty is meticulous — that God controls all things directly. Few believe that God’s decree is meticulous — that God planned all events precisely as they occur, before time began, and that for each event He could have chosen otherwise.
I don’t see grounds for choosing between these; I affirm the first, suspect the second, and will not unfellowship someone for affirming the last, although I strongly suspect it’s unbiblical.
I see. I’m not familiar with that usage. No matter; I understand. You’re speaking of Libertarian Free Will. Following is my reply to your original passage, as clarified; thank you.
I have no dog in this fight; it’s extrabiblical and thus not essential. I find your reasoning consistent with the supralapsarian position, of course; the reason I don’t find it compelling is that I don’t assume that Adam and Eve were the same as us. We have NO desire for God; they may well have had a desire for God equal to their desire for self (or some other arrangement; the Bible doesn’t explain).
Like Luther, I don’t see a need to explain what the Bible leaves unexplained. Unlike Luther, I enjoy doing it anyhow — and, of course, I am a Calvinist — but I’m going to avoid that during a debate like this, because it assumes more than is necessary.
I said that I was describing the sides of a debate that I find academic and irrelevant; I’m using a word used in that debate, not one that I’m pinning an argument on. That particular word is taken from the Wikipedia article on Lapsarianism. It’s used in what appears to be two slightly different senses. I…
William,
“I believe this part of the debate is now over; you have conceded the point being argued. The question of whether “it is not love to create people decreed to be going to hell with no other option available” is not, by your admission, answered in 1 John 4:8, either positively or negatively; it’s merely a matter of your own opinion.
1 John 4:8 is therefore not a prooftext against Calvinism (nor for it!), and should not have been brought into the debate.”
As far as I am concerned, this debate is not over! I will agree that it is over with you. For you simply can not see that we have a point….period.
And you say that this verse can not be used against or for Calvinism–well if that is the case, I don’t see how any verses in the Bible can be used either against or for Calvinism. Except those of course that use the word “Elect” or other explicit phrases. There can be no way of comparing Calvinism to the rest of Scripture at all.
So, if there is no point in using any other Scripture in this debate except ones containing those words, (and by the way you have done the same thing before too–saying “it could be understoood either way), I don’t see any point in continuiing this discussion at all. No matter what we bring up, you are likely going to say, “that is just your way of interpreting it”, to which, of course, we can reply the same thing to you.
By the way, you have been speaking for several weeks now of having other articles ready for your blog, of exegeting large portions of Scripture and putting them there and taking the debate over there. When can we expect to see those?
William,
You said, “Regarding post 390: I’d love to discuss this, but let’s try to wind down the existing debates rather than creating new ones.”
And then a bit later you go on to declare one of the debates ended! Seems a bit disengenious of you to me. In effect, “we will debate here, but only on my terms.”
When some Scriptures in John 6 that you brought up weren’t answered and excegeted by any one on this side of the debate, you wondered “if they were a problem area for Arminians.” At this point in time I am not even sure what Scriptures they were or the points you were making.
But I guess I will now have to ask you the same question, are the points I brought up in post 390 problems for you since you refuse to discuss them?
Regarding your last Ezekiel post:
Sin (indeed) brings spiritual death, and the Law adds to that physical threats which apply against those under the Old Covenant. But that spiritual death applies to all who have ever sinned, regardless of whether they kept the rest of the Law perfectly (including the sacrifices).
The way out of spiritual death isn’t to keep the law more perfectly in the future; it’s to learn from the Law as a schoolmaster that you are enslaved to sin, and learn to throw yourself on God’s care and promises.
But what does Ezekiel say? It teaches that the way out of condemnation to death is to stop your habitual sin, and instead repent and follow the Law. This can only apply to the Law’s own curses (which were curses of physical and social punishment), not to the curse of sin.
Most Hebrew scholars, including most Hebrews, agree on that. The doctrine of immortality wasn’t developed at the time; God revealed it to the Israelites during their development as God’s people; it’s not revealed in the Pentateuch, so that it’s not clear that Moses would have understood it (at least he didn’t write it down).
I do believe that God was teaching us about spiritual death by means of those things; but the two (spiritual and physical death) are separate, and are governed by different laws. Violations of the Law lead to curses which are included in and governed by the Law itself; sin (including violations of every divine law) leads to death, and the Mosaic Law doesn’t include means of remitting that. Removal of that penalty requires not works of the Law, but trust in the promises of God outside of the Law.
I’d like to point out particularly that the sacrifices in the Law are ordained only for unintentional sins. Intentional ones are simply not covered.
Did I contradict that above? I don’t see it.
-Wm
William,
Regarding the Ezekiel passage, I may still have to do some thinking on that. At least you agree that all sin does bring spiritual death and so it must have been included here, right?
As I said before I have been taught all of my life and read in 3-4 commentaries that it was spiritual death spoken of here. So I am not easily convinced other wise!
However, I will have to disagree with what I believe you are saying regarding spiritual death not being really known or spoken of until much later in the OT. Adam and Eve were told that they would die in the day they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now obviously, they didn’t physically die that day and they certainly knew that. What they did experience however, was a complete change in their relationship with God, an alienation from Him, in other words spiritual death. So it seems to me spiritual death was revealed right from the beginning of man’s Biblical history.