Why are some Saved and some Damned?

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 09:13 AM

and so we reach a great contradiction, Joel.

Joel · 07-02-2003, 09:43 AM

In what point?

Bogieman · 07-02-2003, 10:02 AM

God doesn't damn people? Isn't the calvanist position that some are elect and some are damned, not by what they do or don't do, but by God's choosing from the beginning of time? That is why they are elect, God chose them. If He chose them then He also damned others then, before they were ever born and committed the first sin. How then can you say that we damn ourselves when God has already made the decision a long time ago? I am confused. It sounds nice to say that we damn ourselves and not God but I don't see how the calvanist position backs it up. What am I missing?

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 10:28 AM

that is what I am saying. Maybe officially people did the sin, but God created the sin and put it in the heart of the man for him to do it and did not allow that the man should not sin, and then did not allow that he should repent. I'm not trying to catch God in his own law by saying that God sinned. I'm askign why God would pursue such a loop hole if he is infinitely merciful and loving, and why he would want so many to suffer without need.

Travis · 07-02-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

that is what I am saying. Maybe officially people did the sin, but God created the sin and put it in the heart of the man for him to do it and did not allow that the man should not sin, and then did not allow that he should repent. I'm not trying to catch God in his own law by saying that God sinned. I'm askign why God would pursue such a loop hole if he is infinitely merciful and loving, and why he would want so many to suffer without need.

You cannot accuse God of being unmerciful or unloving because such terms are defined by Him. Without God you have no standard of mercy or love and therefore your saying that He is neither is meaningless and simply boils down to your like or dislike of what He has done, which is, of course, totally irrelevant.

Bogieman · 07-02-2003, 11:15 AM

Travis it is not my intention to accuse God of being unmerciful or unloving. Your response is evasive. God defines love and mercy. So what? We get that. I could be wrong but looks to me that some are actually trying to figure this all out, at least I am. It might be profitable to quit claiming things to be meaningless and irrelevant. Dare I say that many might view your opinions as such too? This is a quest for answers not a critique of opinions.

My question is, by your view, ie calvanism, how does one damn himself when before time began he was already condemned? That makes no sense. Saying God chooses who He chooses is fine, but that does not mean that one damns himself. Either say that God chooses who will be damned or that one damns himself. You can not have both.

Travis · 07-02-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogieman

Travis it is not my intention to accuse God of being unmerciful or unloving. Your response is evasive. God defines love and mercy. So what? We get that. I could be wrong but looks to me that some are actually trying to figure this all out, at least I am. It might be profitable to quit claiming things to be meaningless and irrelevant.

But it is meaningless and irrelevant. To accuse God of being merciful and unloving is to say nothing because there is no standard of those virtues outside of Him. There is no measurment to hold Him up to.

Travis · 07-02-2003, 11:28 AM

Also, this is apologetics, not theology. Moved to said forum.

Bogieman · 07-02-2003, 11:32 AM

*awed by profound response*
Ooookay. you wasted two posts on that?
No one is accusing, that I can tell, God of anything. Just trying to see the peramiters of His love and mercy.

Now deal with the other parts of the previous posts please.

Still looks alot like theology to me.

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 11:34 AM

how is it apologetics? I am arguing against calvinist theology by showign that it leads to a conclusion that you have just called "meaningless" Within calvinism, you are forced by God's own logic to call God something he is not, so obviously Calvinism misrepresents God's action, since it is impossible for God's attitude to be anythign but merciful- or else you are saying that God is merciful and that is meaningful no matter what "merciful" means- even if merciful stands for the concept of being unmerciful- in such case, I would not accuse God of being unmerciful, but accuse him of being merciful and still not worship him.

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 12:15 PM

my point is that if you say " God is Merciful" with no standard for merciful except " God " then there is no reason why that is a desirable or worshipable thing- that is unless 2+2=4 makes you want to worship 2+2. In that case, I wouldn't argue with you whether 2+2 was indeed four, I would just say " to each his own". The truth is, however, that we are not arguing whether God is Merciful, so your absurd proof is not necessary. We are assuming God is merciful and finding that the bible authors have misunderstood that quite a bit in the way they have worked out God's " Plan of Salvation " I wonder, if my oppinion about the matter is so meaningless, why theirs is so authoritative. Obviously, since God is " merciful " by definition, there needs be no plan of salvation, and calvinism is as absurd as you think my oppinion is.

Or we could just drop the semantics about the meaning of the word merciful and recognize that by damning millions of people God would not be showing mercy in the slightest bit. Why even create any more than one reprobate to begin with?

To pose the question another way, why select more than one for salvation? You remember the parables of the lost coin and the prodigal son. God gets to reassure himself of his mercy with only one, so why compromise his damning power any more than he needs? It makes him look like a wuss. I thought he was all justice and hellfire.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 07-02-2003, 01:52 PM

Jeff do you want an arminian answer to your dilemna? yes or no. I can do it in a heartbeat if you wish. I will use verses for every point. I think We reach the biggest issue by reducing love and mercy to meaningless terms by defining them by god and God's atributes by them.

There is a standard of Love outside of God, but created by him which is valid. (read Romans 1)

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 02:44 PM

Go on.

Wally · 07-02-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

God doesn't damn people? Isn't the calvanist position that some are elect and some are damned, not by what they do or don't do, but by God's choosing from the beginning of time?

God doesn't damn people. I'm not sure what the calvanist position is but as far as calvinism goes, God not doing anything does count as Him actively damning people.

Quote:

How then can you say that we damn ourselves when God has already made the decision a long time ago? I am confused. It sounds nice to say that we damn ourselves and not God but I don't see how the calvanist position backs it up. What am I missing?

your missing the original sin concept. adam, given the most favorable situation, still freely chose to sin. by adam's sin, we inherited a sinful nature. calvinism fully supports original sin. God's decision to show saving grace to some does not mean that he actively chose to damn some people, He just chose to let some people live the way they would want to live anyway. so by that, we can say that God shows unmerited grace to those He saves and leaves everyone else to do their own thing. thats is where we can say that God chooses to save some, and leaves others to damn themselves.

oo..its calvinism or calvinist, not calvanism or calvanist

Jeff · 07-02-2003, 03:02 PM

bullflop. If original sin did not come from God then where did it come from and why did it get to man?