People Who Believe Hell Are Less Happy

February 27, 2014

Oh trust me when I say that thinking hell is coming your way when you're vulnerable and gullible is already hell in itself. I mean I was a nice kid and all but the whole idea of hell and being ravaged for ever made every little 'sin' I'd ever committed in my life feel five times worse than it really was.

Hell certainly made me unhappy for years to the point where it's never really gone away - after burn.

Of course, Hell as a deterrent is common sense anyway and even though people really are being opportunists and apple-shiners by being good only because they fear hell, it's noting to be ashamed of really because who wants to burn forever?

February 27, 2014

Hi Marcus,

As a Calvinist (in the broadest sense of the term - it's not unfair to say that I also believe in the power of free will, despite the fact that I believe God has chosen the Elect) I'd say the answer revolves around WHY we were created. Ultimately, the universe, us in it, and humanity are designed to glorify God (biblically speaking, at least - non-Christians will naturally disagree with this statement). Our very existence is a testament to God's glory. So with that in mind, those who turn to God (and who in turn were called as the Elect by God) should live to glorify God. Jesus lived and died to glorify God. Through Jesus' death are the Elect saved.

It may at first sound contradictory that we should "choose" to glorify God, if God has already predestined us. How can we choose? This is why I'm not a strict Calvinist, because I cannot ignore the places in the Bible where we are called to choose God. But neither can I ignore the places where the Bible says that God called us (and if we are called, can a mere man or woman resist the will of God)?

I think my views are best described in the following video (an excerpt from the first Lord of the Rings film). You can watch the whole of it if you like, but the part I'm thinking of starts at the 1:50 time stamp:

[media=]

[/media]
Frodo tells Gandalf that he wishes that the Ring had never come to him, and Gandalf's reply is, in my opinion, profound. He replies "so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you". And then in the very next sentence, he continues with "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought". In two sentences Gandalf's advocated both predestination and free will, and it made complete sense within its context. I see salvation the same way. We have choices to make, and these are important things that we do freely by choice. But at the same time, these things are meant to happen, and we can get comfort and encouragement in knowing that God has it all planned out. I have faith that in a realm outside of Time/Space that predestination and free will can and does exist together, hand-in-hand.

I'm curious if I can ask a question in return of you? What are your thoughts on Romans 9:10-24? How do you understand this passage as it stands in regards to God's sovereign will and our free choice?

7

Interesting post.

Correct me if I'm wrong because the whole Free Will - Predestination going hand in hand confuses me at times but am I picking up that what has been decided already will happen but that up until that point you have a choice to do whatever?

So for example, a man is going to the shops to buy bread. He WILL be going to the shop but can choose a number of routes but will ultimately end up at the shop anyway.

As for Romans 9:10-24, it would appear that god sets out our lives for us before we are even born and can do as he pleases because He is god and can do no right or wrong. I'm guessing that with god there is no good or bad because he exists out of human judgement (The potter holding domain over the clay and choosing whether to make them honorable or dishonorable?). So if god creates someone with the intention that they will ultimately be damned then so be it?

February 27, 2014

To address the OP, the first time I ever heard the message of Christ, I was 12 years old and I'd gone to a camp run by a retired preacher. He was old-school. Fire and brimstone to the max. He painted this scary idea of hell, and within the course of this camp, I "converted". Why? Simple reason - what if the bus crashed on the way home, I don't want to go to that scary place! My conversion lasted mere weeks. While I occasionally went to a few Christian youth groups throughout my High School years, it's fair to say I went to meet the girls, not learn about God. The Bible Studies at these youth groups were pretty quiet affairs, not the fire and brimstone horror that I'd heard previously.

Somewhere along the lines, and I can't remember exactly when, I'd heard another message of Christ. It promoted a joyous place called "heaven", and if we turn we can go to this lovely place. It was still several years (I converted when I was 19) but that message of Christ made so much more sense than the message I heard as a 12 year old.

I couldn't imagine living my life through fear of hell. It'd wreck me. Unfortunately some Christians do like to use this tactic. I don't think it's the tactic Jesus wants people to use, it sends a poor message, and a poorer reason for converting. The promise of heaven, as an evangelistic tactic, is probably only slightly better actually. I think God just wants us to love him because of who he is, not because we get a reward from him. That puts us on the level of a dog, taking a piece of meat from the master for doing what we're supposed to. At the same time, belief in heaven was probably a contributing factor in my decision to convert (not a major factor, but a factor nonetheless). But as the years have gone by I've moved past that and feel that worshipping God for promised reward is not really a right way to worship.

But I digress. My point initially in writing this was to say that it's not surprising that those who have an unhealthy obsession with hell are generally less happy than other people.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Paranoid Android

February 27, 2014

7

Interesting post.

Correct me if I'm wrong because the whole Free Will - Predestination going hand in hand confuses me at times but am I picking up that what has been decided already will happen but that up until that point you have a choice to do whatever?

So for example, a man is going to the shops to buy bread. He WILL be going to the shop but can choose a number of routes but will ultimately end up at the shop anyway.

That's one way of looking at it. I'm honestly not sure what level of "control" God has over every action we make. Did he predestine the destination only (the path we take is our own), or is the route also calculated? On a parallel note, I'm not even sure it's correct to think of it in terms of "control". I think of it as a chicken-egg scenario. God chose us (and therefore we are predestined), and we chose God (and therefore had our own free will). Which came first? Or did they exist together in some collaborative effort between the two, both us and God choosing together????

Ultimately, I don't actually think it matters. What matters is that we are here, now, on this earth, and we have a choice to make (well, many choices). It might be fun to argue on an intellectual level as to how God may or may not influence our lives, but in a practical sense, the choices we make are ours to make, and we have to live with whatever choices we do make.

As for Romans 9:10-24, it would appear that god sets out our lives for us before we are even born and can do as he pleases because He is god and can do no right or wrong. I'm guessing that with god there is no good or bad because he exists out of human judgement (The potter holding domain over the clay and choosing whether to make them honorable or dishonorable?). So if god creates someone with the intention that they will ultimately be damned then so be it?

It's a little more complicated than you suggest, but that's a fair summary. The person created for destruction (not damnation) is there to show God's glory to those who are prepared for salvation. Which is ultimately what I mentioned before was the reason for God creating our universe - for his glory. It's not a matter of God being "good" or "bad", that's not really implicated in the text.

February 27, 2014

That's one way of looking at it. I'm honestly not sure what level of "control" God has over every action we make. Did he predestine the destination only (the path we take is our own), or is the route also calculated? On a parallel note, I'm not even sure it's correct to think of it in terms of "control". I think of it as a chicken-egg scenario. God chose us (and therefore we are predestined), and we chose God (and therefore had our own free will). Which came first? Or did they exist together in some collaborative effort between the two, both us and God choosing together????

Ultimately, I don't actually think it matters. What matters is that we are here, now, on this earth, and we have a choice to make (well, many choices). It might be fun to argue on an intellectual level as to how God may or may not influence our lives, but in a practical sense, the choices we make are ours to make, and we have to live with whatever choices we do make.

It's a little more complicated than you suggest, but that's a fair summary. The person created for destruction (not damnation) is there to show God's glory to those who are prepared for salvation. Which is ultimately what I mentioned before was the reason for God creating our universe - for his glory. It's not a matter of God being "good" or "bad", that's not really implicated in the text.

From the perspective of other humans, some being created for destruction would seem cruel. Then again, god can do what He please and if it's done by god, it's justifiable, or so I am picking up.

Would it be correct to say that god is not 'fair' in human terms? Also, by Destrustion as opposed to 'Damnation', would it still mean separation from god and 'heaven'?

February 27, 2014

I was always told when I was practicing Christianity that hell was on earth, and our lives here were considered 'hell', proportionate to how close we were with God. The farther away from God, the more 'hellish' your existence, because you were living outside the glory of God.

The concept of an actual hell never made much sense to me. You have a God that's supposed to be merciful, who gives us a very brief life and then condems you to an eternity of suffering if you do x, y, or z. It just never added up for me personally.

Seems like if you really believed that condemnation to such a place was possible that would color everything in your life.

A no brainer, to me, that it would make you more depressed.

That's an insane view of hell. Like, those born into poverty and suffering are less close to god than someone born into luxury thanks to rich parents.

Sounds like whatever Church you went to was run by those Televangelists who needed an excuse as to why they were so wealthy and had nice things compared to the masses.

February 27, 2014

From the perspective of other humans, some being created for destruction would seem cruel. Then again, god can do what He please and if it's done by god, it's justifiable, or so I am picking up.

Would it be correct to say that god is not 'fair' in human terms? Also, by Destrustion as opposed to 'Damnation', would it still mean separation from god and 'heaven'?

I'm an "annihilationist". It's a view of those who don't reach heaven that they simply cease to exist. I don't think this is problematic, many (maybe even most, if not quite all) atheists believe that when you're dead that's it, no second life, no reincarnation, nothing. For lack of a better term, "worm food". Many atheists get great comfort out of that view. For them, each day is special and unique, and will never come again. Each day is therefore worth savouring, to great extent.

This is what I believe happens to those who are "destined for destruction". They die and that's that, they're dead and rotting in the ground. So yes, those destined for destruction are separated from God and heaven. But I don't think it's an unfair conclusion to their life. They aren't being tortured eternally for what they did. It's just an end of existence.

I don't know what you personally believe about the afterlife, but if an atheist told you that you were going to become worm food one day, I doubt you'll find that cruel. So when I say the exact same thing if you don't happen to be part of the elect, then is that very different?

February 27, 2014

I'm an "annihilationist". It's a view of those who don't reach heaven that they simply cease to exist. I don't think this is problematic, many (maybe even most, if not quite all) atheists believe that when you're dead that's it, no second life, no reincarnation, nothing. For lack of a better term, "worm food". Many atheists get great comfort out of that view. For them, each day is special and unique, and will never come again. Each day is therefore worth savouring, to great extent.

This is what I believe happens to those who are "destined for destruction". They die and that's that, they're dead and rotting in the ground. So yes, those destined for destruction are separated from God and heaven. But I don't think it's an unfair conclusion to their life. They aren't being tortured eternally for what they did. It's just an end of existence.

I don't know what you personally believe about the afterlife, but if an atheist told you that you were going to become worm food one day, I doubt you'll find that cruel. So when I say the exact same thing if you don't happen to be part of the elect, then is that very different?

I read your essay on Hell a while back and your views as an annihilationist - made sense to me.

If those chosen for destruction do indeed become worm food then that's fine, because I'm hoping for that myself actually and would find great comfort in being sure that there was nothing coming after it all. I see it as sleeping forever without dreaming which is the best part of the day I find because it's pure peace.

If god is merciful then it would make sense to have those set for destruction vanish into nothing. It's not like they'll care when they're gone anyway; like I mentioned above, every worry you have goes away when you sleep.

February 27, 2014

The ancient Egyptian religion had an Underworld (a personification of where the Sun went at

night) called "Duat".This was a place of Judgement for the dead.The Weighing of the Heart

against a feather of Ma'at the Goddess of truth and justice.(the feather represents the spirit

world of air.)There was a lake of fire with fire demons to taunt the wicked, and renew the boat

of Ra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duat

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Lake_of_fire

In Islam Hell is for the nonbeliever where a partial believer like a Christian has a chance for purity, but the Atheist, or Polytheist (note that Muslims consider Christians as a form of Polytheist) get humiliated forever.Some Muslims will see "The Fire" if they were lazy with prayers for example.The wicked nonbeliever will have a burning liquid poured on their skin till burned off, then a new skin is put on, and repeated.

Here is Dr. Robert M Price talking about the types of Hell if anyone is interested?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTZiuVLAaI[/media]

Edited February 27, 2014 by davros of skaro

February 27, 2014

That's an insane view of hell. Like, those born into poverty and suffering are less close to god than someone born into luxury thanks to rich parents.

Sounds like whatever Church you went to was run by those Televangelists who needed an excuse as to why they were so wealthy and had nice things compared to the masses.

Yeah, it was part of the reason I deconverted. The mindset was..."this is the only path, no other path is valid." I know that's not true. And I just did enough research to understand the origins of the bible. Nothing I found convinced me it was 'divine' in nature.

February 27, 2014

Interesting, interesting. It sounds like you have quite an ability. I've always been a bit wary of psychics, but that is because there are so many frauds out there. It disgusts me how they use grief to make a profit. But I certainly acknowledge that some people really do possess psychic ability. I'm sure experiences such as this have helped to shape your beliefs? It seems only natural that it would. I've had personal experiences with the paranormal and ghosts in my investigations; I've heard disembodied voices when I'm the only person in the room, I've captured visual and auditory evidence...but nothing like what you describe. I clearly do not have any psychic ability LOL. The only close thing I have to it would be that I frequently have lucid dreams and I've also had a number of prophetic dreams that came true. Other than that, my third eye is mostly closed!

I find your description of the Place of Waiting to be quite intriguing. Tibetan Buddhists believe in a Bardo state, a place of waiting in between incarnations. Muslims believe that the dead are raised in spirit but exist in a sort of limbo, often at their own graves, waiting for the end of time. And of course Catholics have purgatory. This is to say nothing of examples we find in ancient mythology. This is why I tend towards some sort of belief in a Purgatory.

Tibetan Buddhists also have an interesting explanation for ghosts, that, as a paranormal investigator I am inclined to agree with. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it talks about Hungry Ghosts; those who have strong attachments and desires end up becoming bound to this plane because of those attachments and desires. And like Catholics, they believe in strong rituals and prayers to prevent this from happening and preventing a soul from becoming trapped in the Bardo.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I sincerely appreciate it. I'm studying to become a pastor so this means a lot to me! I respect people's views so I want to be real, not come off as sounding preachy..

To me, if you charge money for your gifts, you are a charlatan. I know this isn't neccessarily true in every case, but why in the world would you try to make money off a gift? If it was given as a gift, it should be given to others as a gift.

I hate the word psychic, because that denotes that you know the future. I don't. I am more of a conduit. It comes to me and then through me. I also believe that every single human being has the capability, it just depends on the physical state of the body, your mindset, and your willingness to surrender to it. This was not a gift that was cultivated on my part, it was thrust upon me. I didn't want it. I've just learned to live with it.

As far as the Place of Waiting goes, I don't interpret it as a punishment, at least that is not how it comes across. It's more of a holding place, or somewhere for souls to 'hang out'. Like a vessel.

Souls that stay here, it's pretty much as you described, they are either attached to the location, or they are in denial of their death. Some of them feel more comfortable staying where they were when they died, vs. going forward, either to reincarnate or stay at the Place of Waiting. I find that people that died before their time or very violently, linger.

Good luck on becoming a pastor; that's a big job!! You seem to have the demeanor for it.

February 27, 2014

I'm an "annihilationist". It's a view of those who don't reach heaven that they simply cease to exist. I don't think this is problematic, many (maybe even most, if not quite all) atheists believe that when you're dead that's it, no second life, no reincarnation, nothing. For lack of a better term, "worm food". Many atheists get great comfort out of that view. For them, each day is special and unique, and will never come again. Each day is therefore worth savouring, to great extent.

This is what I believe happens to those who are "destined for destruction". They die and that's that, they're dead and rotting in the ground. So yes, those destined for destruction are separated from God and heaven. But I don't think it's an unfair conclusion to their life. They aren't being tortured eternally for what they did. It's just an end of existence.

I don't know what you personally believe about the afterlife, but if an atheist told you that you were going to become worm food one day, I doubt you'll find that cruel. So when I say the exact same thing if you don't happen to be part of the elect, then is that very different?

The problem with that is, largely that there aren't christians and atheists. There are many more people who aren't christian, yet still believe in some form of afterlife (far more than there are atheists). I don't see how you can be comfortable with the idea that all non-christians will be destroyed, seeming yusing the logical that 'oh well it's what atheists believe' even though the majority condemned such a way would NOT believe that way. I fail to see, also, why a 'great and loving' god would not use something else as an option. It just seems... distasteful that such a loving entity would just kill everyone off.

As to being 'worm food', well, the afterlife is unsubstaniated. However we all WILL become 'worm food' regardless of if you're atheist, christian, pagan etc. So for an atheist to say that, well they know that's what'll eventually happened to them with fairly accurate certainty.

I don't see why you can't enjoy each day as it come anyway. Every day IS special and unique and won't come again. I have to question why you as a believer don't enjoy life on a day today basis.

February 27, 2014

Yeah, it was part of the reason I deconverted. The mindset was..."this is the only path, no other path is valid." I know that's not true. And I just did enough research to understand the origins of the bible. Nothing I found convinced me it was 'divine' in nature.

You and I followed the same path, in that respect. When every religion claims to be the one true religion, what gives Christianity the edge?

...after exhaustive searching, I still don't have a definitive answer. :unsure2:

There are many paths to God - to assume that any one group of people has ALL the answers is not being truly objective, imho.

February 27, 2014

You and I followed the same path, in that respect. When every religion claims to be the one true religion, what gives Christianity the edge?

...after exhaustive searching, I still don't have a definitive answer.

There are many paths to God - to assume that any one group of people has ALL the answers is not being truly objective, imho.

I had a friend who was Pagan; one of the mantras that he repeated was 'all paths are valid'. When I asked him to expand on that he basically told me that it's not his place to tell someone that they are going about their journey through life in the wrong way. That no matter what we do, we all end up the same; deceased at the end.

He said all souls have their own lessons to learn and that if we all walked the same road, we wouldn't learn anything. Variety in life fosters variety of experience.

I agree with him. While I don't practice Christianity anymore, I don't knock anyone who does. My only thing is....research where and how the bible came together, understand it's orgins, and what you are following. Don't follow blindly. Eyes wide open, please.

That being said, I do feel it's one of the most damaging things to happen to humanity in the last 2000 years. In the gospel of St. Thomas, Jesus says,

Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.

*edit for link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/thomas-scholars.html

What has happened?

That's where I'm at.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Awake2Chaos

February 27, 2014

He said all souls have their own lessons to learn and that if we all walked the same road, we wouldn't learn anything. Variety in life fosters variety of experience.

That is profound and beautiful...I like it. Looking into the origins of the Bible was mostly the final nail in the coffin for me. Going deeper, it seems that every time I find the "source of the stream", there's another, even older religion that subsequent religions borrowed concepts and characters from.

February 28, 2014

Paranoid Android,

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post #25. It was excellent. To give it the treatment it deserves, please allow me to respond to it point by point. Forgive me if it ends up being a longer post as a result.

To others who view or read it, I don't want it to seem like this is an intense debate or "one is right and one is wrong" sort of thing as many of us sometimes do. I see this as more like having a conversation with an old friend on the patio while smoking a cigar. I hope I do not come off as sounding hostile to Calvinism; ultimately I am not. Wherein we differ, it is only on the finer points; a brother or sister in Christ is still just that; regardless of such differences. In fact, I should note that my Great Grandfather was a Presbyterian minister. On to the heart of the matter:

Our very existence is a testament to God's glory. So with that in mind, those who turn to God (and who in turn were called as the Elect by God) should live to glorify God.

I agree with this statement completely. I feel that this is more or less why sin entered into the world; that humanity has diverted from its true purpose in creation; we have glorified the self over God. Our world is broken as a result of this. This is very true in modern society in a culture that is materialistic and obsessed with possessions. As Pastor Tim Keller wrote, we have created our own idols, made gods of things that cannot replace our need for the one true God.

Jesus lived and died to glorify God. Through Jesus' death are the Elect saved.

I disagree with this, however. First, did He die to glorify God or to save mankind? I personally feel that such a view detracts from His mission of redemption, of the Second Adam reversing the sin of the first. He glorifies God through His mission of salvation. Second, how do we get around the idea that Jesus died for ALL of mankind; not just a chosen few? To quote John Wesley: "Take one of these who are supposed not to be elected, one whom God hath not chosen unto life and salvation. Can this man be saved from sin and hell? You answer 'no.' Why not? 'Because he is not elected. Because God hath unchangeably decreed to save so many souls and no more, and he is not of that number." As I mentioned in my previous post, this is a vast reductionism of the Cross because it was already determined who these elect are. So even though the Bible says He shed His blood for all of mankind, we have to back up, cry foul, and say no, He only died for a few. How do we get around that He wills that "none should perish but all should come to repentance" (2: Peter 3:9). It is my opinion that God predestines the PROCESS by which we are saved (the Cross) but NOT who is elect and who isn't.

How can we choose? This is why I'm not a strict Calvinist, because I cannot ignore the places in the Bible where we are called to choose God. But neither can I ignore the places where the Bible says that God called us (and if we are called, can a mere man or woman resist the will of God)?

Nor am I a strict Arminian, which I will demonstrate in a moment. It would appear that yes, one can resist the will of God. I think of the Pharaoh in Exodus; and even Jonah. Moses told Pharaoh time and time again to free the Israelites; but his heart was hardened against the will of God and it resulted in his destruction. Jonah was called to go to Nineveh, but initially he resists and sails in the OPPOSITE direction. For me that is a theological point. He has the capacity to choose and to resist the will of God, which he does. But God brings him back into proper alignment and he completes his mission. Now I know you could immediately come back and say it was predestined that Jonah would ultimately do it; but is it? Like I said before, foreknowledge isn't the same as predestination. God saw the outcome and the other possible outcomes, but I think Jonah chose to complete his mission. From the way the texts read, it does not sound at all like he only had the illusion of choice.

Frodo tells Gandalf that he wishes that the Ring had never come to him, and Gandalf's reply is, in my opinion, profound. He replies "so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you". And then in the very next sentence, he continues with "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought". In two sentences Gandalf's advocated both predestination and free will, and it made complete sense within its context. I see salvation the same way. We have choices to make, and these are important things that we do freely by choice. But at the same time, these things are meant to happen, and we can get comfort and encouragement in knowing that God has it all planned out. I have faith that in a realm outside of Time/Space that predestination and free will can and does exist together, hand-in-hand.

This was actually one of my favorite scenes in the LOTR trilogy, if not my favorite. I remember when I saw it for the first time it actually brought tears to my eyes. Now here is the point where I am no longer a strict Arminian. We are not as different theologically as it might appear at a glance. I actually agree with you here. This was both an excellent point and an excellent analogy. I too believe that certain events in our lives are destined to happen; but that we have the freedom of choice on how to respond to such an event. Believe it or not, I actually got into a slight disagreement with a Methodist pastor over this. I was talking about a circumstance in my own life and I said "God had this happen to me because..." and the pastor tried to correct me by saying that "no, the circumstance happened and you responded by..." and I said "no, it was MEANT to happen to me because..." It was not chance. It happened to me for a reason. That reason was how I responded to it; it made me a better Christian and a better person.

Forgive me for taking this to a lofty plateau; but I have to wax philosophically. I agree to a certain extent with the concept of destiny; BUT NOT FATE. I know that some use the two terms interchangeably, but this is incorrect; the two are vastly different. This is where I differ with 'hard' Calvinism; what you are talking about here PA is not so bad, I actually agree with this to the point where you could in turn call me a 'soft' Arminian. I see the difference as this: fate is a preordained course of events that will occur IN SPITE of my actions. Let's look at this in terms of the Lord of the Rings and that scene. The way I view fate is that it is a preordained course of events that will occur in spite of my actions; I am given the ring and I appear to have the choice of whether I will destroy it or not, but in the end fate has decreed that I will destroy it; thus I am a prisoner of and to fate. By contrast, I see destiny as a course of predetermined events that I actively shape. Like in the case of Frodo, again, you are given the ring and this was predetermined; but I have the real choice to destroy it or not, and that will be my fate; but that aspect is not written or foreordained. The difference is my actions shape the end result, or fate. I don't see the future as an inevitability; just because God foreknows that Frodo will destroy the ring does not mean He has preordained the end result; but has merely destined him to possess the ring, which is exactly what Gandalf is saying to him. This is why I cannot agree with the strictest form of Calvinism because I see it as a form of fatalism!! It has more in common with Greco-Roman philosophy (like the Stoics) than it does with the hope of Jesus Christ. If there is a such thing as a preordained elect and reprobate, than I am a prisoner of fate. To quote John Wesley again: "How shall God in justice judge the world, if there be any decree of reprobation? On this supposition, what should those on the left hand be condemned for? For their having done evil? They could not help it. Shall the Just, the Holy one of Israel adjudge millions of men to everlasting pain solely because their blood moved in their veins? That is, in plain terms, for not having that grace which God had decreed they should never have! O strange justice! What a picture do you draw of the Judge of all the earth!" But I do agree with you that some events happen in our lives are predetermined; parting ways with the strictest Arminians. Like I said, theologically we aren't as different as it might first appear.

On Romans 9:

I doubt I can give you a full exegete of the text here because I've probably already rambled on long enough; but we can certainly continue the discussion further. For now, let me highlight just a few things...

First, I see his talking about election not as in an 'elect' and a 'reprobate' but as electing, or giving a divine appointment of particular men to do particular work in the world. You and I would both refer to it as a calling, or the call. I do not see it as a connection to an eternal state of being. As John Wesley pointed out, even Judas was 'elected' or called to do something. This also explains the passage about Pharaoh. God was bringing to the surface what was already there; not controlling him like a puppet. We also have to consider In Romans, particularly Chapter 9, Paul is explaining to the Jews how God could accept the Gentiles and reject part of the nation of Israel. This was a hard concept for God's “Chosen People.” So Romans 9 is dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, and not all of humanity. At least that's the way I see it. For example, I see the forming of the clay as raising up Israel to produce the Messiah. Forgive me, but let me again quote Wesley: "In this chapter St. Paul, after strongly declaring his love and esteem for them [the Jews/Israel], sets himself to answer the grand objection of his

countrymen; namely, that the rejection of the Jews and reception of the gentiles was contrary to the word of God. That he had not here the least

thought of personal election or reprobation is manifest,

1. Because it lay quite wide of his design, which was this, to show that God's rejecting the Jews and receiving the gentiles was consistent

with his word

2. Because such a doctrine would not only have had no tendency to convince, but would have evidently tended to harden, the Jews;

3. Because when he sums up his argument in the close of the chapter, he has not one word, or the least intimation, about it."

I should probably close here, but as I said, feel free to continue this conversation...

February 28, 2014

I'm an "annihilationist". It's a view of those who don't reach heaven that they simply cease to exist. I don't think this is problematic, many (maybe even most, if not quite all) atheists believe that when you're dead that's it, no second life, no reincarnation, nothing.

I agree that is a huge improvement and is far less problematic. I do think what goes on here on Earth is problematic for a good and loving God, but removing eternal punishment, which nothing by definition can be worse than, in exchange for oblivion (essentially eternal peace) greatly changes his character in my book.

Just curious and I honestly do not ask to provoke or judge, but if the Bible stated clearly and Jesus reinforced that non-believers went to a traditional hell, do you think it would matter in any significant way as far as what you believe? I actually expect the answer would be essentially no, at best it would be another mystery of faith that you can't rationally understand the goodness of, since God is beyond us, at least based on what I've heard from Christians who are not annihilationists.

February 28, 2014

The problem with that is, largely that there aren't christians and atheists. There are many more people who aren't christian, yet still believe in some form of afterlife (far more than there are atheists). I don't see how you can be comfortable with the idea that all non-christians will be destroyed, seeming yusing the logical that 'oh well it's what atheists believe' even though the majority condemned such a way would NOT believe that way. I fail to see, also, why a 'great and loving' god would not use something else as an option. It just seems... distasteful that such a loving entity would just kill everyone off.

As to being 'worm food', well, the afterlife is unsubstaniated. However we all WILL become 'worm food' regardless of if you're atheist, christian, pagan etc. So for an atheist to say that, well they know that's what'll eventually happened to them with fairly accurate certainty.

So if an atheist tells a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Wiccan or any other belief system that they are wasting their time, that when they're dead they're dead, they won't be coming back, reincarnating, resurrecting, merging with Brahman, or any other such thing, it's ok for them to hold that belief? And if that's what happens, then anyone who does receive this fate won't be complaining about because they won't exist to complain about it. I don't find this view problematic.

I don't see why you can't enjoy each day as it come anyway. Every day IS special and unique and won't come again. I have to question why you as a believer don't enjoy life on a day today basis.

I didn't say I don't enjoy life. What I said was that no matter what else happens, an atheist who believes this is all there is will find it that much more special. I can have the greatest day of my life, but somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind is the thought that no matter how good this day is, it will be so much better in heaven. An atheist has no such belief. This day is the only one of its kind, and could very well be the last day ever for them. That ramps up the whole thing.

To use an extreme example, let's say you or I was ten years old. Our parents have told us they're taking us to see the new Shrek film. Yay!!!!! We're so excited, it's going to be awesome. We both go and watch the film, it's a perfect film, everything about it was fantastic. But my parents told me something else that your parents didn't tell you. Tomorrow we're going to see the Wiggles! The biggest children's group of all time, and I'll be seeing it tomorrow night.

How much enjoyment will I get out of Shrek tonight, if I know the Wiggles are on tomorrow? How much enjoyment will you get out of Shrek, if you don't know about the Wiggles concert?

It's an extreme example because the Wiggles is such a close time from now (tomorrow night), so any kid in their right mind would probably be distracted totally from the movie and maybe not even remember it because they're thinking ahead too much. For me (back to real life, now), heaven is ahead - somewhere. Hopefully not tomorrow night, there's a lot I do want to do before I die. But somewhere ahead, many years perhaps, there's a proverbial Wiggles concert in the sky that's just waiting there. Enjoying each day as it comes is great, and I do love each day, but someone who's not waiting for that promised Wiggles concert may just find it that tiny bit extra special. Take my meaning?

February 28, 2014

Paranoid Android,

I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post #25. It was excellent.

Thank you, Marcus. I'm not certain the post gave full credit to what Calvinism is, but it addressed the matter sufficiently for my approach. It seems we are more similar in belief than perhaps is indicated by our avowed Calvinist/Arminianian position. With that said, I'd like to address some of your points and where I may differ in approach to you:

I disagree with this, however. First, did He die to glorify God or to save mankind? I personally feel that such a view detracts from His mission of redemption, of the Second Adam reversing the sin of the first. He glorifies God through His mission of salvation. Second, how do we get around the idea that Jesus died for ALL of mankind; not just a chosen few?

I'll agree with that. Jesus did die for our redemption. But in the process of doing such, he was following God's will and thus glorifying God.

To quote John Wesley: "Take one of these who are supposed not to be elected, one whom God hath not chosen unto life and salvation. Can this man be saved from sin and hell? You answer 'no.' Why not? 'Because he is not elected. Because God hath unchangeably decreed to save so many souls and no more, and he is not of that number."

The problem with Wesley's position here, in my estimation, is that we cannot know who is saved and who is not. Wesley is in fact making himself God the Judge, saying that someone is not part of the elect. God knows the Elect, but we do not, therefore we should approach everyone as if they are potentially of the Elect. The moment we say "this man/woman cannot be saved" is the moment we decree that God has predestined a person for destruction.

That doesn't mean we need to preach at people 24/7, thump them with Bibles, and the like. As St Francis of Assisi famously said, "preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words". Or in other words, show God's love through your actions, your kindness and compassion and love for fellow man.

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is a vast reductionism of the Cross because it was already determined who these elect are. So even though the Bible says He shed His blood for all of mankind, we have to back up, cry foul, and say no, He only died for a few. How do we get around that He wills that "none should perish but all should come to repentance" (2: Peter 3:9). It is my opinion that God predestines the PROCESS by which we are saved (the Cross) but NOT who is elect and who isn't.

This falls back on my earlier comments as to not being a strict Calvinist (or a "hard" Calvinist, as you used the term). I don't believe it's solely God's sovereign will. In a different realm where time and space are meaningless, who's to say that what we choose and what God chooses are not the same thing. In this physical world, we choose what actions we take, and those actions have very real consequences. I don't think God's sovereign will guiding this world reduces the power of the Cross in any way.

Nor am I a strict Arminian, which I will demonstrate in a moment. It would appear that yes, one can resist the will of God. I think of the Pharaoh in Exodus; and even Jonah. Moses told Pharaoh time and time again to free the Israelites; but his heart was hardened against the will of God and it resulted in his destruction. Jonah was called to go to Nineveh, but initially he resists and sails in the OPPOSITE direction. For me that is a theological point. He has the capacity to choose and to resist the will of God, which he does. But God brings him back into proper alignment and he completes his mission. Now I know you could immediately come back and say it was predestined that Jonah would ultimately do it; but is it? Like I said before, foreknowledge isn't the same as predestination. God saw the outcome and the other possible outcomes, but I think Jonah chose to complete his mission. From the way the texts read, it does not sound at all like he only had the illusion of choice.

I'd actually argue that both situations show that no one can resist God's will. In the case of Pharaoh, God actually hardened Pharaoh's heart (at other points, Pharaoh hardens his own heart, however - hence my earlier comment about free will and predestination both existing, for Pharaoh hardened his heart by his own choice, and God also hardened Pharaoh's heart). Jonah does attempt to resist God's Will. And what happens, but God sends a tempest on the boat to get him to jump out, to be swallowed by a great fish and then vomited up on land where he's once again told to go to Nineveh. The text doesn't say where the fish vomited him up, just on "dry ground" but I suspect the implication is that he was about as close as you can get to Nineveh from the sea (though if it was a magical fish that was able to swim from saltwater to freshwater, maybe even right on the doorstep of the town, in the Tigris River

). Either way, Jonah wasn't running a second time, he knew God had the wood on him.

In terms of salvation, those whom God has called have as much chance of saying no as Jonah did - none at all!

This was actually one of my favorite scenes in the LOTR trilogy, if not my favorite. I remember when I saw it for the first time it actually brought tears to my eyes. Now here is the point where I am no longer a strict Arminian. We are not as different theologically as it might appear at a glance. I actually agree with you here. This was both an excellent point and an excellent analogy. I too believe that certain events in our lives are destined to happen; but that we have the freedom of choice on how to respond to such an event. Believe it or not, I actually got into a slight disagreement with a Methodist pastor over this. I was talking about a circumstance in my own life and I said "God had this happen to me because..." and the pastor tried to correct me by saying that "no, the circumstance happened and you responded by..." and I said "no, it was MEANT to happen to me because..." It was not chance. It happened to me for a reason. That reason was how I responded to it; it made me a better Christian and a better person.

Forgive me for taking this to a lofty plateau; but I have to wax philosophically. I agree to a certain extent with the concept of destiny; BUT NOT FATE. I know that some use the two terms interchangeably, but this is incorrect; the two are vastly different. This is where I differ with 'hard' Calvinism; what you are talking about here PA is not so bad, I actually agree with this to the point where you could in turn call me a 'soft' Arminian. I see the difference as this: fate is a preordained course of events that will occur IN SPITE of my actions. Let's look at this in terms of the Lord of the Rings and that scene. The way I view fate is that it is a preordained course of events that will occur in spite of my actions; I am given the ring and I appear to have the choice of whether I will destroy it or not, but in the end fate has decreed that I will destroy it; thus I am a prisoner of and to fate. By contrast, I see destiny as a course of predetermined events that I actively shape. Like in the case of Frodo, again, you are given the ring and this was predetermined; but I have the real choice to destroy it or not, and that will be my fate; but that aspect is not written or foreordained. The difference is my actions shape the end result, or fate. I don't see the future as an inevitability; just because God foreknows that Frodo will destroy the ring does not mean He has preordained the end result; but has merely destined him to possess the ring, which is exactly what Gandalf is saying to him. This is why I cannot agree with the strictest form of Calvinism because I see it as a form of fatalism!! It has more in common with Greco-Roman philosophy (like the Stoics) than it does with the hope of Jesus Christ. If there is a such thing as a preordained elect and reprobate, than I am a prisoner of fate. To quote John Wesley again: "How shall God in justice judge the world, if there be any decree of reprobation? On this supposition, what should those on the left hand be condemned for? For their having done evil? They could not help it. Shall the Just, the Holy one of Israel adjudge millions of men to everlasting pain solely because their blood moved in their veins? That is, in plain terms, for not having that grace which God had decreed they should never have! O strange justice! What a picture do you draw of the Judge of all the earth!" But I do agree with you that some events happen in our lives are predetermined; parting ways with the strictest Arminians. Like I said, theologically we aren't as different as it might first appear.

I'm perhaps willing to agree to an extent with your differentiation between fate and destiny. But not much, and allow me to expand on that. I'll borrow an analogy once presented by a former member of UM. Imagine two peanuts sitting on two different conveyor belts on a factory floor. These peanuts may have the choice to move left or right or backwards or forwards, or do anything while on that conveyor belt. But ultimately, the destination of both nuts is already decided - the conveyor belt only goes one place, and neither peanut can do anything to change it. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. God's two conveyor belts are much more sophisticated than the peanut analogy, but the bigger question is - who decided which conveyor belt to get on? God, or us, or both?

But to be honest, I'm not sure I actually agree with this analogy. I honestly don't know what level of sovereignty God has over every moment of our lives, nor do I think it really anything but an intellectual argument. In practice we all have our choices to make, and we all must live with the consequences.

On the matter of your second Wesley quote:

"How shall God in justice judge the world, if there be any decree of reprobation? On this supposition, what should those on the left hand be condemned for? For their having done evil? They could not help it. Shall the Just, the Holy one of Israel adjudge millions of men to everlasting pain solely because their blood moved in their veins? That is, in plain terms, for not having that grace which God had decreed they should never have! O strange justice! What a picture do you draw of the Judge of all the earth!"

I think Paul would answer with "who are you, O man, to talk back to God". This may have been a bigger issue for Wesley than it is for me because Wesley believed in everlasting pain and torture, while I believe the dead are dead, and the dead know nothing.

On Romans 9:

I doubt I can give you a full exegete of the text here because I've probably already rambled on long enough; but we can certainly continue the discussion further. For now, let me highlight just a few things...

First, I see his talking about election not as in an 'elect' and a 'reprobate' but as electing, or giving a divine appointment of particular men to do particular work in the world. You and I would both refer to it as a calling, or the call. I do not see it as a connection to an eternal state of being. As John Wesley pointed out, even Judas was 'elected' or called to do something. This also explains the passage about Pharaoh. God was bringing to the surface what was already there; not controlling him like a puppet. We also have to consider In Romans, particularly Chapter 9, Paul is explaining to the Jews how God could accept the Gentiles and reject part of the nation of Israel. This was a hard concept for God's “Chosen People.” So Romans 9 is dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, and not all of humanity. At least that's the way I see it. For example, I see the forming of the clay as raising up Israel to produce the Messiah. Forgive me, but let me again quote Wesley: "In this chapter St. Paul, after strongly declaring his love and esteem for them [the Jews/Israel], sets himself to answer the grand objection of his

countrymen; namely, that the rejection of the Jews and reception of the gentiles was contrary to the word of God. That he had not here the least

thought of personal election or reprobation is manifest,

1. Because it lay quite wide of his design, which was this, to show that God's rejecting the Jews and receiving the gentiles was consistent

with his word

2. Because such a doctrine would not only have had no tendency to convince, but would have evidently tended to harden, the Jews;

3. Because when he sums up his argument in the close of the chapter, he has not one word, or the least intimation, about it."

I should probably close here, but as I said, feel free to continue this conversation...

I've heard this view espoused before, but this is the first time I have seen it put so eloquently. So thanks for that :tu:

But even taking into account the context, I can't dismiss it as simply the attempt to explain why some of God's people (the Jews) are being cut off while others (Gentiles) are being adopted into God's people. So I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

I've enjoyed this discussion, though. As noted, at the end of the day I don't think it's a massive issue, what I guess we call "non-essential doctrine". Believing one way or the other (or both) isn't a salvation issue, it's just something to help flesh out our beliefs and give people something to talk about at the next party/get-together (assuming the issue comes up, which rarely happens unless the party is something run by regular church-goers). All the best, MA!

~ Regards,

February 28, 2014

I agree that is a huge improvement and is far less problematic. I do think what goes on here on Earth is problematic for a good and loving God, but removing eternal punishment, which nothing by definition can be worse than, in exchange for oblivion (essentially eternal peace) greatly changes his character in my book.

Just curious and I honestly do not ask to provoke or judge, but if the Bible stated clearly and Jesus reinforced that non-believers went to a traditional hell, do you think it would matter in any significant way as far as what you believe? I actually expect the answer would be essentially no, at best it would be another mystery of faith that you can't rationally understand the goodness of, since God is beyond us, at least based on what I've heard from Christians who are not annihilationists.

To be honest, I don't know what I would think. I've never believed in a traditional fire-and-brimstone hell (well, there was those few weeks as a twelve year old, but I stopped believing very quickly). My beliefs have evolved over the last fifteen-odd years or so, what I believed when I first converted and what I believe now are so completely different that most except "Jesus is Lord and saviour" is probably different now. For example, I used to believe in free will, in the truest sense of the word. So if I was asked the question you're asking me now, I'd say God gave us the choice to follow or not, and those who choose not to condemn themselves". Most Christians these days are Armianists anyway (Arminius was a theologian who argued free will, hence the term Arminian), so those Christians who are not annihilationists are more likely to say that these people chose their fate for themselves, God had nothing to do with it. Now I believe in predestination (though not in the strictest sense of the word), so I would answer your question differently.

But the point is moot anyway, because I don't think the Bible clearly states the nature of hell-as-torture, nor does Jesus reinforce it. I understand that other Christians who believe in fire-and-brimstone will disagree, but I can't see it clearly taught anywhere (unless you butcher the original Greek language to make it say as such).

February 28, 2014

I'm not certain the post gave full credit to what Calvinism is, but it addressed the matter sufficiently for my approach.

I think it was. In fact, I would go so far as to say it was one of the best arguments I've ever heard in defense of it. The Lord of the Rings analogy with that particular scene was spot on. I couldn't think of a better way to explain the position to a layman like myself; either that or I like your approach TO Calvinism better than I have heard it from other Calvinists. Including the Institutes of the Christian Religion itself. Now I will say there are a lot of things that I liked in it; I have a lot of respect and admiration for Calvin and that book still occupies a nice space on one of my theology bookshelves, right next to Martin Luther.I just never could get the predestination thing; but your explanation has gone a long way to at least get me to think about it in a more favorable light.

God knows the Elect, but we do not, therefore we should approach everyone as if they are potentially of the Elect. The moment we say "this man/woman cannot be saved" is the moment we decree that God has predestined a person for destruction.
That doesn't mean we need to preach at people 24/7, thump them with Bibles, and the like. As St Francis of Assisi famously said, "preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words". Or in other words, show God's love through your actions, your kindness and compassion and love for fellow man.

I only have one problem with this, and it is more of a personal thought than a theological issue. It is just my opinion that it would be difficult to show a person proper compassion and love with a view like this because more or less we are still regarding them as the product of a coin flip. Heads they are elect, tails they are reprobate. For me, I still see that strong hint of fatalism to the whole business. Perhaps it is just me.

But as I noted in my conversation with Awake2Chaos I have seen evidence of that in action, in churches I've been to and sermons I've listened to or read. There are a great deal of churches that, when they hold to 'hard' Calvinism; they tend towards an "us" and "them" mentality and often preach judgment as much if not more so than grace. This of course can lead to spiritual arrogance; "thank God you are one of the elect."

I don't want to think of myself as "elect" or "reprobate" but as a sinner saved by grace. I see every man and woman as being unique, the image of God in creation. I don't think of whether they are "possibly elect or reprobate"; but like you I want to show them love and compassion and this to me also is preaching the Gospel, and by doing so, I am hoping to help in God's plan to restore that lost Imago Dei in us, and to find rest and peace in God as Augustine once said "our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee."

In a different realm where time and space are meaningless, who's to say that what we choose and what God chooses are not the same thing.

That may be true, but....

In this physical world, we choose what actions we take, and those actions have very real consequences. I don't think God's sovereign will guiding this world reduces the power of the Cross in any way.

....See, I look at this as a bit of a theological cop-out. Forgive me, it's just my humble opinion, and I am certainly no theologian. Now I get your stance overall, and I'm fine with it, in fact, there are many points where I agree....so I'm not really leveling this criticism directly at you; but rather one who I'm calling a 'hard' Calvinist for lack of a better term. I've debated 'hard' Calvinists who FIRMLY believe in predestination only...but yet they then turn around and make a claim much like this. I see it as a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too. To the 'hard' Calvinist, I say either predestination is or it isn't. If it is our actions DON'T have real consequences because it has already been determined how I will act, thus, my ability to choose is just an illusion; it is the appearance of choice.

As far as His sovereign will, I come once again to the one of the most difficult problems of determinism....how is it that God wills for all to be saved when only a select few shall be and this by His own decree? I've never been able to understand or reconcile this problem. I don't mean to sound antagonistic, I hope I don't...I truly just don't GET IT.

Pharaoh hardens his own heart, however - hence my earlier comment about free will and predestination both existing, for Pharaoh hardened his heart by his own choice, and God also hardened Pharaoh's heart).

I do however get this, and here we are actually and perhaps NOT surprisingly in total agreement. Much to the chagrin of some of my Wesleyan friends I do see how both free will and predestination could exist simultaneously. I've contemplated this idea a lot myself. You know, it takes me back to Saint Augustine's the Confessions and his excellent explanation of time and eternity. For me time is a linear movement in past, present and future. But to God it is an eternal present moment; He is outside of time. Thus as you say, as I am bound by space and time, free will to me is free will, but God could decree something from eternity and destine it to be so...and it could thus be a sort of mutual co-operation between the vast gulfs of time and eternity and the language with which they speak to one another. I see this is as entirely possible, though exceedingly difficult to grasp in my very limited understanding!

I'll borrow an analogy once presented by a former member of UM. Imagine two peanuts sitting on two different conveyor belts on a factory floor. These peanuts may have the choice to move left or right or backwards or forwards, or do anything while on that conveyor belt. But ultimately, the destination of both nuts is already decided - the conveyor belt only goes one place, and neither peanut can do anything to change it.

But don't you see; this is fatalism?! I'm more likely to find this view in the writings of Plato or Seneca than how I see the New Testament. I don't see this kind of fatalism in the words of Christ or in the epistles of Paul. I see the desire for salvation, to lead humanity to new life...a life which is scarcely possible if everything is so fatalistic! Why bother moving on the conveyor belt at all? Why not just ride the machine and don't ask where it goes? If it all leads to the exact same place, why not merely sleepwalk into oblivion? And for the creator of the machine and the peanuts...why give them this small capacity for movement at all? Why give them rational thought or self-awareness? I should think it better to be an inanimate object or to not be self-aware (like animals) if I am a hapless prisoner to fate. Perhaps this is why someone like Solomon could say that knowledge leads to sorrow? If we entertain such fatalism, this is most certainly the case!

But to be honest, I'm not sure I actually agree with this analogy. I honestly don't know what level of sovereignty God has over every moment of our lives, nor do I think it really anything but an intellectual argument.

As I just highlighted above, I could see why you would struggle with such a view. I suppose this is the flaw sometimes in over-philosophizing or over-theologizing certain arguments because it can become so esoteric and abstract that we ourselves start to become an abstraction. And I agree with you here too because it is just an argument and it is just a discussion. It becomes conjecture because neither of us can truly know God beyond what He has revealed to us, and even that, only with difficulty. It is a Mystery. When it comes to this whole Arminian vs. Calvinism debate, you could be right, I could be right, we could both be right, or we could both be completely wrong lol. In the end all I have are thoughts and words, and both are so much straw before the unfathomable glory and greatness of God.

This may have been a bigger issue for Wesley than it is for me because Wesley believed in everlasting pain and torture, while I believe the dead are dead, and the dead know nothing.

It was. Just think that Jonathon Edwards was a contemporary of John Wesley. Imagine "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" vs. "Predestination Calmly Considered". Basically, PA, what was going on here was that Wesley had commissioned Methodist preachers in both England and America, but he was very strict in that he wanted Arminianism espoused from his pulpits; but what ended up happening was that a lot of the early Methodists either were or became Calvinists and were actually preaching against Wesley's own doctrines. It was creating confusion and chaos in the early Methodist movement, both in England and in the United States. In fact, a close friend of his and one of his best preachers essentially betrayed Wesley and became a Calvinist, preaching harshly against John and advocating "double predestination." It was like a slap in the face. Wesley had to respond to Calvinist attacks on all fronts, even from within his own 'camp.' And yes, as I'm sure you're familiar with Edwards (though I like some of his writings too); he preached fire and brimstone to the max. Imagine the shock when Wesley's own Methodists were doing the same thing!!

Not that I'm trying to sway you, but if you ever get a chance, you should read Wesley's fantastic treatise Predestination Calmly Considered. You could probably find the whole text of it online. Similarly, if you have anyone you would recommend as making a good defense of Calvinism I'd be more than happy to read it. I try to understand all points of view.

But to your point there, I saw that you and I are in agreement about hell. I was arguing the very same thing on this thread. I referred to sin as a movement towards non-being and hell as cessation.

I've heard this view espoused before, but this is the first time I have seen it put so eloquently. So thanks for that But even taking into account the context, I can't dismiss it as simply the attempt to explain why some of God's people (the Jews) are being cut off while others (Gentiles) are being adopted into God's people. So I think we'll just have to leave it at that.

Thanks! Let me expand on this same vein for just a moment if I could. You know, I am aware that many 'hard' Calvinists pull Romans 9 as being the 'smoking gun' for predestination. But here's the thing: you and I both know what happens when we pull a text out of context, and I think (my opinion) that is precisely what they have done with this. You and I also both know that when this was originally composed; there was no verses, there was no chapters. It was just paragraphs and streams of thought. Bearing that in mind, my friend, let's just glimpse for a moment at what I see as being the greater context in a brief overview exegesis (following my previous post):

Romans chapter 10: 5-21 SALVATION IS FOR ALL

....See as I said, 9 is talking about Israel because here we move right into 10 and Paul is talking about how if we "confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For one who believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame." (v9-13)

....There is no predestination here, no elect and no reprobate. Confess and be saved. To confess suggests action, activity and choice on the part of humanity. God wills us all to be saved, but we have to act. You know, I preached a sermon on this and I think I still have the manuscript of it on file. I could send it to you sometime if you like.

From there we move to chapter 11. I would exegete it like this:

11:1-10 Israel's Rejection Is Not Final

v1 asks has God rejected His people?? By no means. says Paul!! Once again this flies in the face of an elect and a reprobate. He is still dealing with the Israelites.

11:11-24 The Salvation of the Gentiles

Here he talks about how his own ministry will make people jealous and thus save some of them; meaning that they will RESPOND just as the Gentiles have responded. Faith has grafted the Gentiles in; and again I see faith as an action. Man's role in this is not passive. From there,

11:25-36 All of Israel Will Be Saved

Yes, they have hardened their hearts. But they are still elected; meaning they are still CALLED. I see these verses as poking a tremendous hole in the whole idea of predestination; let me briefly explain why. It was always Israel's expectation that they would be the first to be redeemed, and then the believing Gentiles would just pour into Israel and be sanctified themselves. But Paul says that beautiful word "mystery." "I want you to understand this mystery." What is the mystery? That God's timetable of events HAS ACTUALLY BEEN REVERSED; as Jesus Himself said, the "first will be last and the last will be first". This is precisely what has happened. In space and time, through Jesus Christ, the course of human destiny has been altered from its original plan. Now it is the Gentiles who are entering first.

Then in chapter 12 he describes our new life in Jesus Christ.

See, the way I take this in the greater whole; chapter 9 is only A PART of what he is getting at. He completes his thought not in chapter 9 (thus screaming predestination) but rather, all the way at the END OF CHAPTER 11. In chapter 9, they were elected, called for a purpose. But they screwed that up in their free will in their own unbelief, so not only is salvation for all, but Israel's rejection is not final, they like the gentiles will be saved; BUT NOW the first will be last and the last will be first. But we all have hope in a new life in Christ!!!

Whew. That was a mouthful!! But seriously, I see the Calvinist point of view as only looking at a portion of the painting; this IMO is the whole painting.

I've enjoyed this discussion, though. As noted, at the end of the day I don't think it's a massive issue, what I guess we call "non-essential doctrine". Believing one way or the other (or both) isn't a salvation issue, it's just something to help flesh out our beliefs and give people something to talk about at the next party/get-together (assuming the issue comes up, which rarely happens unless the party is something run by regular church-goers). All the best, MA!

I have too!! I don't have these conversations as much as I would like in real life, so it's nice to discuss and write about it on here with an intellectual equal like yourself and others. And I also agree that it's a non-issue. It really is just nice to think about and talk about our beliefs.

In closing, I saw you said that there aren't too many Calvinists. I'm not sure about Australia tbh, but here in the United States I've actually met and talked to quite a few. I also know quite a few heavily Calvinist evangelical churches aside from the mainlines; and I'm just talking about in my city. I'd say it's still alive and well, and frankly, I hope it continues to be so. I don't want every horse to be the same color, so to speak.

It also occurred to me that I do have some strong Calvinist influences in my thought. Francis Schaeffer is perhaps my favorite Christian philosopher of the modern era; he has had a keen influence on my faith...and I know he was a 'hard' Calvinist; but oh man...do I love his writings!!!!!!

Blessings,

MA

Edited February 28, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

February 28, 2014

God will wipe the tears from the eyes of the believers.

Isaiah 65:16-17

16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he

that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are

forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,

nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:4

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither

sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

After the Second Coming it will not matter what ever happens to the unbelievers.

Mark 3:29

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of

eternal damnation.

Mark 9:43

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than

having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of

God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Matthew 13:41-43

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all

things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears

to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 23:33

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Matthew 25:45-46

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of

the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Luke 12:49

I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

John 15:6

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,

and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Acts 2:18-20

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they

shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and

vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable

day of the Lord come:

Romans 12:19-21

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,

Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou

shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven

with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of

our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the

glory of his power;

Revelation 14:9-11

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and

his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture

into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor

night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 20:14-15

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and

sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with

fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 22:20-21

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord

Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

February 28, 2014

So if an atheist tells a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Wiccan or any other belief system that they are wasting their time, that when they're dead they're dead, they won't be coming back, reincarnating, resurrecting, merging with Brahman, or any other such thing, it's ok for them to hold that belief? And if that's what happens, then anyone who does receive this fate won't be complaining about because they won't exist to complain about it. I don't find this view problematic.

Basically that still sounds like 'I'm ok with the vast majority of souls being destroyed because a small amount of people would be happy with the outcome and hey, they can't complain anyway!' I really don't see how you (or anyone) can hold that belief with a smile on your face.

If I said toy ou I wanted all christiansin my country executed and said 'ah well, they won't exist to complain about their fate' when challenged about it,I'm sure you'd find such a view repugant. well that's how I find your view. Just because god's doing it instead of a person doesn't make it anymore right. In fact it probably makes it worse.

At the end of the day, whatever your belief, when a person is dead they are dead. All beliefs share this belief because it's fact, when someone dies their body is dead. It becomes 'worm food'. What happens after death, to the soul, is unknown conclusively. I wouldn't say that an atheist saying that in the way you say wasn't much better but I can see that they have a point. Believers of all kinds can focus too much on whatever they think happens after death at the expense of the now. Indeed, some do 'waste their time' in that regard and do need some kind of wake up call to keep their concentration here and now where it belongs.

I didn't say I don't enjoy life. What I said was that no matter what else happens, an atheist who believes this is all there is will find it that much more special. I can have the greatest day of my life, but somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind is the thought that no matter how good this day is, it will be so much better in heaven. An atheist has no such belief. This day is the only one of its kind, and could very well be the last day ever for them. That ramps up the whole thing.

That is what I refer to above (albeit in a less extreme way than most). Every day IS the only one of it's kind. After today there will not be another 28th of Febuary 2014. Why does the fact that there's a haven negate that fact?

To use an extreme example, let's say you or I was ten years old. Our parents have told us they're taking us to see the new Shrek film. Yay!!!!! We're so excited, it's going to be awesome. We both go and watch the film, it's a perfect film, everything about it was fantastic. But my parents told me something else that your parents didn't tell you. Tomorrow we're going to see the Wiggles! The biggest children's group of all time, and I'll be seeing it tomorrow night.
How much enjoyment will I get out of Shrek tonight, if I know the Wiggles are on tomorrow? How much enjoyment will you get out of Shrek, if you don't know about the Wiggles concert?

It's an extreme example because the Wiggles is such a close time from now (tomorrow night), so any kid in their right mind would probably be distracted totally from the movie and maybe not even remember it because they're thinking ahead too much. For me (back to real life, now), heaven is ahead - somewhere. Hopefully not tomorrow night, there's a lot I do want to do before I die. But somewhere ahead, many years perhaps, there's a proverbial Wiggles concert in the sky that's just waiting there. Enjoying each day as it comes is great, and I do love each day, but someone who's not waiting for that promised Wiggles concert may just find it that tiny bit extra special. Take my meaning?

Children can get so easily distracted in the manner you describe. I've seen how they can get distracted in a manner you describe (and it really can be about anything). When I took our pets to show the kids at mum's playgroup last summer they were kids distracted by at least a dozen things. What was in the box I came with? That it was almost snack time. That it was almost the end of 'term'. That there was a magician coming next week. That it was the weekend tomorrow. Kids are very easiy distracted by what the next thing is.

Last October I had a busy month. I was going to four concert, there was my birthday and there was Halloween (perhaps the best holiday). Now while I did have events after the one I was currently attending to look forward to, I kept my focus on what I was currently doing each day to enjoy it to the full.

So to me it seems... well, silly, for a fellow adult to not keep focus onthe now for some event that they don't even know when it is. I do take your meaning, but that doesn't mean I don't find it odd. After all the kid you knew the concert was the very next night (making the excitement more understandable)while oyurs is at some unknown point (hopefully somewhere distant).

February 28, 2014

Slight additionto the last post: Let me put it this way. If I said I'm excited because I'm coming to Australia and you asked 'when?' and I said tomorrow (or even next week or longer) the excitement would be undertandable. If in answer to when I said 'I don't know! But I'mcoming to Australia!' you'd probably look at me like I had a hole in my head, because that excitement would be... well, silly.

February 28, 2014

People who have been there have more to say on it. People believe it's a place you go to when you die. It's not a place you go to when you die. You go there while your alive. To understand this concept let me point out a few truths little take notice of. The soul is a multi-dimensional spiritual being, meaning it can exist in many dimensions at one time. Because this is true there is also a multi-verse where we live seperate lives but may also be sharing the same experience, depending on your strength of your relationship with God. Our relationship with God should be an obedient one. Because of our sinful nature, we are constantly being sent to purgitory or hell, we are tortured while we are still alive in this physical body. We have adopted worldly philosophies and worldly concepts of relating with stresses and griefs and the torments of our minds. This makes it easier to live with ourselves and to continue being useful in a a thriving economy. The reason we don't feel the on going agony of our souls is because we have not strengthened our connection with it. While we live, it dies. While we may neglect it and not share a total connection with it. It is very much still attached to us and responsible for the longevity of our lives and our health at a super-subconscious level.

I can say all these things because I have been there, i have knowingly been there for the last three years dealing with my rebelious side, I have gained a lot of wisdom in my time there and seen and felt things happening to me that no person would want to experience.

I emplore you, put away your worldly wisdom which is foolishness to God and get right with him. This is not a place to fantasize or romanticize over. You may debate it with respect or complete disrespect but it is being recorded and your devils will remember it and so will God. If you end up in this place, make peace with God and who-ever else you have to and fulfill whatever challenge is expected of you, because you will emotionally and psychologically deminish fast and so will the health of your body.

You'll know it with these signs and this just for starters.

constant depression

continual meloncholy

anger fits

obesity

rapid weight loss

fear of dieing or living

fear of the truth

anxiety

We are constantly being tested by entities around us, the strength of our virtue is our bond with our soul and God.

We say it's okay to make bad choices because we are only human, but the truth is that you aren't just responsible for your own life, you are responsible for other peoples lives aswell. We live in a world constantly attacking itself. It doesn't have inner peace so the destruction going on inside of us filters out into the world. We rely on our own judgements when we don't even have the relationship with God that he wants us to have and that causes internal conflict resulting in wars. But the wars aren't just happening in this dimension, they are happening in other dimensions.

People Who Believe Hell Are Less Happy

Recommended Posts

Sean93

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JGirl

libstaK

CatFromHell

Sean93

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sean93

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sean93

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sean93

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Awake2Chaos

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Awake2Chaos

Link to comment

Share on other sites

shadowhive

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dark_Grey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Awake2Chaos

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dark_Grey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Marcus Aurelius

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Link of Hyrule

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Marcus Aurelius

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Davros of Skaro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

shadowhive

Link to comment

Share on other sites

shadowhive