More To It Than Love

[watchman1706]

I don’t find anything that Michael wrote above to be disagreeable. It all sounds solid to me.

The church was chosen in Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesian 1:4). No man can come to Christ except the Father draw him (John 6:44). All that have been given to Christ by the Father come to him (John 6:37). The Pharisees would not come to Christ, because they were not his sheep (John 10:26). In the fullness of time, all will be reconciled to Christ (Ephesians 1:10), but only the elect Church in this age.

I agree that only God draws. But Michael said that some will be saved and some will be burned for eternity. That is not solid UR teaching. That is mixing UR and ECT and he said that because of their unwillingness to repent while burning, they will stay in captivity and torment for eternity. That flies in the face of “aion” meaning age and not eternity. Fundamental to UR teaching. Now not all will be in the church, but absolutely none will be burned for eternity. His doctrine is not sound. He has mixed his beliefs in other posts as well. My objection is not towards his beliefs being mixed, but his trying to sell me a bridge in New York as if he is posting like a teacher telling me something I don’t already know when he clearly hasn’t grasped the fundamentals of UR yet. If God created the Pharisees, then they were his, just that they were astray. His entire purpose for creation was to fulfill a need within his own character to save. Do you really think Almighty God himself would create anything and allow some of it to fall out of his control and will and purposes? Not a chance.

Watchman,

I’m sure that Michael can clarify for himself, but I do not see where he said that “some will be burned for eternity” in this thread. I do recall him saying something to that effect in another thread (but I think that is only because he is questioning things). I only meant to say that in this thread he has written nothing that is necessarily disagreeable to UR. I also agree that he should tone down the absoluteness of his posts.

By backing him up in this thread, I am attempting to show him that there is nothing in this thread that is necessarily disagreeable from a universalist perspective.

By the way, from what I have read of your posts here and in other threads, I’m pretty sure that you and I are on the same page.

Thanks,

Dan.

Good to know

[1824]

Steve,

First, let me apologize for my pointed sarcasm. It was uncalled for and hurtful. Please forgive me. If you wish to end discussion with me, I understand, just let me know and I will make this my last post. Otherwise, I would like to show why I reject double predestination.

I said earlier that the term double predestination carries baggage with it, and thus I will not concede the term.

One of the problems with double predestination is the common association with “equal ultimacy.” Many Calvinists shy away from the term double predestination as well for this reason. Equal ultimacy is the belief that God is as active in bringing about the damnation of the reprobate as he is in securing the salvation of the elect. Equal utimacy is taught by A.W. Pink in his book, The Sovereignty of God, in the chapter “The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation.” Pink teaches that God actively hardens the reprobate sinner in order to glorify himself in pouring out wrath on the reprobate. He teaches that God created them for that purpose. The Banner of Truth (a Calvinist organization) published an edition of Pink’s book in which they totally removed Pink’s entire chapter on reprobation.

There are Calvinists who affirm double predestination, that are led to qualify what they mean by the term because of the muddy waters of equal ultimacy. R.C. Sproul is an example. In this article concerning double predestination, Sproul qualifies his view by saying:

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative.

Second, I reject double predestination, as it is defined by Calvin in his Institutes as he says…

"We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willeth to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather eternal life is foreordained for some,* eternal damnation for others.* Therefore as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.

Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 5 (page 926 in the Library of Christian Classics Edition).

In that Calvin says that predestination is unto eternal damnation for some, and that this is the ultimate (eternal) end to which they are predestined, as a universalist, I reject.

Thanks,

Dan.

[Stefcui]

Steve,

First, let me apologize for my pointed sarcasm. It was uncalled for and hurtful. Please forgive me. If you wish to end discussion with me, I understand, just let me know and I will make this my last post. Otherwise, I would like to show why I reject double predestination.

Thank you Dan. I have no intention to cause you grief or create a wedge either, so if it seems that this is my intention, it is not, and I apologize if I left you with this impression.

One of the problems with double predestination is the common association with “equal ultimacy.” Many Calvinists shy away from the term double predestination as well for this reason. Equal ultimacy is the belief that God is as active in bringing about the damnation of the reprobate as he is in securing the salvation of the elect.

This distinction of “equal ultimacy” is not essential in the double-predestination doctrine. In its simplest form:

There are two separate destinies which are predestined by God, neither are determined by man’s free-will. These destinies are fixed according to the principals of predestination, and they are bound due to some receiving grace to desire intimacy with God, and others have not received grace to desire God. This is because there is no such thing as free-will, people do not choose their fate, God does.

Although the results for Calvinists are different - the path of Calvin leads to eternal punishment in hell - the mechanism is exactly the same for those universalists who reject free-will; that is, double-predestination. For universalists, in this model, the process is exactly the same as for Calvinists, only the the outcome is less severe… everyone is eventually reconciled, but the process of double-predestination is the same.

In that Calvin says that predestination is unto eternal damnation for some, and that this is the ultimate (eternal) end to which they are predestined, as a universalist, I reject.

Yes, I understand. As Calvin’s “predestination is unto eternal damnation for some”, you have removed the part dealing with “eternal damnation”. Everything else looks identical (to me). As I have said to Michael, I don’t have an issue with this. If this is what you believe - fine! No problem.

Steve

[fmichaeldw]

Michael in Barcelona,

That’s why the argument includes all those needs. Atheists don’t have all of them. Ask them and you will find out.

Michael,

Thanks. I don’t have to ask atheists! Let me put it another way. How is it that so often one finds friends who are atheists and yet are very much aware of those needs and indeed are as good as any good Christian. Believe in God or not, God is within every living person, and the only answer I can find is , God’s love is so strong that the good works of atheists are in some mysterious way a response to God within their hearts. I may be wrong when I say to my brother, who is an atheist, “You do not believe in God! No matter! God believes in you!”
This is my personal view.
Anyone out there who can provide biblical support on this??

Michael in Barcelona

[Cole]

I’ve never met an atheist like that. Moreover, the Bible says all have sinned. Atheists who die atheists will be purified in the Lake Fire. It’s not as bad for some as it is others.