In a very general sense, yes, humanity can be called “children of God” inasmuch that He has created all things and by His power they are upheld, carried, sustained. Even the wicked recieve blessings in what the Reformed perspective calls “common grace”. But in terms of “children” with paternal love, inheritance, and chastisement (as many as I love, I chastise), then no, not “all” are children. I believe that the Scriptures are clear on this.
Fair enough on the rephrasing.
If the LORD were to choose to punish the people who died in their trespasses for eternitiy…would He be just in doing so?
Mod note: Please discuss this topic in its new thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2795#p39705
Hey folks, gotta scram for now. I’ll try to pop back in later this evening (it’s currently 8:00 AM California time). Hope y’all enjoy your Saturday!
Hi Matt
Thanks for your post. I’m off out for dinner shortly, so I’ll have to make this initial reply short. We can get into it properly tomorrow. 
You may believe the Scriptures are clear on this. I can assure you they are not. I can - and will, should you somehow have overlooked them - show you literally dozens of Bible verses which affirm the universal love of God for all people, all his creatures - and yes, all his children. Which means every single last man and woman jack and jill of us, jack.
What do you mean by “in a very general sense, yes, humanity can be called ‘children of God’”? Are we all His children or aren’t we? Did God create us or not? If He did, He is our Father, and He has the same freely embraced parental obligations of love and care towards us all as we do to our own children. Jesus didn’t go around preaching “love and forgiveness only for the elect”. He went around preaching “love and forgiveness for everyone”.
The Reformed notion of ‘common grace’ is a chimera, a total and utter fiction invented in a vain attempt to weasel out of the plain truth of Scripture that God’s grace and love are freely extended to all people.
You’ll have to do better than that, Jacob! 
More soon.
Shalom
Johnny
Good thread Johnny. You make some great points about the inconsistency of a loving God who planned the reprobation of many, predestination and “possibility”, “nature” and “choice”, and an apostle (Paul) who seems to care more for souls than his God.
However, I do not see the following ideas as inconsistent:
(i) We must choose God in order to be saved.
(ii) God chooses who will be saved.
The first part (i) sets up a requirement that must be met in order to be saved. God sees that nobody will meet this requirement. So God finds a way to cause people to meet this requirement. He then chooses to grant the power to meet the requirement of (i) to a certain set of people (i.e. the elect). God never abolishes (i) he just chooses who He will irresistibly enable to meet it. (Driscoll: “Everyone chooses Satan, sin, death, and hell. And apart from a new heart, that’s all anyone would ever choose.” & concerning the elect “He predetermined their destiny. He chose that despite their sin and folly and rebellion and hardness of heart and stubbornness, and not just undeservedness, but ill-deservedness, he predestined to love the unlovely, to love the unlovable.”) In so doing God has effectively chosen who will be saved without removing the responsibility for damnation from anyone who does go to ECT.
The reason I bring this up is that just because a Calvinist affirms the validity of (i) does not mean he is slipping Arminianism into his theology or being inconsistent. Point (i) is and always has been just as much a part of Calvinism as it is a part of Arminianism . The difference is where the power comes from to meet this requirement.
Therefore I do not view Driscoll as being inconsistent or using “doublethink” when he states the following:
Thoughts?
Jaxxen,
Its great to see your contribution on this thread. Thanks for pointing out this vital tenant of Reformed theology:
Its stuff like this that helps all of us understand exactly what Calvinism is so that we either
(a) decide we agree with it or
(b) take aim at the right target, not a “straw man” created by our minds or by evangelical “pop” culture.
However, I do believe God has a “vested interest” 
in not only loving, but saving all he has created. I have addressed this elsewhere but I am anxious to see the case Johnny will make it on this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw your question:
I can only answer for myself but I would say “yes”. Yet I would like to add that I don’t think the traditionalist/universalist debate hinges upon this point. Its worth considering, as i think there are good arguments on each side, but it really is a separate issue.
Evangelical Universalism simply asserts that whatever punishment is justly deserved, God came up with a plan to redeem ALL from this punishment (first the elect and then the rest, with “faith in Christ” occurring in the non-elect in the next life at some point).
However, even if one does believe that never-ending punishment is not deserved for the sins of this life, this should not keep one from affirming that apart from the cross everyone would be condemned forever. Why? Because, even if a sinner could pay off the sins of this life, they would still have to pay for the sins they committed WHILE paying off the sins of this life. It would be a never ending cycle.
It is interesting to note that at least one prominent Calvinist I know believes this way. He denies that we deserve never-ending punishment for the sins of this life but affirms that the net result would still be never-ending punishment because of the vicious cycle referenced above. Therefore, not even the Calvinist must affirm, as a matter of logical necessity, the deservedness of ECT for the sins of this life.
For more discussion on these issues see:
To me, the key question in the traditionalist/universalist debate is not whether a sinner deserves never-ending punishment for the sins of this life, but whether God’s plan to redeem people from this punishment, and the possible punishment warranted for sins committed in the next life, pertains to all or just some (i.e.the elect).
Wow! I gotta admit, I really just skimmed through the initial post by Johnny. I’ve since gone back and reread. What vitriol!
My “quote” icon seems to be disabled for the time being, so I can’t use that function, but I’d like to thank Firedup for a sense of calmness and reason i.e. the strawman etc.
I’d like to provide an overview of covenant theology and hopefully will soon, but now I’m kinda thinking “what’s the point?” An imam would probably be a more welcoming audience. I know that passions run high, but to say that Calvinism is the greatest evil to Christianity? I said in another thread that I truly do empathize with the emotional pain/anger that the Doctrines of Grace can provoke, but perhaps its been so long for me that I’ve forgotten just what it was like.
Also, for the person who attends Driscoll’s church but denies his teaching…why do you go there then? Is there no church in your vicinity that teaches something less horrific, if not what you believe? Anyway…
FWIW, after that last post my “quote” feature came back.
I’m sure that most of y’all already know this, but for those who don’t hopefully it’ll help. Often times Calvinism is limited by its opponents to the 5 Points i.e. TULIP. People who know TULIP automatically think that that’s all Reformed theology is. The 5 Points I believe to be true, but basically just entry-level. The 5 Points were a summation of beliefs already held by the reformers, but codified at the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrance, or the disciples of Jacob Arminius. However, as I stated in a previous thread, the real sticking point against Reformed theology is the doctrine of Reprobation…that is, YHWH predestinating a people to His eternal punishment for their sins. Bluntly put, He has ordained that their express purpose is to be the objects of His wrath. And yet…He is not to be blamed for their condition, though He ordained and either directly or indirectly brought this to pass. Let that sink in…
There is no way to pussyfoot around this. It’s implications will shake a man to his core. Just read Johnny’s initial post. Reprobation will cause an involuntary, vitriolic hatred to spew forth that can not be scripted. Within modern Christendom, Islam would sooner be embraced than Calvinism. Let that sink in…
And yet, throughout the Church Age many men and women have held to the tenets of what is often times called Augustinianism / Calvinism / Reformed Theology / the Doctrines of Grace. A quick list of names includes Augustine himself (duh), Anslem, Martin Luther, John Calvin (duh), George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and currently John Piper, RC Sproul, Tim Keller, R Albert Mohler, John MacArthur (in some, not all ways) and Michael Horton. This is a very truncated list, btw. All of these men have certain traits in common. In some of their cases, they literally transformed Western Civilization. They pastor mega-churches ( not necessarliy a sign of greatness or being right, but still…), have been incarcerated and / or had to flee for their beliefs, they are known for their prodigious intellects, they preach Christ crucified, justification by faith alone, the propitiation / expiation of the atonement, the Bible alone along with inerrancy. Think of those last qualities. And although there are certain differences amongst them (for example paedo / credo baptism, eschatology) they are what we would now commonly call “Calvinists” or “Reformed” (I know that term would be anachronistic to Augustine). Let that sink in…
Name-dropping does not a sound doctrine make, nor does a majority vote, but it would be foolish to discount such a cloud.
Also, it’s not as if non-reformed folks don’t have some impressive names, but the above list is daunting.
I’ll post this now and try to return soon to clarify Covenant Theology.
Matt
Hi Matt, I’ll disagree with Firedup and say I would consider it unjust for God to punish people forever for sins committed in this lifetime. Of course I acknowledge that my understanding of justice might be faulty, but that’s currently my opinion. I do agree with the rest of what he said – that the debate does not hinge on this point and that the idea of endless punishment for endlessly continuing sin would be a way of understanding ECT which would accord with some level of justice.
I’m going to start a new topic for this, so as to not clog up this thread with too many topics.
And here’s the new thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2795
Sonia
Covenant Theology is synonymous with Calvinism is synonymous with Reformed Theology is synonymous with The Doctrines of Grace.
The starting point with Covenant Theology, appropriately enough, is that the sovereign, almighty Triune God operates within the framework of covenants, of which there are 3. Behind the scenes in eternity past, the Father was pleased to give unto His beloved Son a Kingdom, and within this kingdom there would of course be subjects. In a manner of speaking, a “forever people”. But the people would not just be subjects-they would be family. Children of the Father, younger brothers and sisters to their Lord. Parts of the covenant within the Godhead include the creation, fall and redemption of these people (more on the Fall later). The Covenant of Redemption is the term used. It is intra-trinitarian. We are given glimpses into it in Luke 22:29 and very much so in John 17, the High Priestly Prayer.
Now, onto the Covenant of Works. This first is imposed in the Garden. Though not specifically called a “covenant” in Genesis (check Hosea 6:7), it has the clear implicit, if not explicit, marks of a Suzerainty covenant. That is, a sovereign has imposed His will upon a weaker subject, a vassal king, if you will. Commands are issued as well as some autonomy i.e “You may freely eat of all the trees, except this one…” “Be fruitful and multiply ” , the naming of the animals. But a curse is promised for disobedience…“You shall surely die…” This is a common theme, blessings for obedience, cursings for disobedience. Although not clearly stated, this is regarded as a “probationary period”. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, death would not have entered the world. BUT…they were tempted and they freely, willfully chose to commit treason against the LORD!
More to follow…
The effects (affects?) of this cosmic treason CAN NOT be overstated. The wages of sin are death, both physical AND spiritual. Our original parents plunged their posterity into enmity with God. They chose to believe the lie. They took the word of satan over the word of YHWH, their creator. By a work of their own, they sought to be like God. A holy, holy, holy God must now act according to His character and punish transgression…and yet, a merciful God would provide a means of an atonement (also in keeping with His promise to give His Son a kingdom / people-remember the Covenant of Redemption?) Death from the LORD immediately followed and is shown by Adam and Eve’s pathetic attempts to cover their shame, hide from YHWH and when confronted blame everyone but themselves. Such now is the “natural” state of man. “The woman that YOU gave me…The serpent deceived me…” “Slaves to sin…by nature, children of wrath…following the prince of this world…” “But God, who is rich in mercy…”
The LORD provided a covering of skin for the couple, implying that an innocent creature had to die to cover their shame (“without the shedding of blood…”). In an act of grace, the couple were banished from the Garden and forbidden to eat from the Tree of Life, lest they be stuck in their (our) horrific condition. BTW, the Gospel is also preached! The offspring of the woman is promised to crush the head of the serpent, and yet His heel will be bruised in this process. Also, notice already the two separate seeds…the woman and the serpent?
In the protoevangelion, we are now introduced, implicitly, to the Covenant of Grace. Thats the third covenant. So now we have the Covenant of Redemption (taking place exclusively within the Trinity) the Covenant of Works applied to man, in which only perfect obedience to God’s command(s) will result in life, death in disobedience, and the Covenant of Grace. Albeit, the Covenant of Grace is not specifically mentioned yet in the Genesis narrative, but I presuppose that those reading this will already be aware of it.
More to follow…
I’ll take that as a retraction of your earlier statement that no-one is allowed to make negative comments about Calvinists or Calvinism.
I’m glad to hear it.
Johnny - I want to thank you for the time and effort you have put into this analysis of Driscoll’s inconsistent and misleading message which attempts to undermine the glorious Gospel of God’s Love for all humanity.
I take my hat off to you, dear sir!
Thoughts?
Hi Fired
I see the point you are making but I would say that for a choice to be REAL, for a TRUE choice, there must be the possibility of at least two outcomes.
This makes ‘i)’ not a ‘choice’ as such because it is God Himself who has compelled the recipient to repent due to His irresistible grace.
Likewise when Driscoll says: “Everyone chooses Satan, sin, death, and hell.” they were compelled to by God Himself who deliberately created them only of being able to go down that path and no other.
God bless
Hi Fiery
Thanks for all your recent thoughtful posts on this weighty subject. I will try and get around to answering all of them soon but for now, here are my initial thoughts on your question quoted below:
My thoughts are, essentially, the same as Pilgrim’s (welcome back Pilgrim, great to have you back and fighting fit ):
I agree points (i) and (ii) are not inconsistent, but this doesn’t let Driscoll or Calvinism generally off the hook.
Assuming for the moment that (i) and (ii) are not just consistent but are also true, UR asserts that God chooses everyone to be saved, hence all in turn choose God and all are in fact saved. No problem there.
You are suggesting that Calvinism asserts that God chooses only the elect to be saved, hence only the elect in turn choose God and are saved.
But straightaway we have a problem, Houston. If, as the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity asserts, we are completely unable to choose God without his prior intervention, point (i) instantly evaporates into a meaningless statement. For it is simply incoherent to say we must do something in order to be saved if that thing is, in fact, an impossibility. The word ‘choose’ has no meaning at all in this context. By way of illustration, imagine I am imprisoned in a castle surrounded by a fifty-foot wide gorge. To say that I can ‘choose’ to save myself by jumping over the gorge to safety is a meaningless statement. I can choose to try jumping over the gorge, in which case I will plummet to my death. Or I can choose to stay where I am in my prison. But I cannot choose to save myself. That is not an option for me.
But we have a further problem, Houston. The Calvinist would assert that God grabs hold of me, straps a jet pack to my back and fires me over the gorge to safety without so much as a by your leave. Thus he has chosen to save me, but again, I myself haven’t chosen anything. Again, the language of choice is rendered meaningless.
This is where the Calvinist trots out all that guff about compatibilism, which is, of course, itself utterly incoherent – the Emperor’s New Clothes of so-called theology. Here it is, in the words of the Calvinist manifesto, the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
There it is, straight from the horse’s mouth. None of us, ever, have any choice in anything whatsoever. It was all unchangeably ordained from all eternity (whatever that means).
[Incidentally, in what is a pretty damning indictment of the Calvinist mantra of sola scriptura, the five verses the Westminster Confession cites in support of this idea that everything that comes to pass is unchangeably ordained from all eternity are as follows:
‘[i]In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.’ Eph 1:11
‘Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!’ Rom 11:33
‘Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath.’ Heb 6:17
‘For he says to Moses, ‘“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”’. Rom 9:15
‘Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.’ Rom 9:18
Perhaps Matt or another Calvinist could explain to me how the premise of total predestination of each and every action and event is derived from these verses?]
Anyway, under Calvinism, then, your point (i) is rendered a meaningless statement. Sorry mate!
As for Driscoll’s double-think and double-speak, it remains precisely that:
“Our rejection is our own responsibility,” says Mark. No it isn’t. It is God’s.
“God invites all people to turn from sin and to trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of all sin.” Sorry, Mark, you can’t use the word ‘invite’. Invitation is the language of Arminianism. It does not exist in the Calvinist lexicon. God never ‘invites’. He only ordains.
More, much more, soon.
Shalom
Johnny
You forgot to put Mark Driscoll’s name in the list.
He fancies himself as the new standard-bearer of Reformed theology. I saw him give a talk where he spent the first 30 minutes or so going through a list like you just gave. The name at the bottom of his list? Why Mark Driscoll of course. Then he spent the last 30 minutes or so explaining to everyone why he was and would be just as influential as the greatest names preceding him on the list.
I would hate for his name to be left out of this.
I didn’t forget. I said this is a truncated list. To be perfectly honest, I have almost zero idea who Driscoll is. I’m leary of any new pop culture churches. Maybe his name does belong, beats me. I’m not about to start podcasting his sermons or reading his books though, my time is limited. However, based upon the vitriolic comments I’ve read on this thread, I’m not about to just take what I’ve read here as an unbiased, gospel truth to regarding the man, either.
Johnny, I will try to answer your questions, though I doubt you’re willing to give them any serious considerations. Your references re “jet packs” are smarmy. I appreciate good sarcasm, but that wasn’t good. It degrades the seriousness of what is being discussed. Also, you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. I understand why, but they are false. I’m off to church now for LORD’s day worship. I’ll try to get back this afternoon / evening. If your so inclined, read and meditate on what I’ve already posted re Covenant Theology and see if there are any glaring issues so far. Just read them-not into them.
Bye for now
Matt
Davidbo, my reply to your quote somehow got intertwined with your post. Sorry about that. I’m sure you can discern my words from yours, but again, sorry for the mix up.
Matt
Mod note: Matt, I fixed that for you, I think. Let me know if it’s not right. Sonia
Hi Matt-Jaxxen-Jacob
Thanks for your posts. I’m a bit worried that you seem to:
a) have suffered a minor sense of humour failure (which is okay, we can’t all be WC Fields all the time ; but I thought we were going to be able to scrap with a smile – after all, we’re in very heavy territory here, and humour helps us to deal with it, don’t you agree?); and
b) be employing the same tactics I have decried so strongly in Mark Driscoll – ie bombarding us with confusing diversions (into Covenant Theology, cosmic treason, Adam and Eve etc).
The truth is, I know as much about all that stuff as I need to know. And it makes no difference to how I – and, I humbly submit, most of the non-Calvinists here – view Reformed theology, and in particular the doctrine of reprobation. Which is that it stinketh.
Okay, so the theological big-hitters you list (and Mark Driscoll, thanks davidbo), have fallen for it over the years. That doesn’t cut much ice with me. Augustine also believed unbaptised babies went straight to hell. Calvin also had Servetus burnt at the stake. Edwards also said that the God who “is love” thinks we are “ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.” Piper also would take it on the chin without question if his own children were reprobate.
With my master, George MacDonald, I say:
“From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s portrait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing. Not such a God is he concerning whom was the message John heard from Jesus, that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”
You say:
You’ve told us yourself what it was like:
“Anger and despair”. The fruits of Reformed theology.
You personally are always more than welcome here (as would be an imam) as I hope all of us make clear. But the theology you hold to – in particular limited atonement and predestination to ECT – doesn’t go down too well with people who, like me, believe what the Bible teaches, Jesus taught, and more importantly, Jesus lived – ie God is love, and love never fails.
More soon. But keep smiling, Matt. Many of us here on this board only came to believe in UR after coming to realise the inherent illogicality, incoherence and unscriptural nature of Calvinism - or Arminianism, in my case.
Shalom
Johnny