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
Matt
Hope you had a good day, and enjoyed your church service. I was actually preaching myself this morning - I am not a ‘pro’, my father is the lay preacher at the evangelical free church I attend, and he was ill - he’s been laid low with bronchial pneumonia - so I was filling in for him.
I just wanted to say you are not the first person to have their feathers ruffled by my sarcastic tongue, either on this forum or in life. Like it or not (and I guess you don’t all that much ), it is simply a part of me. What I am I am. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, I am an incorrigible child of the Monty Python generation. I know all the tricks - dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and … satire. (Michael Palin, Doug and Dinsdale Piranha sketch. ) Whether I deploy them well or appropriately is for others to judge.
But I can assure you I am deadly serious in my implacable opposition to Reformed theology. And I seriously hope we - all of us - can get along here on this forum. Whatever our views, we are brothers in Christ, and one day we will - God willing - shake our heads in bemusement that we ever disagreed on anything.
So, if the tone of my posts ever offends you, I apologise. If the *import *of them offends you, I am sorry, but for me, ECT, predestination to reprobation and limited atonement are *deeply *offensive doctrines. My signature says it all.
Shalom
Johnny
Johnny, hope your father gets better soon, may the LORD be gracious unto him. Also, don’t ever worry about offending me or feeling that I would demand an apology. My hide is thick. Of course I like humor…but like we disagree on other topics, we might disagree on what constitutes humor. That’s ok. Now, on to the weightier matters…
First, my explanations were not meant to be diversions or distractions…just simple tenets forthrightly stated. Perhaps I failed at explaining them. As long as reprobation remains on the table, then there can be no reconciliation between us, theologically speaking. That’s ok, as well. I guess what bothers me is that you say “Let’s debate with cheerfulness!” and then spew forth vitriol. Remember, the Spirit said, “Whoever hates his brother is not born-again”. Another concern is that you attack, indeed at times, parody the men along with the doctrine. OK, so you hate Driscoll, Piper et al. I get it. Do you not think that I could obsess over sermons by Rob Bell, snippet them in a forum and unleash hell while chiding UR? Of course I could. BTW, you seemed to accuse (or maybe it was someone else, Cindy perhaps) that Driscoll is in this for the money. By inference, can I logically conclude that Bell works as a tentmaker, draws no salary, and provides all of his books for free, motivated only by love for Jesus and pure doctrine? Does he walk around in rags, impoverished as did the apostles? BTW, I pay about as much attention to Bell as I do Driscoll, which is to say, nada. I hear of these men, but am not compelled to go out and buy their books or podcast them. As a preeminent tenetof Reformed Theology, Sola Scriptura is what binds our conscience. If Augustine believed or taught that which is not found in Scripture, then he is wrong. If Calvin acted outside of what is right in Scripture, then Calvin is wrong. Same with Edwards and any others. PERIOD. However, if that which they taught is Scriptural, then they should be honored as faithful stewards of the mysteries of God. Have you, Johnny, or anyone else reading this, ever faltered against your own beliefs or showed yourself(ves) to he a hypocrite(s)? I sure have! Does that now mean that every other action or teaching that we perform is null and void? Of course not!
Another concern is that you said you know all you care to know about the Doctrines of Grace / Covenant Theology…and then go on to illustrate a clear LACK of understanding. And then ask myself or another Calvinist (I think I’m the only one for now) to explain certain issues. I get the impression that your statement was rhetorical. I was building up to the explanations in my previous posts re CT and you said it was a confusing diversion and you know all you care to. So, what should I do?
Hey Matt
Thanks for your post, and for your concern for my father. He is doing much better thanks. And I’m glad I haven’t offended you, because it was never my intention to do so.
Fair enough. Of course you are right to state what you believe. Sorry for misinterpreting your intentions there.
Depends how you define reconciliation. In his published debate with Tom Talbott on Predestination, from which I have quoted before on this forum, John Piper asks the question “can Christian fellowship have any meaning when we view each other’s God like this?” Now I hope the answer to that is yes, meaning that you and I, or any two people with different doctrinal views, can have Christian fellowship together. But if reconciliation means agreeing on the doctrine of reprobation, we are undoubtedly at something of an impasse.
That’s a bit of a harsh generalisation, mate! I trust I have never descended into any personal vitriol or animosity towards you, or anyone else here on this forum. In fact I thought we were getting along just fine until a few hours ago! Neither have I said anything which suggests I hate my brother. And as for your implication that I may not be ‘born again’ (but by implication you are), well …
(And just by way of passing, under Calvinism, God hates the reprobate. So if God doesn’t love all our brothers, why should we? Is it even logically possible that we can? I doubt it.)
But yes, as far as the Reformed doctrine of predestination to reprobation and ECT is concerned, you’re darn tootin’, I’m as vitriolic as a jar of undiluted hydrofluoric acid.
Attack and parody, yes. Hate, no.
Well, if you would like to post an analysis of the inconsistency, illogicality and unscriptural nature of Rob Bell’s preachings, you’re more than welcome to do so. But Rob Bell isn’t one of the subjects of this particular thread. Driscoll is.
Not Cindy, me. And it was more a musing than an accusation, I think you’ll find.
Agreed. And I believe he is.
Agreed. And I believe he is.
Agreed. And I believe they are.
I’m sure a lot – most even – of what these guys taught is Scriptural. But not predestination to reprobation. I quoted the five verses adduced in the Westminster Confession to support the supposed preordination of all things that come to pass, and pointed out that they actually do nothing of the sort, and you haven’t responded to that.
Yes, of course, I’m a hypocrite sometimes. But I’m not talking about every action or teaching, just – as far as this thread is concerned, at least – predestination to reprobation.
Well, you could try responding to the challenges I have laid out in this thread, which I reiterate are the illogicality, incoherence and unscriptural nature of Reformed theology, as preached by Mark Driscoll in particular. Then you could show me what I have misunderstood about it.
If you don’t want to do that, perhaps you could give me straight answers to the following straight questions:
)Shalom
Johnny
I find this interesting… I do not consider myself born again. By that logic, does that mean God hates me while I search for Truth? Interesting. I think I dabbled with that view before, but I generally found it difficult. To turn to God who currently hates me so he stops hating me and then switches to loving me seems kinda off. “He first loved us” is key. To me, it seems rather logical that God loves humans despite their shortcomings, and perhaps loves them more when they turn to him to combat their shortcomings.
I’m glad we got that cleared up.
jaxxen wrote:
It was me who sort of invited you to provide a deeper explanation of Calvinism and how it pertains to this thread, so … please continue from where you left off, when you get a chance.
Johnny, glad to hear about your father!
I hate to admit this, but I don’t know how to isolate quotes 
Therefore, I quote the whole post which is quite lengthy. Sorry about that. Anyway, I’ll now respond…
Re “reconciliation”… I defined it as theological. We both agree that unless one of changes or view, theologically we will not be reconciled. Reprobation being the main sticking point. Actually, I’d say “sovereignty” is the main sticking point because from His sovereignty all else flows. But let’s table that for now and leave it as semantics.
A harsh generalisation? Yes, I believe that’s how you’ve come across. Perhaps I’m prickly and misunderstood or perhaps you may not realize it-either is possible. However, I will state emphatically that you have NEVER attacked me personally. You are right to assert that. Sorry if I made you think that I thought you did. That’s part of the problem with writing to communicate, we miss tone, and non-verbal communicable expressions. I do think you have a similar sense of humor to me i.e. kinda dark, with some gallows thrown in. I still like the term “nicked” that you used awhile back. I’ve never heard that before…don’t they speak English where your from? Perhaps it’s not your first language However, Anyway, I do think you regard Driscoll with vitriol. Your review is not tender, seasoned with grace etc. Nor was it meant to be. I understand that. So my harsh generalisation is in response to what I believe is your harsh generalisation. I still think you come across as an overall nice, good guy and I have no animosity with you personally.
I most certainly did not try or want to imply that you are not born again! But based on my Scripture quote, I can see why you might think that. As far as hating your brother, I was referring to Driscoll, not you hating me. I threw the quote in there as an admonishment. I do believe it’s sobering and it’s definitely something I struggle with. As you believe, ALL humans are brothers, ergo we must “love” them. Your review did not seem “loving”. That was my point. Me…I’m damn sure not above praying me some imprecatory psalms 
“God hates the reprobate”…not to cop out, but this will be time consuming so I have to punt for now. Suffice it to say that believers are called to pray for and bless those who hate us and to do good to all. You see Johnny, I don’t know who the reprobate are! Therefore I am called to treat current nonbelievers as potential believers but present sinners. The Law AND Gospel must be preached. There was a time when I walked in darkness according to the course of this world. But God, who is rich in mercy, changed my heart. He may very well change theirs.
Bell’s illogical, inconsistent doctrine…again, for time purposes I must punt. But my main interest is not the man but the doctrine. That I will strike against. I’m alone on this forum. I do not have pilgrims and bird eggs and jason’s to pitch in. Hopefully, sooner than later, I’ll respond. I tried to formulate CT, but obviously I’m swimming upstream here.
“A musing, not an accusation”. Fair enough. But it does show that tend to think the worst about him rather than the best. “Anyone who hates his brother without cause is guilty…”
I will respond to the WoCF later, hopefully within a couple of days. But if you were already dismissive of my CT posts and feel that you already know all that you care to know, well, it probably won’t be very profitable for you. But I’ll still try.
Re being a hypocrite…GOTCHYA! So, you do agree with Total Depravity…jk, you’re reply is acceptable to me.
Johnny, thank you so much for asking questions 1-4. Like the WoCF, I will try to answer them. Hopefully within a coupla days. It’s Sunday night, I must get to bed for work on Monday morning. Valentines Day is here etc etc. Believe me young man, I’m not trying to cop out. These are weighty issues and deserve thoughtful consideration. I’m sure you understand. I still have many questions for y’all, so hopefully neither of us will knock the dust off of our boots yet.
Oh yeah, one other thing…why am I here? As I mentioned in the intro forum, I met a man who was despairing over reprobation, particularly a family member. My heart broke for him and still does. He mentioned UR EU or whatever. He was very intelligent and well spoken and no stranger to Reformed Theology. I felt compelled to try to learn more personally rather than just assume that I already knew and wound up here. BTW Johnny, no offense, but that’s how you kinda come across with Reformed Theology. Peace for now.
Love,
Matt
I will try to do that, firedup. My time is limited this week, but perhaps I can still do it. BTW, I pm’d you.
Did you get it?
“There are none who seek” If you find Him, in truth, it’ll be because He caused you to born again. Then you’ll start to get it.
It trips off the tongue so easily doesn’t it? And yet it’s such a vile and desparate thing to say.
“Do what you want, Bird, Say what you want, behave as a model subject or commit the most heinous atrocities. Search earnestly for God, or curse Him. None of it matters. Either you are a Golden Ticket holder or you are not. If you belong to the vast majority then burn forever in unimaginable agony whilst I look on in ecstasy.”
That’s the ‘Good News’. I wonder why so many people reject it? Oh yeah! I forgot. It’s not because it isn’t a Glorious message, it’s just because God hates them.
Singing *
“Here is Love, Vast as the ocean
Loving Kindness, full and free…
And this Jesus, He’s my Saviour
Won’t save you, but will save me”*
Hi Matt
Thanks for your last thoughtful and gracious post. It has given me real pause for thought. A few quick reactions to a couple of the points you make:
No worries, took me a while to figure it out. What you need to do is highlight the text you want to quote in the body of the message you are quoting from, and then click on the ‘quote’ button in the top right hand corner of that message. This will copy the highlighted text into your new post as a quote, at whichever place you have positioned your cursor. Alternatively you can just highlight text in your own message and click the Quote button above the screen.
Sorry, yes, you did define it as theological, I missed that. But I do reiterate my point that we – all Christians – should be able to fellowship together regardless – which we are, which is great.
No worries, Matt. I was just a bit worried that I had upset you personally, because of the abrasive and sarcastic tone of parts of my posts. When I’m posting I try my best to strike a balance between being friendly and polite towards whoever I’m addressing, and being honest in my response to a particular doctrine they are espousing, for example. This can result in me being quite angry – vitriolic even – at times. But this sort of thing happens all the time in ‘real life’ – you can be best mates with somebody, and disagree violently with them on something – sport, politics, fashion, religious belief, anything. And of course sometimes I go too far.
You are so right there. I recall seeing somewhere that in face-to-face communication, at least on issues with an emotional element (which is true here), the words we speak represent only something like 7% of the message we communicate. The other 93% come from tone of voice and body language. Which of course we lose completely in the cold, hard words of an internet post. That’s one reason why emoticons, even though I hate them, are very useful. 
Yep, that’s me. Black, sarcastic humour is part of my DNA. Although sometimes, when God blesses me with His grace, I mellow a bit. I am reminded of the story of Evelyn Waugh, who by all accounts could be very mean – cruel even – sometimes. He was once challenged by a lady who heard him being particularly savage in something he said to somebody, “Mr Waugh, how you can you say such horrible things, as a Christian”. Apparently he replied, “Madam, were it not for my faith I would be scarcely human”! Or words to that effect. Now I have none of Waugh’s genius as a writer, and I hope I’m not quite in his league in terms of abrasiveness. But I do understand his sentiments.
Actually, if you don’t mind me saying, I really do think that if we attended the same church we could easily end up being friends. Hell, I hope we can be friends here on this forum.
Perhaps I should just clarify my position on Mark Driscoll. Obviously he doesn’t get my Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Maybe I’m too hard on the guy – after all, I’ve never met him, and for all I know he might be a lovely man in the flesh. But the thing is, Matt, he is a legitimate target for satirical attack, because:
a) he is a mega-church pastor with a lot of power and influence; he stands up in front of 1,000s of people every week and tells them how to live their lives, how to understand scripture etc – and I believe that the theology he is pushing is both wrong, and dangerous, and presents a terrible image of God and Christianity to the watching world, and is ‘sold’ in a misleading, even dishonest way (hence my initial post on this thread); and
b) he goes out of his way to say deliberately provocative things – things a lot of people (and I do mean a lot) find offensive. Stuff, for example, about the subservient role of women in marriage and society, about men who masturbate alone being borderline gays, about all English preachers and church leaders being effeminate cowards, and perhaps worst of all, about God hating people.
Which leads us to …
This needs a whole post on its own – more soon!
Thanks for that, makes good sense. And it is testament to the fact that you are clearly, at heart, a kind and sensitive soul yourself. God is clearly at work in your heart (as, I hope and pray, He is in mine). Which is one reason why I find it so hard to believe that you believe the Reformed doctrine of reprobation!
Looking forward to discussing in more depth, with an open a mind as possible.
Shalom
Johnny
i think it is important to remember that alot of good has come from various Reformed theologians, as Sobornost reminds us on the Original Sin thread.
also, it seems that Calvin wasn’t keen on burning Severus…still, death penalties suck no matter how you look at them. and for theological opinion, it’s a bit rich to say that “I am right! and you deserve death for disagreeing with me.”
but that WAS the fashion of the time, and Calvin wasn’t alone in this. i’m sure you can find many “nicer” theologians that believed in persecution. massive irony that, given the time in which they lived. i call it “tit for tat”. “we’re persecuted to death, so anyone that disagrees with us should also be.”
love of Christ? hmmmmm
also, there’s a big difference in being scathing in one’s comments on a doctrine and being scathing of a person. Mark Driscoll (and elsewhere John Piper) get their fair share of criticism here, as on forums that love their type of theology would bash our Robin Parry and Terry Talbott, for example.
again, we must beware of tit for tat. that is not the best way forward…
buuuuuuuuuuuuut. i wholeheartedly agree that the doctrine of reprobation is horrific. i think we can judge doctrines on their fruit, and reprobation has AWFUL fruit. as does Total Depravity. yes, we are prone to sin, yes each of us is capable, in certain circumstances, of doing horrific things. but, we also are capable of great good. there are many humanitarian atheists. who knows…maybe they’re not reprobate, they just think they are? and their fruit is shown despite their belief not yet matching it?
but focusing on the evil we do just causes us to replicate it. i see this in the case of the theologians that, despite being at risk of persecution themselves, advocated it against people they marginally disagreed with. childish hypocrisy, at best. monstrous arrogance at worst.
ok but onto the doctrines.
i don’t believe Total Depravity is true. i believe that we are capable of good and evil, and that to say we are “totally depraved” is but half the picture.
reprobation…yes, God hardens hearts, and God grafts in and cuts out (though being cut out appears to be down to one Arminian choice, and being grafted back in another), yes God has created vessels of dishonour, and we’re not wise enough to question His wisdom, but God does not take pleasure in the death of a wicked man (Ezekiel), and God does not will that ANY should perish (so, if His grace is irresistable, as i do think (in a way), it’s universal in scope, and therefore Calvinist Universalism would have to be true).
reprobation could only ever be a temporary condition (God is not angry forever, and He does not cast away forever. Psalm 30 and Lamentations 3). it would be used for the salvation of others, but it would not simply throw away the reprobate. the reprobate would be brought to repentance and restored. with man it is impossible…with God nothing is impossible.
i can understand to some degree that choice is an illusion and that God can do what He likes with His creation. however, i believe that the Scriptures are clear that as He is not angry forever, so could punishment not possibly last forever.
i hope some of that makes sense.
for the record, i do believe God is irresistable, but this is not from some kind of forceful heardening or softening of our hearts…but from His ability to reason and persuade. i don’t have a proof text for this, but it seems experientially and observationally true that God works along side our circumstances and our own growth, and uses that to draw us close. if God is as skilled at negotiating as i believe He is, then i believe that however long it takes, and whatever circumstances it requires, God will stop at nothing to rescue that lost sheep. and He will wait as long as it takes for that prodigal to return home.
this is the God i worship…so sovereign that His will will not be thwarted, and His will is nothing short of an end to “reprobation” for all. and yet not a tyrant that He would force our hand, but that He would woo us as long as it takes, and pay any price, and die the worst death known to man, and suffer as a man the separation we suffer from God.
Calvinism is on one side, and Arminianism is on the other. both have real problems, but right in the middle, walking the narrow path between, is Jesus, and He says “i will not stop searching for any of my lost sheep.”
Fail…BTW, they hate God. Yeah, the Bible actually says that men hate God, go figure. And that men will not endure sound doctrine. And that their throats are open graves. Oh yeah, and God is not charged with evil. The Bible affirms all of this. “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” Gird up your loins and answer like a man!