WBC

[RickD]

Danny, this isn't an Calvinism/Arminianism feud, like many Calvinists and Arminians try to make it. Again, Danny, you're not hearing my objections. You're just defending Calvinism. That is what I've been trying to warn against here. Once we pigeon hole ourselves into a belief system, we tend to defend that system as a whole, even if parts of it aren't biblical.
Again, I'll ask. Why do you feel the need to hold to Calvinism? Why not hold to Christ, alone? All these ism's do nothing but divide the Church.



They are mutually exclusive, and no matter what one thinks on these issues, trying to be neutral, eventually one ends up at one end of the spectrum or the other.

August, I'm one looking from outside the Arminianism/Calvinism feud I'm not at either end of this spectrum. There are things in each that I believe are biblical, and things in each, that I believe aren't. One doesn't have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist. Contrary to what many Arminians and Calvinists say, one doesn't have to hold to one or the other.

I guess the bigger question is whether theological frameworks have any role to play. My contention is that we cannot escape it, and we need to decide which best represents God and the Scriptures.

I think they have roles to play, August. As Bart said before, and I also say, if after studying the frameworks, one has a closer relationship with Christ, then isn't that enough? Why do we need to choose one religious framework, to decide what best represents God and scripture? My whole point is that why do we have to call ourselves Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. when all that it leads to, is division in the Church?

Rick, the other thing is that there have been grave accusations against fellow Christians here, namely that because we hold to a theological framework we are in error and unbroken sin,

August, when one holds completely to any theological framework, including the errors of that framework, then what else do you expect people to say?

that we are unloving towards God creation and our fellow humans by virtue of association with the WBC

I didn't see anyone here say this. I heard Calvinism logically leads to a lack of love, and WBC has taken that all the way to its logical conclusion. I think Calvinists who are true Christians show love, despite what Calvinism teaches. Similarly, I believe Catholics who are true Christians, like Byblos, believe in salvation by God's grace through faith alone, despite what Catholicism teaches.

Not everyone who calls themselves Christian are true Christians, yet we stand condemned (without proof and by assertion), since we dare call ourselves Calvinist.

That's because, if you hold to Calvinism, you have to hold to what some see as, believing in a God who damns people to hell, just because His sovereignty allows Him to.

Shall we then say that the logical conclusion of Christianity is the KKK, who were expressly outspoken that they were "Christian"?

You could certainly say that. I know more than a few people here in the south, that believe that. Slavery and all.

August, my problem stems from this, in Calvinism:

Unconditional Election

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

And then, the L-I-P that logically follows the U, rests upon what Calvinism claims with election. I just cannot reconcile a God who eternally damns people because He chooses to, and then blames people for something when Calvinism claims they have absolutely no ability to choose to accept the gospel of Christ.

[DannyM]

And then, the L-I-P that logically follows the U, rests upon what Calvinism claims with election. I just cannot reconcile a God who eternally damns people because He chooses to, and then blames people for something when Calvinism claims they have absolutely no ability to choose to accept the gospel of Christ.

1 Peter 2:7-8
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,

8 and, A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.
They stumble because they disobey the message— which is also what they were destined for.

[August]

August, I'm one looking from outside the Arminianism/Calvinism feud I'm not at either end of this spectrum. There are things in each that I believe are biblical, and things in each, that I believe aren't. One doesn't have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist. Contrary to what many Arminians and Calvinists say, one doesn't have to hold to one or the other.

I know you believe that. However, even positions that claim to be neither ends up at one of the two positions at some point. Can you show us a position that you hold that are neither?

I think they have roles to play, August. As Bart said before, and I also say, if after studying the frameworks, one has a closer relationship with Christ, then isn't that enough? Why do we need to choose one religious framework, to decide what best represents God and scripture? My whole point is that why do we have to call ourselves Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. when all that it leads to, is division in the Church?

I agree that labels are not helpful. But at the end of the day, as we see with the KKK, WBC etc, doctrine matters. By selecting from each of the frameworks that which you like, and believing that, you are not escaping doctrine, you are just constructing your own (Welcome to Rickism?). Now, let's be clear, if doctrine becomes a stumbling block, then it should be ignored and done away with. And yes, if you read my blog you will see that I regularly rant against divisions in the church of Christ.

My faith does not stand or fall with Calvinism or any other ism, and no-ones should, since that would be adding requirements to the gospel that are unBiblical.

August, when one holds completely to any theological framework, including the errors of that framework, then what else do you expect people to say?

I expect to see some Scriptural proof and argumentation of the errors, and brotherly admonition if that can be shown. To make unsubstantiated accusations, that I disproved in my first response to you, is not what I expect. I have not seen any exegesis or analysis by you to show the errors. Instead I have seen you quote those who are begging the question in their favor.

That's because, if you hold to Calvinism, you have to hold to what some see as, believing in a God who damns people to hell, just because His sovereignty allows Him to.

Which raises several questions, and demonstrates a misrepresentation of Calvinism, and Scripture, I might add. More on this below.

And then, the L-I-P that logically follows the U, rests upon what Calvinism claims with election. I just cannot reconcile a God who eternally damns people because He chooses to, and then blames people for something when Calvinism claims they have absolutely no ability to choose to accept the gospel of Christ.

Your problem is not with Calvinism, I think. Your problem is with the spiritual state of unregenerate man. The key questions are:
1. Do people end up in hell or not?
2. If yes, why?
3. Can they go to hell without being judged by God?
4. What does God judge people on?

So let's deal with the underlying assumption here, that unregenerate man has libertarian free will to answer or reject the gospel call, and whether God is fair to judge people based on that answer. In the first place, I would love to see a Scriptural proof for libertarian free will, in fact, I would love to see any proof for LFW, in which uncaused choices are made. The fact is that we cannot escape being influenced by something, since we live in a cultural environment which influences us, we were infused by values and habits in our upbringing, and, we read in Scripture that we are spiritually dead, or damaged. That is the self that we are.

What caused our environment? By what mechanism were we put in the place of our upbringing? Where did the values come from that we were infused with? Was it fate, or chance, or some uncaused event that made you what you are? What about hearing the gospel? Does that not influence your decision to accept or reject? How then can one argue for a decision made apart from influence from God, if we are who we are because of creation, and we have heard the gospel, which is from God? Arguing that we have to make the decision in our natural state, and that that somehow absolves God from culpability in our decision making is just kicking the can down the road. Is it fair for God to send people to hell because they make a decision to reject the gospel because they live in His creation, in a place that they had no control over, born to parents they did not choose, with an IQ that was not determined by them, and in a state of sin that was the result of nothing they did, that they just inherited? Did God determine those things or not? If not, then what did? If it was chance, how can anyone be held morally responsible for chance events?

Do you then also believe the Scriptural description of unregenerate man:

- has a heart of stone (Eze 11:19, 36:26)
- is corrupt and have deceitful desires (Eph 4:22)
- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Does God have the right to judge mankind based on that, Rick? If we are to be judged based on that, and we are, are we guilty or not? Is that not how people end up in damnation? Does God not choose to judge mankind?

[DannyM]

Just to add to this, unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:August, I'm one looking from outside the Arminianism/Calvinism feud I'm not at either end of this spectrum. There are things in each that I believe are biblical, and things in each, that I believe aren't. One doesn't have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist. Contrary to what many Arminians and Calvinists say, one doesn't have to hold to one or the other.



I know you believe that. However, even positions that claim to be neither ends up at one of the two positions at some point. Can you show us a position that you hold that are neither

No, August. I can't really tell you any positions I hold. I'm saying that when I look at Arminianism, and Calvinism, I see things in each that I agree with in some ways, and disagree with in some ways.

I agree that labels are not helpful. But at the end of the day, as we see with the KKK, WBC etc, doctrine matters.

I agree. I never said doctrine doesn't matter.

By selecting from each of the frameworks that which you like, and believing that, you are not escaping doctrine, you are just constructing your own (Welcome to Rickism?).

August, I never said I select things from different frameworks, to construct a framework. I just said, that while looking through Calvininism, and Arminianism, I agree and disagree with parts of both. I haven't said I pick things that I like, from different ism's, and create my own ism.

To make unsubstantiated accusations, that I disproved in my first response to you, is not what I expect.

You didn't disprove, to me, anything I said before. Maybe someone else may agree with what you're saying. I certainly don't.

I have not seen any exegesis or analysis by you to show the errors.

August, we both know that if I post scripture, that shows me that Calvinism is in error, in certain areas, then you'll just disagree with me. I'm sure that as well as you know Calvinism, and all the arguments against it, my thoughts wouldn't be anything new to you.

Instead I have seen you quote those who are begging the question in their favor.

I understand why you would say that, because you disagree with Wesley.

Your problem is not with Calvinism, I think. Your problem is with the spiritual state of unregenerate man.

No, August, my issue in regards to this, is how Calvinism interprets certain scripture, and now that you mentioned it, how Calvinism views what you call "unregenerate man". I don't have a problem with scripture that shows man is unregenerate. I think my disagreement, with Calvinism lies in what Calvinism believes God actually does, to allow man to accept or deny Christ.

The key questions are:
1. Do people end up in hell or not?
2. If yes, why?
3. Can they go to hell without being judged by God?
4. What does God judge people on?

1. Yes, my belief is that people will be eternally in hell.
2. Because Christ died on the cross, to atone for all sins of mankind. That whosoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And, I believe anyone who rejects Christ, will end up in hell. As for those who haven't heard the gospel, then to be honest, I'm not really sure how God will judge them in regards to eternity.
3. I would have to say, no.
4. It depends on what God is judging them for. If God is judging in regards to eternal life, then belief on Christ is what they will be judged on.

So let's deal with the underlying assumption here, that unregenerate man has libertarian free will to answer or reject the gospel call, and whether God is fair to judge people based on that answer

Let's not deal with this, because neither you nor I believe man has absolute libertarian free will. So, that's not an issue, as far as I'm concerned.
I think we may disagree on what God actually does, or has done, to allow man to be able to accept or deny the gospel of Christ. And that may be where the foundation of Calvinism lies. In the "T" part of T-U-L-I-P.
If you could tell me, or show me a link, so I can understand what you believe God actually does, to enable man to choose or deny Christ. Then I can go from there. I think that may be the basis, or foundation that Calvinism holds to, that I don't agree with.

[RickD]

Just to add to this, unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.

Danny, I'll give you my take on this. I believe God wants an eternal relationship with all people. He has sent Christ to die for all peoples sins, that whoever believes on Christ, will have everlasting life. God loves us, and wants a relationship with us, in which we love Him, and worship Him, in eternity. Now, in order for us to love Him, we have to choose to love Him. Or, it wouldnt be love. In God's foreknowledge, he knows who will ultimately accept and reject Him. That doesn't mean God isn't patient, because He wants all men to come to Him.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

By creating them, God has effectively damned them.

That's how I see Calvinism, Danny. God creates certain people, and by His own will, damns them for eternity.

My belief in a nutshell is: God creates people, people sin, God sends Christ to atone for man's sin. God, by Christ's work, opens up man, to allow him to accept, or reject God's free gift. Those that accept the gift, have an eternal relationship with God. Those who reject Christ, have eternal separation from God. Man's own rejection of God, damns him. Not Gods decree, absent from man's choice.

[Katabole]

Just to add to this, unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:14-24).

In reading passages of scripture such as this, it becomes quite evident that the Apostle Paul did not believe in Hell in the same way that most Christians today perceive it. Assuming Hell is a place where the soul is ultimately annihilated and swept from existence, these verses make complete sense. If God created someone, He is not obligated to give that person eternal life in His presence. He is the Creator and is certainly entitled to bestow love and mercy on His creation or to destroy it if He so chooses.

To use an example, if a farmer cultivates a breeding ground for animals (cows, for instance), then those animals are born only because the farmer has made allowance for them. Without the farmer, many cows would have never come into existence in the first place. If the farmer, after years of receiving milk from one his cows, would like to then mercifully put the animal to sleep and take the meat from it, he is entitled to do this. If, on the other hand, the farmer feels that his giving the cow life entitles him to torture the poor animal every waking moment of its existence, that farmer is regarded as a cruel, sadistic, inhumane man, and his practices are abhorred by any self-respecting person.

If Paul understood Hell to be a place of unending, conscious pain and agonizing torture, Romans 9:14-24 would be cause for outrage. How could anyone call a God loving who would feel justified in creating people for the sole purpose of "demonstrating His wrath and making His power known" and ultimately allowing these people to suffer eternal torment in fire? If this passage is pondered objectively, I believe it makes far more sense to say that God intends for the wicked to perish instead of experiencing never-ending pain in Hell. This, God has every right to do without compromising His goodness. He gives life, and He can take it away. But giving life and subjecting that life to ceaseless torture is something far below any decent human being, let alone the Author of love and mercy Himself.

The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard. Yep.

[RickD]

Just to add to this, unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:14-24).

In reading passages of scripture such as this, it becomes quite evident that the Apostle Paul did not believe in Hell in the same way that most Christians today perceive it. Assuming Hell is a place where the soul is ultimately annihilated and swept from existence, these verses make complete sense. If God created someone, He is not obligated to give that person eternal life in His presence. He is the Creator and is certainly entitled to bestow love and mercy on His creation or to destroy it if He so chooses.

To use an example, if a farmer cultivates a breeding ground for animals (cows, for instance), then those animals are born only because the farmer has made allowance for them. Without the farmer, many cows would have never come into existence in the first place. If the farmer, after years of receiving milk from one his cows, would like to then mercifully put the animal to sleep and take the meat from it, he is entitled to do this. If, on the other hand, the farmer feels that his giving the cow life entitles him to torture the poor animal every waking moment of its existence, that farmer is regarded as a cruel, sadistic, inhumane man, and his practices are abhorred by any self-respecting person.

If Paul understood Hell to be a place of unending, conscious pain and agonizing torture, Romans 9:14-24 would be cause for outrage. How could anyone call a God loving who would feel justified in creating people for the sole purpose of "demonstrating His wrath and making His power known" and ultimately allowing these people to suffer eternal torment in fire? If this passage is pondered objectively, I believe it makes far more sense to say that God intends for the wicked to perish instead of experiencing never-ending pain in Hell. This, God has every right to do without compromising His goodness. He gives life, and He can take it away. But giving life and subjecting that life to ceaseless torture is something far below any decent human being, let alone the Author of love and mercy Himself.

The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard. Yep.

What about the angels, then? Matthew 25:41 :41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Is this also annihilation. There would be no "eternal" anything, if something, or someone is annihilated, correct?

[DannyM]

Just to add to this. Unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.

Danny, I'll give you my take on this. I believe God wants an eternal relationship with all people.

Then why won’t He?

He has sent Christ to die for all peoples sins, that whoever believes on Christ, will have everlasting life. God loves us, and wants a relationship with us, in which we love Him, and worship Him, in eternity.
Now, in order for us to love Him, we have to choose to love Him. Or, it wouldnt be love. In God's foreknowledge, he knows who will ultimately accept and reject Him. That doesn't mean God isn't patient, because He wants all men to come to Him.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Then why does God not draw everyone, Rick? God also commands all men to repent. Does this mean it is God’s decretive will that all men repent?

By creating them, God has effectively damned them.

That's how I see Calvinism, Danny. God creates certain people, and by His own will, damns them for eternity.

Not at all, Rick. But if you wish to pursue this line of thought then you are faced with the same problem. On your view, God created people knowing full well that they would end up in hell for eternity. By creating them God effectively damned them. There’s no escaping it.

When you want to attack a position it is best to make sure your own position is immune from the same attack.

My belief in a nutshell is: God creates people, people sin, God sends Christ to atone for man's sin. God, by Christ's work, opens up man, to allow him to accept, or reject God's free gift. Those that accept the gift, have an eternal relationship with God. Those who reject Christ, have eternal separation from God. Man's own rejection of God, damns him. Not Gods decree, absent from man's choice.

It seems you’ve reverted to a shaky position, Rick. Are you saying now that God draws all men?

[Echoside]

Not at all, Rick. But if you wish to pursue this line of thought then you are faced with the same problem. On your view, God created people knowing full well that they would end up in hell for eternity. By creating them God effectively damned them. There’s no escaping it.

My apologies for butting in, but do you have a response to Rick's assertions that does not involve tu quoque? Not saying you don't, but this is the main point I have not seen a set answer to.

[DannyM]

Not at all, Rick. But if you wish to pursue this line of thought then you are faced with the same problem. On your view, God created people knowing full well that they would end up in hell for eternity. By creating them God effectively damned them. There’s no escaping it.

My apologies for butting in, but do you have a response to Rick's assertions that does not involve tu quoque? Not saying you don't, but this is the main point I have not seen a set answer to.

Sure, good point, because it needs repeating. God is perfectly just in damning the whole of mankind if He so chooses. Man's unregenerate, sinful state leaves him without grounds for complaint. Hence Rick's 'objection' is a very human and emotionally-charged objection, and not a valid objection given the nature and state of man.

[domokunrox]

Danny, I have a question.

Do you have a response to Isaiah 1 in accordance to the T in TULIP? God is calling the sinful unregenerate man to reason and wants their consent to obey him?

(NASB)Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. [19] "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; [20] "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword " Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:Just to add to this. Unless the non-Calvinist wants to hold to universalism, you have a God who knowingly creates people who will go to hell no matter what He does to try and save them. They cannot not go there since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why not create only those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them. The non-Calvinist is thus hoist by his own petard.



Danny, I'll give you my take on this. I believe God wants an eternal relationship with all people.



Then why won’t He?

Danny, I certainly don't expect you to agree with me. But, I would hope that you would at least make an effort to listen to what I'm saying, before you disagree. I know at times, I don't properly convey my thoughts. But, in this case, I think I was perfectly clear, on where I stand. God doesn't have an eternal relationship with all people, because some people choose to reject God's provision, for eternal life. Again, forced love, is not true love.

Then why does God not draw everyone, Rick? God also commands all men to repent. Does this mean it is God’s decretive will that all men repent?

Who says God doesn't draw everyone? The bible certainly doesn't say that.
Danny, I know how fond you are of quoting Jesus' words. So pay attention to what our Lord says here in John 12:32:
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
That's Jesus' own words, Danny.

On your view, God created people knowing full well that they would end up in hell for eternity. By creating them God effectively damned them. There’s no escaping it.

Danny, again, you aren't listening to me. God created all people, and then, through Christ's sacrifice, gave them the ability to choose, or deny Him. God's foreknowledge of whom will accept or deny Christ, is certainly not the same as what Calvinism says about God damning people for eternity, because God chooses to. You aren't taking into account how God has enabled man to choose to accept or deny Christ. You need to think outside you "box of Calvinism", to understand this, Danny. God has given man the ability to make this choice, through Christ's sacrifice.

It seems you’ve reverted to a shaky position, Rick. Are you saying now that God draws all men?

Danny, Jesus Himself says that He draws all men, in the scripture I quoted from John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Danny, as I was responding to August earlier, I believe my disagreement with Calvinism, may be in how Calvinism says that God draws men to Him. In Calvinism, when does this take place? Because, Total Depravity, as Calvinism puts forth, may be where my difference begins. Because, I believe once one believes in Calvinism's description of T-Total Depravity, then each of the U-L-I-P would logically have to follow. Now, since I don't agree with Calvinism's "T", then I can't logically agree with the rest of U-L-I-P.

[RickD]

Not at all, Rick. But if you wish to pursue this line of thought then you are faced with the same problem. On your view, God created people knowing full well that they would end up in hell for eternity. By creating them God effectively damned them. There’s no escaping it.

My apologies for butting in, but do you have a response to Rick's assertions that does not involve tu quoque? Not saying you don't, but this is the main point I have not seen a set answer to.

Sure, good point, because it needs repeating. God is perfectly just in damning the whole of mankind if He so chooses. Man's unregenerate, sinful state leaves him without grounds for complaint. Hence Rick's 'objection' is a very human and emotionally-charged objection, and not a valid objection given the nature and state of man.

Danny, my objection isn't based on emotion. It is based on what I believe about God's nature. While I do agree that God, in His absolute sovereignty, has every "right" to damn anyone he chooses, to eternal hell, I believe God also has the "right" to show how truly loving His nature is, to sinful man. By allowing a way that all men can spend eternity with Him, by believing on the work of Christ. My view of God's nature, is that His unmerited love towards us, is more important, than His absolute power to just damn those who he chooses. God's nature=Love over His justified ability to damn people to hell.

[narnia4]

I lost track of the conversation so apologies if this has been answered or is off-track... so just for clarification/summation. Is the bigger issue for non-Calvinists the "T" or the "L" here (or the U). The L (limited atonement) certainly seems to be a big issue for some, but Rick is saying that it starts with total depravity and the rest must follow? So am I tracking this correctly so far?

Doesn't seem that anyone has brought up four-point Calvinism, or Amyraldism, which tries to leave out the "L".

This stuff is pretty challenging, interesting but hard to deal with.