John Wesley's theology

[PaulSacramento]

The atheist basically said that IF there was a God and he elected some people for eternal damnation even before they were born that this God is far less moral than any imperfect human since he knows of no human that would condem anyone ( much less their "child") before they are even born.

Nice to get an atheist’s perspective on the “morality” of election, Paul.

The Jewish person asked me if I wanted to convert ! He mentioned that the God Of Abraham was far less cruel than this God that condemns those that have not even born to do something worth condemning.

Perhaps your Jewish friend hadn’t read the thread after all. God’s decree of reprobation is made in light of the fall. We all deserve condemnation, Paul. How did your friend miss this?

Well, getting an outside view of things never hurts
You do know that Jews don't believe in original sin or total depravity , right?
The Jewish perspective on these things is quite interesting.
REDESTINATION:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Isaac Broydé

The belief that the destiny of man is determined beforehand by God. "Predestination" in this sense is not to be confounded with the term "preordination," applied to the moral agents as predetermining either election to eternal life or reprobation. This latter view of predestination, held by Christian and Mohammedan theologians, is foreign to Judaism, which, professing the principle of Free Will, teaches that eternal life and reprobation are dependent solely upon man's good or evil actions. It is in regard to the material life, as to whether man will experience good fortune or meet adversity, that Judaism recognizes a divine decision.

[Philip]

*** Post edited for content by Moderator (Byblos). ***

[puritan lad]

Phillip,

Can the Beast of Revelation be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

Neo-x? Anybody?

[RickD]

Rick,

Here are the 5 points presented by the Remonstrance at the Synod of Ddort. Note well #5:

1.) election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
2.) the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, was efficacious only for the man of faith;
3.) unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
4.) grace is not irresistible; and
5.) believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

This is Arminianism. There are those who may well call themselves Arminians who reject any of these, just as there are professing Christians who deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a lion.

PL, if you took the time to really listen to what I'm saying, you would see that what Bart said here, is what Iv'e been saying:

Is that solely how those calling themselves Arminians present their positions PL? Why should we accept your definition and narrowing of scope as definitive in that regard and not how those themselves holding to Arminianism represent it?

Your definition of Arminianism, certainly doesn't speak for what all Arminians believe.

Certainly, I'm not trying to establish what Rick believes. I'll let him speak for himself, and can only debate what he says he believes. But if he holds that any points of Arminianism (as defined by the Arminians at the Remonstrance) aren't true, then he is, by definition, not an Arminian.

Again, PL, if you really listened to what I was saying, you'd know that I never said I was an Arminian. I'm just finding myself defending Arminianism from you, because you define Arminianism in your own way, and are arguing against an Arminianism, that most Arminians that I've read about, don't believe in.

He may well hold to the Arminian view of election (though he appears to go even beyond that into Pelagianism, ie. "anyone can do it"), but that doesn't make him an Arminian.

I don't hold to Pelagianism, nor Arminianism, PL.
Again, since you didn't seem to understand this the first time I said it, If I'm going to understand Calvinism, I understand it as Calvinists believe it. If I want to understand Arminianism, I'll listen to what Arminians say about what they believe, not what you say they believe.

[RickD]

Let me ask you, since I can't get a straight answer from jlay. Can the beast of Revelation be saved, or he is predestined to hell? If the former, is the prophecy in Revelation false? If the latter, is God being partial? The question is for anyone who denies that God predestines men to Hell to tackle. Rick? Phillip? We need an answer. (or a detailed explanation of why my question is a logical fallacy.)

PL, I believe no man is predestined to hell, as defined by Calvinism's view of predestination. Does that answer your question? I absolutely believe in predestination. I just don't agree with Calvinism's definition of it.

[PaulSacramento]

You know guys, in the end we all tend to forget that, like Christ said, with God anything is possible.
When asked how can anyone be saved, Christ replied that for Man it is not possible, But for God anything is possible.
he Rich Young Ruler
16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS; 19 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The Disciples’ Reward
27 Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” 28 And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.

[zoegirl]

*** Post edited for content by Moderator (Byblos). ***

Can we reduce the emotionalism? Remember that these are doctrines that have been debated over the centuries by great minds. For every "despicable" characteristic of God accused by someone who detests Calvinism is a characteristic of a weak God simply hoping that someone might believe from someone who espouses Armenian doctrine. I dislike intensely the idea that simply because we can't handle it, we reduce God down to just "wishing" someone would believe in Him. Did He die and rise again in vain? Or was His death and resurrection effectual?

To my mind, trying to make God despicable when we are finite beings is a rather arrogant thing to do. And of course, it's a common accusation from anyone discussing suffering, evil, or any decision from God.

Are we not able to reconcile suffering and evil without resorting to calling God despicable? Either God passively allows suffering or He is more active in it. Obviously either way we have to , as Christians, reconcile that. But somehow we do. Without resorting to silly name-calling.

]Whether God does something or not is not something WE get to make in our mind. We need to look to His scripture. We may not like the idea that God places us in difficult situations, but scripture shows us that He does. So we try to understand a God that sometimes seems unfair or cruel. And we constantly use this language, don't we? "Oh, God is wanting you to learn something" or "God has something even greater for you"...and of course there is the entire book of Job, at the end of which Jo simply states "I place my hand on my mouth" Wise words from someone who actually got to speak to God about his suffering.

So the question is not whether WE like the idea, but what scripture says. This is a complicated issue and we will not fully flesh out the concepts. Greater minds have attempted. I would rather fall on placing God's sovereignty AND grace. Emotionally crying out that "I don't like it!!!" is not up to us, otherwise we are creating God to what we want Him to be.

[puritan lad]

Let me ask you, since I can't get a straight answer from jlay. Can the beast of Revelation be saved, or he is predestined to hell? If the former, is the prophecy in Revelation false? If the latter, is God being partial? The question is for anyone who denies that God predestines men to Hell to tackle. Rick? Phillip? We need an answer. (or a detailed explanation of why my question is a logical fallacy.)

PL, I believe no man is predestined to hell, as defined by Calvinism's view of predestination. Does that answer your question? I absolutely believe in predestination. I just don't agree with Calvinism's definition of it.

What is your definition of predestination? Do you think antichrist can be saved?

[jlay]

Can we reduce the emotionalism? Remember that these are doctrines that have been debated over the centuries by great minds.

Zoe I agree. Many of those great minds, such as Spurgeon, relied on emotionalism in their attacks of universal atonement. History repeats.

PL,
No one is obligated has to answer your loaded questions. Whining about it won't help.

Predestination: Short answer. Events that occur transpire through the will of God.
Example: I soveriegnly create a scenario. There is a room with two doors, one red and one green. Everyone in the room can choose a door. The choice not to choose bears the same consequence as choosing the red door. Whoever enters the green door will experience the ultraphonic, supersonic, celestial sound machine. (USCSM) Those who do not will never hear it.
Therefore those who chose the green door are predestined to experience the USCSM. Those who choose the red door or make no choice are predestined to not hear.

Dr. Harry Ironside gave the illustration of the sinner coming to the door of salvation (John 10:9). Above the door was a sign which says, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). The sinner responds to this gracious invitation, trusts Christ and he is gloriously saved. He now turns around and looks at the door through which he had just entered. He sees above the door another sign which says, "Chosen...in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Both are true. Both are taught in the Bible. Both must be believed.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/re ... vereig.htm

[zoegirl]

lol, actually, I have seen and heard usually more emotionalism from those that "Detest" Calvinism, but I would agree that there can be on both sides

[RickD]

Predestination: Short answer. Events that occur transpire through the will of God.
Example: I soveriegnly create a scenario. There is a room with two doors, one red and one green. Everyone in the room can choose a door. The choice not to choose bears the same consequence as choosing the red door. Whoever enters the green door will experience the ultraphonic, supersonic, celestial sound machine. (USCSM) Those who do not will never hear it.
Therefore those who chose the green door are predestined to experience the USCSM. Those who choose the red door or make no choice are predestined to not hear.

Dr. Harry Ironside gave the illustration of the sinner coming to the door of salvation (John 10:9). Above the door was a sign which says, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). The sinner responds to this gracious invitation, trusts Christ and he is gloriously saved. He now turns around and looks at the door through which he had just entered. He sees above the door another sign which says, "Chosen...in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Both are true. Both are taught in the Bible. Both must be believed.

PL, I think I believe pretty much the same as jlay, as far as predestination.

[puritan lad]

jlay,

You don't have to answer anything. That is your perogative. But calling it a "loaded" question is a copout, unless you can demonstrate how it is loaded.

I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell. There is really no way around it, hence the silence concerning the question as well as the false charges that it is loaded.

I think I can safely say that, until this question is answered, it is "game, set, match".

[RickD]

jlay,

You don't have to answer anything. That is your perogative. But calling it a "loaded" question is a copout, unless you can demonstrate how it is loaded.

I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell. There is really no way around it, hence the silence concerning the question as well as the false charges that it is loaded.

I think I can safely say that, until this question is answered, it is "game, set, match".

PL, what was the question about the beast, that I missed? I would have answered if I saw it. I did answer your question about the Antichrist, however. It may not be the answer you were looking for, though.

As far as game, set, and match, I think you already chalked this conversation up to a win for yourself, before you even posted anything.

[puritan lad]

jlay,

You don't have to answer anything. That is your perogative. But calling it a "loaded" question is a copout, unless you can demonstrate how it is loaded.

I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell. There is really no way around it, hence the silence concerning the question as well as the false charges that it is loaded.

I think I can safely say that, until this question is answered, it is "game, set, match".

PL, what was the question about the beast, that I missed? I would have answered if I saw it. I did answer your question about the Antichrist, however. It may not be the answer you were looking for, though.

As far as game, set, and match, I think you already chalked this conversation up to a win for yourself, before you even posted anything.

At this point, I'm willing to let the readers decide if the question was ever directly answered. It has not been.

[zoegirl]

jlay,

You don't have to answer anything. That is your perogative. But calling it a "loaded" question is a copout, unless you can demonstrate how it is loaded.

I chose the Beast for a reason, since most people here still regard him as a future person (there are many other examples in Scripture). It is quite clear that this person is (or was) predestined to Hell. There is really no way around it, hence the silence concerning the question as well as the false charges that it is loaded.

I think I can safely say that, until this question is answered, it is "game, set, match".

PL, what was the question about the beast, that I missed? I would have answered if I saw it. I did answer your question about the Antichrist, however. It may not be the answer you were looking for, though.

As far as game, set, and match, I think you already chalked this conversation up to a win for yourself, before you even posted anything.

At this point, I'm willing to let the readers decide if the question was ever directly answered. It has not been.

I for one hadn't thought of the antichrist, PL....interesting question.