What say you Christians ???

by wobble 277 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  godrulz

  There is great risk, double-edged sword to creating free moral agents with great capacity for love and evil. God does save infants because they cannot reject Him. It would be unjust to condemn those without moral and mental capacity. Can a baby murder someone and go to jail? If a baby knocked a gun that killed his sibling, the baby would not get the death penalty.

  It would be murder and sheer utilitarianism/pragmatism (vs biblical ethics) to kill babies to spare them from hell. The human race would cease to exist. Using this logic, God would be better off not creating because many would go to heaven, but others would go to hell. Using this logic, parents should never have kids because a few may turn out bad. In this case, the end does NOT justify the means. It would be morally wrong and contrary to God's wisdom/ways/creation mandate to do this. If it was righteous, God Himself would do it, but He does not. The sin of abortion or murder is not justification to possibly spare a child from turning out bad.

  So, God could have not created, could have created robots, or He could create beings with capacity to love or hate and the respective consequences. Despite the grief it caused Him (dying for His creation; tolerating evil until judgment), love was seen to be a higher good, worth the risk. He will triumph over evil in the end, but there will be those who will not share in His glory (however, there will also be many, many who will know and delight in God). There is still a choice and God has done everything He needs to do to redeem us. There is nothing unfair about babies going to heaven or adults going to hell. There is nothing right about killing humanity and playing god to save some from hell or evil. God has already done that in the cross. This is why men are without excuse for rejecting His perfect provision (Rom. 1). Love does not coerce, so God will not force people into heaven or out of hell. Again, nothing unfair in all of this, just the wisdom of God.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  godrulz

  I'll give you credit, you made some interesting statements.

  There is great risk, double-edged sword to creating free moral agents with great capacity for love and evil. God does save infants because they cannot reject Him. It would be unjust to condemn those without moral and mental capacity.

  I wouldn't claim to know who God saves, the bible doesn't comment on savation "based" on age. In fact the bible is clear that only those who are in Christ (covered by his blood) are saved.

  There is nothing right about killing humanity and playing god to save some from hell or evil. God has already done that in the cross.

  Agreed. It does seem rather odd to me though, that you trust God's sovereign grace with children, but not with the rest of humanity. God has every right to save or condemn whoever he chooses, see Romans 9.

  Oh, while you're in Romans 9, can you tell me what it means to be one of the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"? v22

  This is why men are without excuse for rejecting His perfect provision (Rom. 1).

  Here we seem to have a problem. In fact, that passage says nothing about "rejecting His perfect provision", but' in a long list of things that God's wrath is revealed against, is, being "disobedient to parents". v30 I'm not sure how that applies only to adults.

  Love does not coerce, so God will not force people into heaven or out of hell. Again, nothing unfair in all of this, just the wisdom of God.

  Looks to me like you have a problem then. By your way of thinking, God is forcing the very weakest among us (babies) into heaven.
• 

  godrulz

  Rom. 9-11 is about the sovereign election of Israel for mission/service and her future restoration. Calvinists are wrong to read a decretal, deterministic view into it in relation to individual salvation. I don't think a baby will object to waking up on the other side in heaven vs hell. They have not actualized sin and would not have an enmity to God (nor would they know differently). Even Catholics have given up on limbo.
• 

  witnessofjesus

  Wobbie,

  Althought we will be judged for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. The fact of the matter is is that we were yet unborn when Adam sinned, and we have all inherited the death sentence from Adam. So, if you're growing older and you think you'll die in the next 80 to 100 years, then yes, Adam's sin does have consequences for you, although they are not some mystical 'judgement' to be meeted out to you in the sky, but in the here and now, the fact that we're all growing older and then we die is proof enough that God did indeed sentence Adam and Eve to death, for if they had not sinned, we would all live forever in perfect human bodies right here on this earth.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  godrulz

  Rom. 9-11 is about the sovereign election of Israel for mission/service and her future restoration.

  You can spin it any way you like, you didn't answer my question. What does it mean to be a vessel of wrath "prepared for destruction"?

  How about Jacob and Esau?

  God choose Jacob and HATED Esau.
• 

  godrulz

  The context is clear that the quote is from Genesis where it explicitly says that they represent nations, not individuals. Rom. 9-11 is about corporate election of Israel for service, not individual double predestination to salvation/damnation.

  Rom. 9:22 should also not be read in a deterministic, individualistic way. The larger context is answering Jewish Christian concern in Rome over the shift to Gentiles away from Israel. God sovereignly chose Israel, set her aside when she rejected Messiah, raised up Gentiles, and will restore Israel in the future. God has authority over creatures and nations. The context is about Israel, not individual salvation (Jews wrongly thought they were saved because they were Jewish by race/inheritance, but Paul has already built a case earlier in Romans that there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ through faith in Christ; all are also universally condemned as sinners, even if Abe is their father).

  A look at the Greek grammar (perfect particle 'prepared' may be reflexive or passive) shows that those who reject God are in a state of readiness or ripeness to receive God's wrath. Unbelievers are objects of wrath (Eph. 2), while believers experience life in Christ. These benefits/consequences relate to free choices (faith vs unbelief), not decree, determinism, etc. (Calvinism is wrong). God patiently endures opposition to Himself, but their judgment is coming. He does not arbitrarily decree who will be saved or lost, but invites all men to come to Him for mercy based on the cross, His perfect provision. Those who refuse to come remain condemned. Their destiny is destruction because of their free choice to reject Him. Those who freely trust Him have a different destiny prepared: eternal life in His presence. God's love and provision is not limited, partial, arbitrary. It is a wrong view of sovereignty to foist that idea on the text. God's wrath does come on the godless, but believers demonstrate His mercy and grace. God wants all to experience mercy and not perish (2 Peter 3:9; Jn. 3:16; I Tim. 2:4), but many refuse to come to Him for life. He does not predestine some to life and others to death. This would make God like Satan who wants all to perish (whereas Calvinistic God only wants some to perish?!). Context is king.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  godrulz

  Rom. 9-11 is about the sovereign election of Israel for mission/service and her future restoration.

  Rom 9:10

  And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- 12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

  You keep saying Jacob and Esau represent nations. OK Assuming I accept this idea for a moment, that doesn't change the fact that God hated Esau, and hated him even before he was born, before he had done anything good or bad. He was chosen to be the head of all the vessels of wrath fitted for distruction.

  These benefits/consequences relate to free choices (faith vs unbelief), not decree, determinism, etc.

  He does not arbitrarily decree who will be saved or lost...

  For everyone but babies, they're saved by decree and never get to make a choice.

  Those who refuse to come remain condemned.

  Except babies who where never condemned anyway? How old were you when you LOST your salvation?
• 

  godrulz

  The passage is NOT talking about individual salvation that is not based on decree, but response to God/truth. God can sovereignly chose Israel over Egypt without a moral issue. It would be morally indefensible to arbitrarily save some sinners, but damn many others that He could save if He only wanted to.

  Gen. 25:23 two NATIONS are in your womb (Rom. 9:12). Rom. 9:13 quotes Malachi 1:2-3 which talks about nations/lands, not personal salvation, in context. Calvinists are wrong to read their deductive, deterministic, individualistic (modern vs biblical corporate ideas), decretal system into a context about ISRAEL vs Gentiles, NOT individual Jews/Gentiles in relation to salvation. The passage is eschatological more than soteriological (dealt with earlier in Rom. 1-5). We must walk through the context verse by verse. You are jumping to wrong conclusions based on wrong assumptions about the passage and theology in general.

  As well, Jesus also said to hate parents on one hand, yet not hate parents on the other hand. The biblical concept is not hate guts for no reason, but a relative thing. God has a right to pick Israel over other nations, but He does not have a right to play eenie meenie minnie mo with individual heaven/hell destinies of any given Jew or Gentile (the preceding context puts the onus on individual faith vs unbelief, not election). Election is corporate, conditional, in Christ. Calvinists are wrong to make it unconditional and individual. God sovereignly predestines to have a people for Himself, Israel and the Church. He does not decree in eternity past who will make up this corporate elect (all who believe and follow His standards become part of this chosen group; those who refuse His ways are not part of the group and its promises/privileges).

  No one is saved by decree. This is a wrong view. The decree is to have a people, not which specific person will or not be part of this people. All are invited become part of the people of God, yet many refuse to come on God's terms. Things are not arbitrarily, fatalistically settled before creation, but destinies are settled by choices during actual lifetimes and not fixed until death (no longer probation, no second chances).

  Deputy: Are you Calvinistic? If so, change your paradigm to a more biblical one (free will theism).
• 

  leavingwt

  IF you accept the Divine Command Theory, there is never any problem with how God acts. He can do whatever he pleases and when he does so, it's ALWAYS CORRECT, no matter how we feel about it.

  It would be morally indefensible to arbitrarily save some sinners, but damn many others that He could save if He only wanted to.

  "It implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon God's whim."

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
• 

  Deputy Dog

  godrulz

  The passage is NOT talking about individual salvation that is not based on decree...

  It obviously was for Jacob and Esau.