"Fairness"

To RobertW: 1. The issue is decidedly not one of fairness. There is nothing fair in Arminian soteriology—those who are not sensitive and insightful by nature, those who have no access to the preaching of the Gospel, those who have had a hard life to embitter them, those who have had a luxurious life that contents them with this world, those who are extremely bright and have trouble grasping how the unscientific could possibly be true—all of these have a marked disadvantage. Things are not “fair” simply because one has a choice. A fourteen-year-old girl who chooses to go live with her mom and step-father rather than remain with her dad and is subsequently physically or sexually abused by that man cannot be said to have gotten a fair shake. Most people in this world don’t have the slightest notion of who Christ really is…and you’re just leaving it up to them to figure it out. When they end up in hell, they’ll be glad to know you thought it was fair. 2. We all need to be exceedingly careful not to quote verses out of context. John 12:32-33 reads: “‘But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.” Clearly the emphasis here is on the crucifixion, not on the extent of the applicability of the atonement. (The usual Calvinistic interpretation of “all men” passages is that they refer to the universalizing of God’s covenant with Man: no longer is it just for Jews, but for “all men.” In some contexts that’s a bit of a stretch. For most passages, however, it fits in with the context perfectly well.) As regards Mark 8:34—‘And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, ‘Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’”—Christ is saying these words as part of a rebuke of Peter (Peter doesn’t want Jesus to have to die…Jesus lets him know that it is wrong to hang on to this life at all costs…this lesson is directed at those who are already followers of Christ…there is no Arminian message here.)3. You asked, “Is God glorified by a doctrine that sets the majority of mankind in a state of unconditional reprobation as though God sought man's damnation rather than his salvation?” Well, let me ask a similar question about your selected soteriology: “Is God glorified by a doctrine that sets the majority of mankind in a state of CONDITIONAL reprobation as though God sought man's damnation rather than his salvation?” (After all, at least two-thirds of mankind presently alive is not Christian. That’s four BILLION people headed for hell under your system. It sounds to me as if God is not terribly upset by their demise--at least not enough to do anything about it. Universalists might claim that “this makes God into Satan. God does not command the (nearly) impossible and then selectively administer (access to) grace to a few to enable them to keep the commandment.” You can get out of the problem only by espousing universalism or Calvinism (you can ameliorate it some by pursuing pluralism or inclusivism). In Calvinism (at least that which is supralapsarian), God damns ALL of the evil “borg” clones (goats, tares, vessels of destruction) and saves ALL of the real people, as it were. (his beloved sheep) It almost sounds “fair.” (BTW, I have trouble envisioning the eternal conscious torment of anyone, be they Saddam, Osama, or Pol Pot, and I latch onto those verses that seem to imply annihilationism. I know it’s not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination, but my heart just can’t embrace with any fondness the traditional option.)4. I think you hit on something with the weeping of Christ. An inability to adequately explain the seeming Passibility of God (the notion that he is affected by his creatures and reacts emotionally) is a weakness of Calvinism. You must notice, though, that in Luke 19, as Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, he claims that the truth is hidden from them and that their destruction is sure. 5. If “humility is a condition for receiving the grace,” please explain to me the humility you see in Saul of Tarsus. Obviously, it cannot be an absolute condition, can it? But the real question is not whether humility is a prerequisite to faith, but whether or not we can of our own free will become humble and receptive to the Gospel. Arminians propose Prevenient Grace and we Calvinists, Sufficient Grace. Again, only Pelagius will say it just takes humility.6. About the Red Heifer—look in your BDB and you’ll see that in Numbers 19:9, chatta’t is NOT properly translated as “sin offering.” It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God). It doesn’t matter what it is usually translated as. There are numerous occasions in Scripture where a particular word must be translated differently from its normal usage because of context. This is one of them—and it is quite clear cut—there is no squabbling amongst scholars on this one. 7. Hebrews 9 seems to be saying that the OT sacrificial system offered a superficial purgation whereas the atonement of Christ is “deep down.” (The difference between the circumcision of the flesh…and of the heart.) In terms of the Holy Spirit, we must decide whether his presence is by invitation only or whether he enters of his own accord. Maybe YOU resist the Spirit of Grace but I have never been able to and cannot imagine even pursuing it. (I’m not talking about the rebellion of sin; I have my fair share of that. I’m talking about repudiation…I cannot bring myself to even consider it. C. S. Lewis was no Calvinist, but still spoke of himself as “the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”) Do you really have no attraction to the concept of the “hound of heaven?” (Or to the Good Shepherd leaving the ninety and nine…?) The Love of Christ be with you!

I' been reading the posts that all you guys are writting and am no professor so I won't take a side and comment on anything except to mention one point or two. Before Jersulem fell Josephsus records prophets going around the city proclaiming its fall, and that before Titus laid siege of it. God cared. In the book "Eternity in thier Hearts" the author makes a case for the "extra" activity of God on behalf what is called hidden groups of people and the salvation of thier souls, God cared. Romans also testifying to the ability of God to save without human agency or at least proclaim He is God. However , that doesn't excuse us from doing the Will of the Father in reguards to witnessing of Jesus Christ. Basically its a matter of how much Love we on an individual basis have and are willing to express in life. It seems that one camp doesn't get going and the other camp can't rest in and enjoy thier salvation for fear of falling or failing the grace of God. I love simple. Simple faith, simple obedience, simple devotion, and simply just following Jesus. i love all you guys and gleen alot from you all but when the days over I have real peoples problems I need to minister to in many times what are life and death situations. In thoughs moments I have no room to expound doctrine to them. They don't care. I rember what I heard a minister once say "chose wisely your battles " , some things aren't worth argueing about. God Bless , Love Brother Daryl

About the Red Heifer—look in your BDB and you’ll see that in Numbers 19:9, chatta’t is NOT properly translated as “sin offering.” It’s not even an offering (the unclean person is doused, but nothing is offered to God). It doesn’t matter what it is usually translated as. There are numerous occasions in Scripture where a particular word must be translated differently from its normal usage because of context. This is one of them—and it is quite clear cut—there is no squabbling amongst scholars on this one.It depends on how carefully you choose your 'scholars'. Please see my answer here.

i love all you guys and gleen alot from you all but when the days over I have real peoples problems I need to minister to in many times what are life and death situations. In thoughs moments I have no room to expound doctrine to them. They don't care. I rember what I heard a minister once say "chose wisely your battles " , some things aren't worth argueing about. God Bless DarylI think you are presuming that 'we guys' spend our lives in ivory towers. I don't know about my fellows, but I have preached the gospel in more than twently countries and was street preaching almost 50 years ago. All my theology is pastoral. An evangelist may get away without having to think through implications but a pastor will have to do so if he is to care for the flock. It is because I have spent my life in caring for people with 'real problems' in 'life and death situations' that I try to understand the way in which God is at work in their lives and mine.

Hi Svineklev,1. The issue is decidedly not one of fairness.Every person on earth is dealt with by God based upon their response to the light they are exposed to. Every man and woman has the light of conscience and the light of creation. They also have what we term 'natural law' with which to respond to. These things are used by the Holy Spirit to draw man unto repentance. If they respond rightly they will receive more light. If not, the light that they have will be taken away and they will be 'given over' to their sins. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"2. We all need to be exceedingly careful not to quote verses out of context. John 12:32-33 reads: “‘But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.” Clearly the emphasis here is on the crucifixion, not on the extent of the applicability of the atonement.I cannot agree with the interpretation you give in this passage. Moreover, the weight of scripture is clear on God's desire that all be saved. It almost sounds “fair.” (BTW, I have trouble envisioning the eternal conscious torment of anyone, be they Saddam, Osama, or Pol Pot, and I latch onto those verses that seem to imply annihilationism. I know it’s not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination, but my heart just can’t embrace with any fondness the traditional option.)This position on Hell allows one to embrace unconditional election and yet sleep at night. The weight of Scripture is clear that Hell is a very real place. Annihilationism is contrary to orthodoxy in every sense and is a doctrine probigated by the "Jesus Seminar" and other highly liberal schools of theology. This leans to what Paris Reidhead said happened when the split between evangelicals and liberals took place. Excerpt From "Ten Shekels and a Shirt":Now religion then had to exist because there were so many people that made their living at it, so they had to find some way to justify their existence. So back about the time in 1850, the church divided into two groups. The one group was the liberals, who accepted the philosophy of the humanism and tried to find some relevance by saying something like this to their generation, "Ha, Ha….we don’t know there’s a heaven; we don’t know there’s a hell. But we do know this – that you’ve got to live for 70 years! We know there’s a great deal of benefit from poetry, from high thoughts and noble aspirations. Therefore it’s important for you to come to church on Sunday, so that we can read some poetry, that we can give you some little adages and axioms and rules to live by. We can’t say anything about what’s going to happen when you die, but we’ll tell you this, if you’ll come every week and pay and help and stay with us, we’ll put springs on your wagon and your trip will be more comfortable. We can’t guarantee anything about what’s going to happen when you die, but we say that if you come along with us, we’ll make you happier while you’re alive." And so this became the essence of liberalism. It has simply nothing more than to try and put a little sugar in the bitter coffee of their journey and sweeten it up for a time. This is all that it could say.When you have no real belief in hell it is impossible to ever have a real discussion on anything Christian. We are officially "OFF the rails."

My comments weren't directed at you presonally, however what I wrote seems to have struck a cord in you for some reason. Maybe you need to look again in the mirror of Jesus and check your heart. I neither corrected you or rebuked you personally or publically , as you have me directly in reference to evangelists not having to think through the implications of what they say or preach. I take seriously that which I minister for the Lord and have both an extended ministry(traveling and speaking as an evangelist) and local ministry(streets/hospital/shut-ins ect...) As to my comments , I have observed on this topic you as well as the 2 other guys seem to locked into a doctrinal war were there's little evidence of either love or grace especially on your part brother. It seems to me that to be right to you is the most important thing in all the world.

I neither corrected you or rebuked you personally or publically , as you have me directly in reference to evangelists not having to think through the implications of what they say or preach.You were not in my mind when I wrote about evangelists. I know nothing about you. It was a genuine hearted comment. Evangelists do not need to delve into the depths of these things in the way that pastors do. You misinterpret me and misjudge my heart. God is my witness.

Brothers, I'm detecting a distinct edginess, particularly a somewhat diminished patience to see if a given comment was directed at oneself and/or intended in a negative fashion. God has given us this community, this normally very patient and loving community, and it is a very precious gift indeed.Let us take care with it. I think a passage from the beloved 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians is worth a moment's re-examination:1 Corinthians 13 (NASB)4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. May the Lord give us understanding and true perception where it often lacks in forum communication, and give unto us to love with that same love that He is.edit - as for "doctrinal war", I can understand why this looks this way (and perhaps there is some merit to the observation), but we're struggling with questions that almost inevitably will result in what at least appears to be such a war. Many people do not see the point of discussing these questions (i.e. what's commonly called the "Calvinism" debate), but to some of us (like myself) they are quite important, getting right at the heart of how we see God, ourselves, our neighbors, our enemies, and God's relationships with us all. In this forum we have a rare oppurtunity to hold a discussion with both (more than two, really) sides well represented by men who know well what they believe and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and the accompanying love. I hope we won't alarm the rest of you to much while we hash this out :-)

Beloved,Just to clear the air I must say that I am not trying to wage a doctrinal war either. I really prefer to talk about revival and repentance. I do have a concern and to be honest feel the need to weigh in when certain extreme doctrines surface. I appear to have been incorrect in my assertion of Anti-paradox making a case for Universalism. I have been known to jump the gun and pigeon hole people into doctrinal categories wrongly and I apologize openly and publicly. I have apologized to Bro. Ron Bailey for some exchanges we had earlier in the year, that apology still holds good. As we continue in this thread understand that I am not angry; I feel a sense of desperation when it comes to defending what I consider essential biblical issues and may come off as such. I ask for mercy in those times. It is almost impossible to know how a person is really feeling when they write. We can only go on what we read. The issue that I feel is pivotal to understanding the Gospel is that of Eternal Punishment. We are saved, but saved from what? Christ died, but He died for what? We preach, but we preach for what? So on and so forth. Annihilationism is, in my opinion, a sorely dangerous doctrine to hold for several reasons. To name just two:1) It undermines the fact that God has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness. It 'de-tooths' the biblical doctrine of the terror of the Lord by which we pursuade men, etc. and offers little but a humanistic reason for following Christ. 2) It leaves utterly no real and meaningful punishment for sin, which is in total contrast to the revealed word of God. "Let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die," is the finality of such a belief. ***************I have debated these issues with senior Jehovah's Witnesses but never really expected to find the belief in Evangelical circles. It has come to my attention that a fairly new doctrine known as "Conditional Immortality" is finding sympathy among traditional Evangelicals. I hope to be able to discuss this topic in a way that we can know for certain whether the Bible teaches Eternal Conscious Torment or not. God Bless,-Robert

Well said Brother. I'll try to look at this topic with a different set of eyes(heart)and apply the attributes of brotherly love.

A note on classical annihilationism: it doesn't deny the existence of Hell, that souls are sent there, or that they are tormented there (for possibly quite a long time). It does maintain, however, that those souls are eventually "annihilated" and that the concious torment thus eventually ends.I suppose I can understand why someone might find such a doctrine to be appealing. Personally, I believe in unconditional election and eternal concious torment of the reprobate, and don't lose a wink of sleep over it. Even if I did find the combination disturbing, I don't know that it would be different if I believed conditional election, or salvation-by-works, or "negative" universalism (i.e. no one's saved), or any other variation that comes to mind. Well, if I thought I wasn't saved I'd probably be pretty anxious about the punishment, because I wouldn't have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me, but apart from that personal-limitation caveat it doesn't strike at the core of my confidence: God.

I think the question really starts way back with questions about God’s love. Faced with the prospect of souls spending an eternity of torment with no respite is terrifying. If the Christian’s expectation is ‘when I’ve been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the son, I’ve no less days to sing His praise than when I first begun’ what are we to say about the opposite? Ten thousand years of torment, and no less days to suffer than when they first began. If after a million ages a little of the suffering had passed we might possibly see some light at the end of the tunnel, but a million ages will pass and eternity is no shorter as a result. This is torment which is eternal. It is no wonder that Christians recoil from this prospect.There are two bolt-holes possible; universalism or annihilationism. The first says God loves too much to let it happen, the second says God loves too much to let it last. I recall being asked the question by a liberal lecturer; ‘which will have the last word? God’s justice or His love?’ This question betrays the questioner. The questioner thinks that God’s justice and His love are in conflict with each other. He has not understood that God’s justice is holy justice and not just vengeance, and he has not understood that God’s love is holy love and not sentimentality.This is where our difficulties begin. God’s love is not like man’s love multiplied by a big number; it is quite different. Similarly we may be sure that God’s justice is not man’s justice multiplies by a big number. In terms of His essential attributes God is immutable; He experiences no change. He doesn’t have good days or bad days. All His attributes are in perfect accord and harmony; there is no tension in God. Consequently, all that He does and will do must always be consistent with all that He is. He cannot suspend an attribute and leave the field to another attribute. There is never any either/or in the way that God works. All of God must always be in all that He does.Most reasoning people who believe in a life beyond the grave would accept that life here is often unfair and that the evil-doer often escapes his due punishment. Judgement to come and corresponding punishment has a ring of ‘fairness’ about it. But punishment is usually measured and if the punishment is regarded as excessive the idea quickly loses its sense of ‘fairness’. Some superficial readers of the Bible reject the ‘harsh’ parts of the Bible; they are quite sure that Moses and Paul have got it wrong and that their own prejudices have surfaced in their writings. They would prefer to get back to the ‘simple message of God’s love’ as taught by Jesus. This is where we hit one of the first surprises; the teaching of eternal torment doesn’t come from either Moses or Paul, it comes from the lips of Jesus. In Matthew 25 the Lord refers to a coming time; When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (Mat 25:31 KJV) The enthroned king then enters into the process of judgement and ultimate destinations. He Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (Mat 25:34 KJV) That’s the ultimate picture of blessing. Addressing the second group the account says; Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Mat 25:41 KJV). The disturbing point to note here is that it is the ‘Son of Man’ who does the assessment and pronounces the judgement. This truth was retold to non-Jews in Athens during Paul’s visit; Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Act 17:31 KJV) The testimony of the scripture is consistent; Christ will make these decisions, and none other.The record of Matthew adds another vital ingredient. Those who are commanded to depart will share the fate of ‘the devil and his angels’. The everlasting fire, says the Lord, was prepared for them. This group will share the judgement of the devil and his angels. This is a suggestive coupling; it speaks of the rebel and his fellow-travellers. The devil’s angels are they which joined the devil’s rebellion and will share the devil’s destiny. Human beings too who join his rebellion must ultimately share his destiny.These are the basics of Christ’s teaching. The question is how fiery is the fire, and how everlasting is everlasting?

Hi Bro. Ron,These are the basics of Christ’s teaching. The question is how fiery is the fire, and how everlasting is everlasting?In the most emphatic language imaginable, we are told that the conscious torment of Hell is eternal. Time, which is a creation of God, will someday 'be no more.' It seems to me that whilst it is called today that men should repent.When we discuss 'time' the Greek word aionos as I understand, can in some contexts, qualify nouns of limited length of time. If the word is used in John 3:16 to mean 'eternal' we dare not shorten aionos to mean something less than endless eternity for those being punished without reducing the “eternal life” of those who will be in Heaven. Yet, in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10, we find the emphatic forms eis aionas aionon and eis tous aionas ton aionon (through the ages of ages). And the smoke of their torment goes up to ages of ages, and they have no respite day and night who do homage to the beast and to its image, and if any one receive the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:11 Darby) We read the same thing basically in revelation 20;10  And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of ages. (Darby)This is the type of understanding of the eternal that causes me to want to spend and be spent for Christ and His glory. It is the ho topos tou basanou, "The topos (place) of torment" that sits in the back of my mind. The plurality of torment is horrendous. John MaCarthur described it some time ago in a piece I once qouted that is quite rivoting; "There is no way to describe hell. Nothing on earth can compare with it. No living person has any real idea of it. No madman in wildest flights of insanity ever beheld its horror. No man in delirium ever pictured a place so utterly terrible as this. No nightmare racing across a fevered mind ever produces a terror to match that of the mildest hell. No murder scene with splashed blood and oozing wound ever suggested a revulsion that could touch the border lands of hell. Let the most gifted writer exhaust his skill in describing this roaring cavern of unending flame, and he would not even brush in fancy the nearest edge of hell." Knowing therefor the terror of the Lord we pursuade men. Oh, may we preach the Gospel to every creature! To what lengths would be to far to attempt to pursuade a person to repent knowing these things await the impenitent. One of the most sobering writings I have ever read is THE END OF THE WICKED CONTIMPLATED BY THE RIGHTEOUS by Jonathon Edwards. I don't necessarily agree to everything he says, but it was quite a piece. God Bless,-Robert

I think the question really starts way back with questions about God’s love.Finney can sometimes come across as hard and strict; but I wanted to share this quote from "Christ Our Advocate":He may urge as a reason for our pardon the great pleasure it will afford to God, to set aside the execution of the law. "Mercy rejoiceth against judgment." Judgment is His strange work; but He delighteth in mercy.It is said of Victoria that when her prime minister presented a pardon, and asked her if she would sign a pardon in the case of some individual who was sentenced to death, she seized the pen, and said, "Yes! with all my heart!" Could such an appeal be made to a woman's heart, think you, without its leaping for joy to be placed in a position in which it could save the life of a fellow-being?It is said that "there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth;" and think you not that it affords God the sincerest joy to be able to forgive the wretched sinner, and save him from the doom of hell? He has no pleasure in our death. It is a grief to Him to be obliged to execute His law on sinners; and no doubt it affords Him infinitely higher pleasure to forgive us, than it does us to be forgiven. He knows full well what are the unutterable horrors of hell and damnation. He knows the sinner can not bear it. He says, "Can thine heart endure, and can thine hands be strong in the day that I shall deal with thee? And what wilt thou do when I shall punish thee?" Our Advocate knows that to punish the sinner is that in which God has no delight -- that He will forgive and sign the pardon with all His heart.And think you such an appeal to the heart of God, to His merciful disposition, will have no avail? It is said of Christ, our Advocate, that "for the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, and despised the shame." So great was the love of our Advocate for us that He regarded it a pleasure and a joy so great to save us from hell, that He counted the shame and agony of the cross as a mere trifle. He despised them. This, then, is a disclosure of the heart of our Advocate. And how surely may He assume that it will afford God the sincerest joy, eternal joy, to be able honorably to seal to us a pardon. (C.G.F)

I believe it was AW Tozer who made the observation that it will be seen that the Love of God places the unrepentant or ungodly in hell as much as the justice of God does. This is found in his works on the attributes of God.