Why God predetermines some should be eternally tormented

[legoman]

This is what one famous Calvinist has to say:

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . .

Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great . . .

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528)

I have my thoughts on this.  What are yours?

[chuckt]

my thoughts are that calvinist are real close to getting it right, so close enough that it causes the character of God to be misunderstood.

so close to the truth it makes em stumble.

but we have this hope:

They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.


i get the feeling though we all will say DOH.

a DOH so loud it will echo for eons  :happy3:


God bless
euty...er chuckt

[lookingup]

i don't know if what i thought of when reading your post is going to fit, but here is what initially ran across my itty bitty mind:

i thought of this passage of scripture: Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

my immediate thought was that it is sad and vile, to me, that some think that God can't have all that He pleases. in my way of thinking, if at the end, when all is said and done if there is even one in eternal punishment how can God be pleased and happy when He has not what He wants?
  after all, He did say in Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

i hope this makes some kind of sense to someone out there

                                Gods' love
                                            Henry

[legoman]

my thoughts are that calvinist are real close to getting it right, so close enough that it causes the character of God to be misunderstood.

so close to the truth it makes em stumble.

YES so close, YET so far... they are so close, yet that one failing point turns God into an eternal monster.  And they can't even see it.

Truthfully, I might have been a Calvinist if I hadn't stumbled onto UR.  But then again, I don't think I would have because I couldn't come to grasp with the idea presented in the OP - that God must predestine some to hell.  That left me with the default position of Arminianism, which has its own problems - but I just didn't think about it that much or try to rationalize any of it - until I found UR.

i get the feeling though we all will say DOH.

a DOH so loud it will echo for eons  :happy3:

Yep you & me both euty!

Legoman

[WhiteWings]

That Calvinist has his math wrong; likely due to a few loose wires...
The way he puts it perfection has to be ofsetted by sin/torture.
If God is infinite perfect then even putting the whole less perfect creation in hell falls infinitely short offsetting Gods perfection.

[legoman]

i don't know if what i thought of when reading your post is going to fit, but here is what initially ran across my itty bitty mind:

i thought of this passage of scripture: Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

my immediate thought was that it is sad and vile, to me, that some think that God can't have all that He pleases. in my way of thinking, if at the end, when all is said and done if there is even one in eternal punishment how can God be pleased and happy when He has not what He wants?
  after all, He did say in Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

i hope this makes some kind of sense to someone out there

                                Gods' love
                                            Henry

Yep it makes a lot of sense Henry.

In a certain sense, the Jon Edwards quote in the OP has a certain logic to it:

1. God is sovereign and predestines everything
2. Some people are condemned to an eternal hell.
3. Therefore God must predestine people to an eternal hell

Assuming premises 1 & 2 are correct, at this point, the conclusion (3) is correct.  (Of course the premises are not completely correct).

But carrying on, we end up with some rather obvious logical inconsistencies.  It is interesting to see how the Calvinists resolve these inconsistencies.

4.  God is all-loving.
5.  Yet God sends people to hell.
6.  Therefore God is not all-loving to all people - only to those He saves.  The rest He hates.

This is where things really start to go wrong logically.  We have a God, who is love, and is loving to all He has  made.  Scripture tells us this.  Yet He doesn't love all.  Hmmm.  But most Calvinists at this point still feel everything fits - they have no problem that God only loves some, not all, and twist scripture to fit that end.  They will say God is Love, but God is also Holy, just, and most important, WRATHFUL.

This is what the Jon Edwards quote above is justifying: Why God is wrathful for all eternity, while still being loving for all eternity.  We are now completely off the tracks of logic, and in another dimension where up is down and good is eternal torture.

Ignoring all of the above, here is the real sticking point.  Jon Edwards' conclusion is so non-sensical, so illogical, yet many people (Calvinists) agree with it.  Here it is again:

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

Evil is necessary (I agree with this - but here is the part I don't agree with) - yes evil is necessary so that some can be condemned to hell forever so that the creature (that's us) can realize the full extent of God's glory and reach perfect happiness.  That's right - we will be fully happy only when we know that God can and will torment some for eternity!  Because that will show us the full extent of God's love!

I don't know why other people don't see this, but isn't this an awefully selfish kind of love?  Thank God for saving me for eternity while letting those other people be tormented for eternity!  This is so loving of you Lord!

Yet assume for a minute that we are not quite that selfish.  Say we notice that our mother or son is not saved and is eternally being tormented.  How does this fit into our "perfect happiness"?  Does having a perfect knowledge of God so that we can be perfectly happy include us realizing that God can torment our loved ones for eternity - and we are ok with that?  Insanity.  Most people would beg and plead and offer themselves instead, if they could free their child from eternal torment.

I just can't understand why people can't see this.  I realize God blinds people and has sent a strong delusion, but it boggles the mind.

Peace...
Legoman

[legoman]

That Calvinist has his math wrong; likely due to a few loose wires...
The way he puts it perfection has to be ofsetted by sin/torture.
If God is infinite perfect then even putting the whole less perfect creation in hell falls infinitely short offsetting Gods perfection.

Ah thats what I was missing.  I forgot to take into account the loose wires... perhaps there is a screw loose too?

:winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

looking up,
Very clear verses. But not for everyone.  :sigh:
There are several ways to twist the verses:
"I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked"
-> But I don't care either
-> If people choose hell that makes Me happy too. (pleasure)
"I will do all my pleasure"
-> To show what a great place heaven is hell is needed for the contrast.

Everything can and will be twisted.

I think the ultimate test of any doctrine is count how many 'explanations' are needed to make the doctrine fit.
I think only the doctrine that requires 0 'explanations' is the correct one because all there is to know is in the Bible. God needs no help in explaining what He actually was trying to say.

[CHB]

Hi All,

The Baptist say that the Calvinest doctrine is awful because they say God is the one who sends everyone to hell. I was thinking about the Baptist doctrine, they believe we send ourselves to hell. But if God created everyone knowing the outcome what is the difference in these two beliefs? None. I heard this Baptist preacher say "God doesn't send any one to hell they send themselves there". Can they not see that if God created everyone knowing some would go to hell isn't it still in God's hands? The question would be, why create them in the first place?

CHB

[WhiteWings]

Hi all, (meaning the elect know as UR peeps...)

All those people from denominations that say it's for some reason good and rightous that many go to hell all liars.
Each and every one of them.
Let 'm fry for a billion years in hell and ask if they want to stay indefinately because it rightous to be there?
Do you think they still are convinced they should be in hell? Or are they suddenly more pro UR?
It's always easy to condemn others.
Not just to hell but also in more earthly matters.

[chuckt]

That Calvinist has his math wrong; likely due to a few loose wires...
The way he puts it perfection has to be ofsetted by sin/torture.
If God is infinite perfect then even putting the whole less perfect creation in hell falls infinitely short offsetting Gods perfection.

the calvinist like all others seem to think we canonly be save here and now.

they know not why God elects only some from every genenration.

i ask the question repeatedly,  why they are elect, for what purpose and for how long, i NEVER get a straight answer.

peace yall
chuckt

[WhiteWings]

Not all Calvinists are the same I guess but I've read the answer to last part your question.
The duration is forever. And that has a very good reason (in their mind)
If the sinner was only 50 billion centuries in hell that would mean no punishment at all.
Because its only a infinitly small time when compared to eternity in Heaven.
So the sinner that that was 50 billion centuries in hell had no punishment at all in comparison what s/he receives after that very short moment.
Same goes for the elect. If the difference between elect and non elect is only 50 billion centuries then the whole elect concept would be a lie.

[legoman]

That Calvinist has his math wrong; likely due to a few loose wires...
The way he puts it perfection has to be ofsetted by sin/torture.
If God is infinite perfect then even putting the whole less perfect creation in hell falls infinitely short offsetting Gods perfection.

the calvinist like all others seem to think we canonly be save here and now.

they know not why God elects only some from every genenration.

i ask the question repeatedly,  why they are elect, for what purpose and for how long, i NEVER get a straight answer.

peace yall
chuckt

I agree chuckt.  When asking direct questions over at CARM (like why is there an elect, what is the purpose of judgment, why even purpose hell - why not annihilation etc.) you will get some vague or very dodging answers.  Usually something like one of the following:

1.  Well you arminians basically have the same problem, so WHADYA COMPLAINING ABOUT CALVINISM FOR

2.  Its all for God's glory - I'm elect for God's glory, sinners burn for God's glory, God's judgment is to satisfy His wrath so its for His glory...

3.  SILENCE

Usually the answers flip/flop between #1 and #2 until they realize they got nothing and then #3 is employed.

It gets tiring sometimes.

[legoman]

I've been posting/reading over at CARM for a month or 2 now, and the whole Arminian/Calvinist debate is so tiring - if you throw out some possible "subtle" thoughts about UR, you will get the standard A or C response.  And then someone else will raise the whole topic again, and your subtle UR "pointer" is ignored.  Let me simplify the whole debate of Arminian (A) vs Calvinism (C) with the UR response:

A:  God is Love.
C: No He's not.  God is sovereign.
A: No He's not.  God is Love.
C: No He's not.  God is sovereign.
A: No He's not.  God is Love.
....
UR: Hey guys, um, did you know He's both?  He is sovereign and He is Love!

A:  BAH YOU HERETIC!
C:  YEAH YOU ARE PROMOTING UNIVERSALISM, WHICH IS HERESY!
A: Lets go have a beer C.
C: Ok A!

Ok maybe I made that last part up about the beer.  But the funny thing is they never explain why universalism is heresy, its always just "understood".

And then the cycle repeats.

Legoman

[WhiteWings]

 :laughing7: legoman you should be a standup comedian  :laughing7:


I can understand they see UR as heresy. I don't understand why they don't judge eachother as heresy too.
Like in the old days....

A says A is the perfect understanding.
A says C is mistaken (not a heretic).
UR=A+C

UR is closer to A but still A prefers C
What exactly is the heresey part of UR? Denying  a literal hell?

[legoman]

UR is closer to A but still A prefers C

Personally I would say UR is closer to C.  But there is debate in UR circles over this even.  Anyways:

Both UR+C believe God is fully sovereign
Both UR+C believe there is an elect that God has chosen and will save

But then other side:

Both UR+A believe God is loving to all (at least A's claim that sometimes)
Both UR+A believe God desires to save all

So perhaps it is a 50/50 split.

But  50% wrong doesn't even come close to meaning you are are 50% right as well.  More like 100% wrong.

What exactly is the heresey part of UR? Denying  a literal hell?

YES because it denies God's justice & wrath.  God isn't just if He doesn't punish people infinitely...

(I know I know, don't think too hard trying to figure that one out...)

[CHB]

I wonder if any of them read these post that are written about them and what they think? I also wonder if any of them ever change their minds because of reading these types of post?

CHB

[legoman]

Hi CHB,

I am guessing yes that some of them may read this board, though maybe not very often.

I know that some have even investigated universalism and deemed it heresy.  The main proof-text seems to be Matt 25:46 - if the punishment is not eternal, then the life must not be eternal as well... etc. Therefore the punishment must be eternal.  But we've been over that before - if only they had an open mind.

Anyway, if some are reading these comments: hello and peace to you!  Have an open mind and think about the immenseness of God's love.

Really I am hoping that someone from CARM reads these threads - there is nothing here that I would not post over at CARM, except for the openly pro-UR stuff which would immediately get me banned - which is decidedly unproductive.

In fact I've already posted some of my comments about the Jon Edwards quote over there, but they are usually ignored or just dismissed as "misrepresenting Calvinism".  My favorite Calvinist belief: God decrees us to sin and then punishes some of us eternally for doing exactly as He decreed, so that He can glorify himself.  There are pages of discussion from A's and C's about this over there.  It does get tiring as no one can see or admit the absurdity of it all.

Legoman

[Doc]

I've been posting/reading over at CARM for a month or 2 now, and the whole Arminian/Calvinist debate is so tiring - if you throw out some possible "subtle" thoughts about UR, you will get the standard A or C response.  And then someone else will raise the whole topic again, and your subtle UR "pointer" is ignored.  Let me simplify the whole debate of Arminian (A) vs Calvinism (C) with the UR response:

A:  God is Love.
C: No He's not.  God is sovereign.
A: No He's not.  God is Love.
C: No He's not.  God is sovereign.
A: No He's not.  God is Love.
....
UR: Hey guys, um, did you know He's both?  He is sovereign and He is Love!

A:  BAH YOU HERETIC!
C:  YEAH YOU ARE PROMOTING UNIVERSALISM, WHICH IS HERESY!
A: Lets go have a beer C.
C: Ok A!

Ok maybe I made that last part up about the beer.  But the funny thing is they never explain why universalism is heresy, its always just "understood".

And then the cycle repeats.

Legoman

The definition of heresy our pastor gave last week was: anything that makes God less than what He really is. Oops, he just condemned his own belief in ET with that one (as well as every calvinist and arminian or calv-arminian). UR is the only position that is not heresy, by that definition!

More and more churches are mixing the two ideologies ("calv-arminians"), as they've seen that taken to their individual logical conclusions, both systems fall apart against the witness of scripture. Yet they cannot see the truth of UR as the answer to the dilemma, and instead they hold to parts of two positions that are logically inconsistent with one another.

[WhiteWings]

Why God predetermines some should be eternally tormented

I think I partly agree with that if understand UR.
Replace eternally with age-during.
Use tormented with its real meaning. Not torture.
Aren't only few choosen in this lifetime (firstfruits)
Later, in the afterlife, all come to God,..... through LoF.

So there is an elect. There is a fire. But not of the Calvinist type.