What happens to non-christians after death?

wolfsbane

ravima wrote: »

The good Friday agreement, when Jesus died for all, means that all will get to heaven, by his Grace. He loved us all so much, that he died for us, you and I, that we both can have eternal life with him.

no other god of any other age ever did this for his followers.

Yes, I agree - if by all you mean all His sheep, not all mankind. For it is evident that many of mankind will not get to heaven.

___________________________________________________________________
John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

God cannot sin. But He can have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and can harden whom He wills - leaving them in their natural state of rebellion.

Indeed. But Calvinism's silence on the why-fore behind his doing so leaves open the possibility that mans response to God is an influencing factor in God's decision making.

My query was whether God forcing was what scripture reveals. To which I'd say: hardly.

But that doesn't mean He will enforce or not enforce His desire. He may choose to do so for some, and not for others. None of them deserve to be saved; all deserve to be damned.

Indeed. And the Calvinistic reponse to why God saves this one and not that one is as I say: silence. Which permits the possibility of man's response being a central factor.

In order for them to be rightly condemned, they need to exercise choice-to-sin in some fashion. The sin need be made theirs in some way - apart from being a robotic exercise of "will" on their part. Calvinism appears to conside man's sinning in much the same way as it sees a cat catching mice: the inevitable work of a nature.

Yet it wouldn't see condemnation of the cat as just. Could you explain the inconsistancy?

If one could intervene in the life of a drug-addict on the verge of self-destruction, forcing him against his will to take a medication that would instantly and permanently remove his cravings, would that be a good or bad thing?

I would say that saving a personshood (chief aspect of which is their will) against their will is an oxymoron. And that not even God can resolve oxymorons.

God intervenes in the lives of His elect, bringing them into mental anguish over their sinful state. He then, quite unknown to them, gives them a new nature, one that will gladly heed His warnings and His loving call to follow Him. I see nothing contrary to God's character in that.

See above and leaving aside the poverty of scriptural evidencing of God "electing people unto salvation". I'd be interested in how it is you make these connections scripturally.

The will is not forced to love. It is forced to face its condition, then the nature is changed so that the will freely and gladly obeys His call.

In denying that salvation is by works, Roman Catholicism says salvation is given to a man without his having to work for it - but after being given this gift, work needs to be done in order to retain that salvation. As if there is any material difference: it's still salvation by works - however you slice it.

You're engaging in the same kind of thinking: forcing X (will forced to face it's condition) which is sure to bring about Y (a reprogrammed will) is forcing Y - however you slice it.

Yes, God wills the repentance of all His creatures, for how could a holy God want them to do anything but righteousness? They refuse. So what does God do? Leave them in their sin and free-will? Yes, for many that is so - His judgement falls. But for others He has ordained that a day will come when they will say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’ His will includes leaving some in blindness to perish, but others to have their eyes opened and believe unto the saving of their souls:

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Again, Calvinism is as silent on God's reason for choosing as it is loud on the assertion that God elects some to salvation. Your knowledge of the Bible is comparitively encylopedic so forgive my assuming the defensive in asking you to support the claim scripturally.

Specifically, how it is that one comes to be elect - for this verse in Romans doesn't demonstrate what you assert. It simply tells us of something that occurs to the elect.

The people are made up of the individuals. The people cannot be saved without the individuals being saved. No point God predestining a people to be saved if He cannot guarantee the individuals - He would be giving a party and no one turn up.

I'm not sure scripture supports the idea of God predestining a people to be saved. But if planning to save some individuals (by whatever means) and choosing in advance what will become of those individuals then it's reasonable to talk in terms of what will occurs to those people before any actually are saved.

Consider "a chosen people" being a file folder. God knows that people (files) are going to be placed in that folder. And so he can make plans for the file folder in advance - long before a file is ever placed there. Microsoft do it all the time.

Sometimes man gives in to his conscience - but he is not subject to it. An unjust man might give in to the just demands of a neighbour, but be in no way subject to them. If it suited, he would break all promises to him, or even kill him. So with the sinner and God's law.

Temporary obedience is not a mark of subjection to it.

Each time a man kneels to consciences' call he is subject to it. That's pretty much plain English - given that his will is bowing to God's will. I think you're splitting semantical hairs here in avoiding what appears to be a plainly obvious conclusion (if somewhat troubling to the Calvinistic read on Total Depravity), to whit:

Mankind demonstrates intimate relations with conscience in a way not easily dismissed by "if it suited him". The fact is, it doesn't suit him more oft than not and it would take a lot of provication and a lot of conscience suppression in order for murder to occur (in the commonly understood sense of the word). Man demonstrates daily, an intimate interaction with God both in his subjection of will to conscience (unto good being done) and his suppression of God's influence (unto evil being done). There is no "sometimes" about it, for if it was only "sometimes" then the world would be quite a different place than it is now. When it is only "sometimes" you get the Holocaust occuring and such like.

It is the fact that man is under constant governance and restraint that maintains the world in some kind of state of order. There is no other explanation for it suggested scripturally.

Indeed. It means any compliance is purely outward.

Again, this suggestions doesn't really square with the facts - whereas a central strength of Christianity is it's ability to explain the world as we see it.

That the world is troubled by conscience and seeks to escape it's pain in therapy, in pills, in the bottom of a bottle, in any number of so-called "maladaptive practices" gives reason to doubt the suggestion that the compliance is only outward.

And supports the notion of conscience as a central tool in God's attempt to bring all men to repentence. All men are being pulled, some men are saved, will is implicated in a mans failure to be saved.

Yet there is this insistance on this special elect-to-be-saved without anything like a strong scriptural case for it?

I agree that conviction is part of the process that leads to salvation. But it is not the immediate cause of salvation, for many who are convinced of the goodness of the Law and a recognition of ones own inability to be subject to the Law ultimately reject that knowledge.

We've been here before: the suggestion was that the conviction is total. If so, there can be no return from it - for it would be the tipping point. Anyone can return from a pre-tipping point - I'm not aware of scripure that implies total conviction returned from. Only scripture than indicates toe-in-water dipping. Partial immersion as it were.

It is only part of the means. Most who experience it still end up lost.

Because salvation isn't forced - it is being suggested.

All men can hear the gospel call to repent, but only the elect (the Sheep) recognise the Shepherd's voice and follow Him. Many hear His voice and hate Him, asserting He has no right to rule over them. But His sheep in their lostness hear and know this is their Shepherd. That's why they follow Him.

Could you flesh that out scripturally - that folk who have yet to be given to Christ by the Father belong to Christ already? That sheep refers to pre-saved people?

As you say, the question comes down to how one becomes a sheep in the first place. Does one become a sheep by believing the gospel, or does one believe the gospel because one is a sheep? That is, does election occur at conversion or is one elect from eternity and converted in time?

Indeed. I suppose the strongest case for my position is all the places where it is indicated that God is after everybody. And that will is implicated in proceedings. To my mind, Calvinism inserts some quite amazing readings (eg: "for God so loved the elect..") into things based on notions that aren't that well established scripturally. I'm thinking of the case for predestined in eternity to salvation - an idea with the thinnest of scriptura handholds.

When Christ says His sheep hear His voice and follow Him, I believe that refers to the elect sinner coming to repentance and faith, not the already converted continuing in the way. Proof:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Gentiles still in their unbelief are here referred to as His sheep. They were elect long before they were converted. They were His sheep, lost, for whom the Shepherd was going to seek and find.

You'd accept that this isn't the clearest of proofs - given that those being referenced aren't at all made clear.

________________________________________________________________
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out...

65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

Quite. The question is, what criteria are involved in God deciding to give a person to Christ. Does it involve the person being convinced by the Father (as I suggest) or does it involve the Father electing a person?

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Has he the ability not to sin? He has the responsibility not to.

Man clearly has the ability not to sin - evidenced by the fact that men typically spend a lot of their times not sinning even though they are tempted to. This ability involves, I suggest, passivity rather than activity on the part of a man's will (indeed, as a Calvinist you must also agree it cannot be activity on the part of man that prevents his sin). But ability it nevertheless is. Unless a man suppresses the restraining force of conscience, then sin won't occur.

As for responsibility? Of course he has that - but only if able to exert some kind of control over his actions (whether passive or active control). To speak of someone responsible for something they have no choice or influence over is to speak a non-sense. A cat responsible for catching mice? Never!

But he fell in Adam and his sinful nature cannot do other than it desires.

What I'm suggesting doesn't require a man to do other than he desires. It requires him to do nothing. If you haven't already, could you comment on the dynamic: restraint imposed by conscience + silent will = sin not carried out?

In other words, that which we see happening around us all day every day.

I have great difficulty understanding how the man does not choose if he decides not to suppress God's pressure. Because, as you say, it is up to him. The cat on the table makes a choice to stay or not.

And so we are back to what makes one decide to suppress and another not. What makes one think 'God is right and I should stop resisting', and the other to think 'I don't care even if He is right, I won't have Him running my life'?

One background point to clarify things: a man faces perhaps thousands of opportunities to either suppress or no ... a day. All our thoughts, words and deeds represent occasions for a response to God.

As to your question? Are you familiar with the physics view of forces/motion. For example: "objects at rest stay at rest unless acted up by a (exterior) force? There is no part played by the object in it being moved by the force - it is passive in that interaction. The only thing preventing it's movement by a force would be an opposing force (internal/external) applied.

There is no requirment to add a layer of force (eg: a man choosing/deciding not to suppress) to things if the force of God suffices to bring about movement on it's own. Both the laws of physics and Ockhams Razor support this notion. The cat choosing to stay on the table produces the same result as the cat making no decision at all from it's position on the table. And so Ockhams Razor dispenses with the cat choosing to stay as a necessity to his remaining there.


As to why a man suppresses this time and not another time? There is but one simple answer: he willed it this time. And was passive in the face of God's force the other time. Another way to put this would be to say that:

- he loved the truth on one occasion (a love which was empowered by the lovability of the Truth itself - not by a mans choice to love the truth*)

- he refused to love the truth the other time.


*this is a not unimportant point. A man who falls hopelessly in love with a woman doesn't so much decide to fall in love as he is compelled into this position by the beloved's effect on him. It is exposure to her than produces the 'in love' effect in him. But let's suppose that he is also married, loves his wife and prefers to remain faithful to his wife. He can suppress and destroy and evade the beloved's effect on him by various acts of will. Similarily, a man exposed to the beauty of Gods law (fairness, justness, compassion, truth) will be captivated by it and will find himself responding to it - on account of it's effect on him quite aside from his will. He can however, choose to suppress and destroy and evade it's effect on him by act of will. In this latter case, the direction is unto the only thing lost men can exercise will unto: sin.

Seems to me in your system one must be less evil than the other. So our salvation is part down to God and part down to a bit of goodness in us.

Thankfully, neither of these suggestions is the case.

We might suppose a line in the sand drawn for each person beyond which God gives up on his attempt to save them. His aim is to bring each man to an ultimate truth about themselves: that they are wretched, sinful and in need of salvation. But if they insist on suppressing and avoiding being brought across the line to this final point (whatever about their partial assent and love of truth which men share generally) then saved they cannot be. "They refused to love the truth (in this absolute sense) and so be saved"

Others (passively) won't suppress to this final degree. The unsuppressed truth can do it's work thus and brings a mans truthful condition w.r.t. God and His Law before his eyes. Conviction results.

It's not one being more evil than the other which informs the difference. It's one being more wilful than the other which determines their final answer. And so the answer to why the one lost and not the other?

God attempted to save them but they willed it not.


There is no need to delve further than that - the answer lies ultimately in what the person wanted: own will for their lives done over God's love for them. The definition of personhood being that it is capable of own want from within - without recourse to higher cause/external agency.

Calvinism says it is all of God. He takes equally evil sinners and gives one a new heart to exercise repentance and faith, and leaves the other to follow his own evil heart. No room then to boast of our part in saving ourselves.

Hopefully you will see that there is nothing to boast of in this system either. There is no act of will contributing to a mans salvation - only to his his damnation. Neither is there work done that man can point to. All the work of salvation, all the effort expended, all the wilfullness involved in bringing men to glory - and all the glory due, is Gods. Scripture only goes so far as excluding a man willing his salvation or working for it. It doesn't preclude a man doing nothing

In this system, God would have arranged it so that a fallen man could effectively choose for the kingdom of God .. but in such a way that man could not boast of having contributed in anyway.

Your idea of choice is still active. Deciding to do nothing is as much active as deciding to do something.

Ockhams Razor disagrees. If I am suspended over an abyss by a thread then I don't need to decide to go on being suspended in order to go on being suspended. You're adding a layer of complexity where none is required to achieve the same result. Look at it this way: if I can achieve the same result whilst asleep (ie: remaining suspended) as awake (ie: choosing to remain suspended) then the notion of my choosing is somewhat superflous to my remaining suspended.

If his old nature caused him to allow God to save him, why does he need a new one? He has already submitted to God.

There was no wilful choosing for God when we were lost. There can be now that we are found. I suspect that "rewards" in heaven is one consequence of our exercising our will for God.

No, regeneration/new nature was needed to cause him to be willing to be saved. God gives the sinner a new heart and obedience to the gospel follows.

The suggestion is that there is an alternative to Calvinism

Yes, and if man's fallen will is sovereign, if it has the final say, then how can God predestine that any will be saved? Maybe no one would believe. Are all the prophecies of Christ saving His people, of a vast number of the redeemed singing His praises in heaven, no more than foreseeing the outcome? Could it have been that just a few souls or even none at all would have believed? Is God captive to fallen man's will?

Quite what God's omniscience involves and how he knows what he knows is beyond me. Perhaps he can say what will occur because of what has occurred (him occupying both the before and after at the same 'time').

If Gods primary desire is that those who want what he represents go to be with him - and those who don't, don't go to be with him, then his will isn't captive to fallen mans. His will would end up having precisely what it desires: men who desire him. And man's will would have precisely what it desires (albeit by passive expression): God and what God represents.

Everybody would be content - even those in Hell. All would have what they want.

Surely the New Covenant shows that it is God who ensures His house will be filled? The Old Covenant was 'free-will' to its core - Do this and live. But man was unable to do it. So God brings in the New, I will. God's people will obey because He will cause them to, not the choice of their fallen natures. He will give them a new nature, one that will love and obey.

What I'm suggesting God to have done is construct a method of choice suitable to a people whose freewilled ability to chose for/against God had been diabolically skewed by sin within. He steps in and takes the place of man's inability to choose for God. But he doesn't do so in overwhelming fashion - he does so in order to restore effective balance to mans choice. He becomes mans choice for God on mans behalf.

If he didn't do so, then man could only ever chose against God - which, given it's inevitability, is no choice at all. God's stepping in so is a double-edged sword. It restores choice - but enables man to be rightfully condemned.

What is robotic about a will that follows the desire of the heart? I assume you believe the saints in heaven are unable to choose to sin? Are they robots? God is unable to sin, is He a robot?

The suggestion would be that the saints are unable to sin because they have chosen (passively) to be free of the ability to be able to sin. Someone choosing to step into a realm where there is no sin isn't a robot. They were the ones who made the choice (I gather there will be choice in heaven - so it's not that the saints choose to be robots)

It might be interesting to open up a thread on whether Christ had the potential not to do his fathers will. Perhaps that's the stakes God played for: risking his own destruction in the attempt to save us. Because if he had sinned, he would have been destroyed.

Phew!

Fallen man has the responsibility to obey, but his sin has made him unable to do so. He is not a neutral innocent condemned without cause.

You might have answered this above: how someone who cannot influence events in any way is responsible for events. I can think of no argument for it other than simply claiming the Bible says so.

Just a word search on 'elect' or 'chosen' will refute that. But here's a few examples:

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

In the method posed, what is foreknown is those who would believe. And what is predestined is what is to happen to those who meet God's criterion for salvation. They would be conformed (sanctified).

And the calling here would be the effective call to salvation resulting from that prior believing God. The call that results in being born again.

It's not a proof of what I suggest as such, just a demonstration of the verse fitting the system suggested. If fitting both your system and mine then it can be either (or neither)

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Again, a verse which fits both your system and mine. The term "us in him" is a collective term. A chosen people. Which brings us back to that point raised about an empty file folder. God choosing what would occur to the contents of this file folder called "Christians". And what was chosen would be that the contents of this folder would be "made holy and without blame before him in love".

It needn't have been that salvation from sin would result in our being raised to the lofty heights we are to be raised to. But we are told what God has decided in advance shall occur to those saved. They are to be adopted as sons.

He has predestined what is to occur to a file folder - not that people are predestined to be saved. As I say, a verse that can be read both ways.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Again the trouble for your view lies in the fuller sense of the section. How often I've seen Ephesians 1:4 snipped to "Just as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world.." without including the essential link "...that".

Here the tendency is to read "because God from the beginning chose you for salvation..." whilst forgetting the link "...through..".

"Choose you for salvation" and "choose you for salvation through" carry completely different emphases. The latter focuses on the means chosen by which salvation would occur - the emphasis' being on a post-regeneration aspect of the programme of salvation that both of us would agree applies to each of our respective systems.

The reading emphasises the means chosen through which salvation would be wrought (sanctification), not the people to whom that salvation would be applied.

Yes, nothing said here about election. One way or the other. Just that the man was not yet saved, though under great conviction.

We both agree on that.

He was one of the lost sheep that Christ had, that He had to bring home to the fold. Hearing Christ's voice in the gospel, he gladly followed. Because he was Christ's sheep. If he wasn't, he would not have obeyed.
________________________________________________________________
John 10:26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

You'd agree this is somewhat begging the question? The discussion would have to shift to how to arrive at this interpretation of sheep/voice.

IrelandSpirit

marty1985 wrote: »

In my humble opinion, there are a couple of issues here.

If the question is whether or not athiests go to hell, I think to a large extent christians are responsible for athiesm, through carelessness in teaching the faith correctly or through their own hypocrisy of teaching morals and not living by them.

As for other religions. I'm speaking as a Catholic. The Catholic Church has a lot of ties with the Jewish religion. They were the first to hear the word of God, and the faith is based around a similar goal - expectation of the Messiah. The Catholic Church teaches that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator, and the first of these is the Muslims who hold the faith of Abraham and, like us, adore God who will be the judge.

Personally, I think it all boils down to one thing Jesus said, "When you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to me." So I think that's what people will be judged on. When you were good to someone, you were good to him. When you pretended not to see that beggar, you pretended not to see him.

That's my 2 cents.

I think that says it, though personally I'd perhaps rephrase it slightly to "When you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to yourself." But that's just my personal belief, that we're all in this together and when we return to the afterlife we will experience a complete re-evaluation of our lives ... Though I suppose that fits too if you believe in that part in Corinthians about 'the body of Christ'

26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it.


Edit: Just a couple of questions:

If as a Christian you acknowledge the uncompromising reality of our eternal existence, and that the soul is independent of the physical body, at which point does one actually die?

And if as a non-Christian, you acknowledge the uncompromising reality of our eternal existence, and that conciousness is independent of the physical body, at which point does one actually die?

I ask this because without first determining a premise, or at least a definition of 'death', the question in the OP cannot be properly addressed. And it seems to me that if conciousness is independent of the physical body, then there is no death in the first place, and therefore no religion (Christian or otherwise) is guaranteeing our eternal existence as that is already assured.

I use 'conciousness' and 'soul' to mean pretty much the same thing.



(I'm not a Christian particularly, btw, just strolling )

Fanny Cradock

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

(I'm not a Christian particularly, btw, just trolling )

Probably best not to sign off with such words. I hear the mods around here can be humourless asshats.

DOC09UNAM

We all join the worms, despite our religious beliefs or what way our moral compass swings.

IrelandSpirit

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Probably best not to sign off with such words. I hear the mods around here can be humourless asshats.

Point respectfully taken, thanks for the tip. First time on this forum.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God cannot sin. But He can have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and can harden whom He wills - leaving them in their natural state of rebellion.
Indeed. But Calvinism's silence on the why-fore behind his doing so leaves open the possibility that mans response to God is an influencing factor in God's decision making.

Calvinism's silence (on why God chose one and not the other) is because God does not say. But He does tell us what does not generate His choice:
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Indeed, God repeatedly emphasises that His choice is not related to anything outside Himself - but of God who shows mercy in above verse, and:
Ephesians 1:5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

My query was whether God forcing was what scripture reveals. To which I'd say: hardly.

The New Covenant terms are explicitly about God circumventing man's stubborn rebellion. No 'I will if you will', but 'I will, therefore you will'.

In order for them to be rightly condemned, they need to exercise choice-to-sin in some fashion. The sin need be made theirs in some way - apart from being a robotic exercise of "will" on their part. Calvinism appears to conside man's sinning in much the same way as it sees a cat catching mice: the inevitable work of a nature.

Yet it wouldn't see condemnation of the cat as just. Could you explain the inconsistancy?

Let's make it a fox chewing a baby's face. Quite natural. But we kill it just the same. But man is a moral being, so his actions have moral consequence.

I get what you are saying about how are we responsible for our sin if we are born with a sinful nature and incapable of remaining sinless. We are not like Adam in that respect. But God understands it better than us, and He says we are responsible for our sin, even though we have a fallen nature. However it works out, we fell in Adam and are guilty before God for behaving like fallen Adam.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Do you think any man (aside from Christ) has ever been sinless? If all of us are able not to sin (I'm not speaking of not committing a specific sin at a specific time, but remaining sinless throughout one's life), surely among all the billions who have lived there must have been one or two?

Quote:
If one could intervene in the life of a drug-addict on the verge of self-destruction, forcing him against his will to take a medication that would instantly and permanently remove his cravings, would that be a good or bad thing?
I would say that saving a personshood (chief aspect of which is their will) against their will is an oxymoron. And that not even God can resolve oxymorons.

Giving them a new nature means their new will condemns their old one. The new creature is glad to be delivered from the old and its evil will. If we had waited for our old wills to submit to God, we'd be waiting still. God shone in the light, imparted faith and repentance and the result is what we call the new me.
Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

All for tonight.

_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

faceman

I used to believe the passage to heaven was filled for those who are good repenting Christians and, with some additional penance time, those who may not be Christian but maintain good moral lifestyle.

However from material i have been reading over the past number of months I have been questioning if that is correct at all. Nobody really knows what criteria determine what happens in the afterlife, be it purgatory etc. But what I am gathering is that without accepting God/Jesus into your life then you are not on the right road. I have also read the term "meaningful repent for sin" a number of times.

wolfsbane

faceman wrote: »

I used to believe the passage to heaven was filled for those who are good repenting Christians and, with some additional penance time, those who may not be Christian but maintain good moral lifestyle.

However from material i have been reading over the past number of months I have been questioning if that is correct at all. Nobody really knows what criteria determine what happens in the afterlife, be it purgatory etc. But what I am gathering is that without accepting God/Jesus into your life then you are not on the right road. I have also read the term "meaningful repent for sin" a number of times.

Yes, salvation is for sinners only, and is not based on any good moral lifestyle. If we have not repented of our sins and believed on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, when we depart this life we are lost forever:
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Acts 20:21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
_________________________________________________________________
John 17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

"Choose you for salvation" and "choose you for salvation through" carry completely different emphases. The latter focuses on the means chosen by which salvation would occur - the emphasis' being on a post-regeneration aspect of the programme of salvation that both of us would agree applies to each of our respective systems.

The reading emphasises the means chosen through which salvation would be wrought (sanctification), not the people to whom that salvation would be applied.

No it doesn't. It gives thanks to God for the people. That is the emphasis. Then it speaks of how God's grace to them:
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They were saved by the Spirit's separation of them unto God and their belief in the truth when they heard the gospel. God's purpose is to conform them to the image of His Son. All this happens because God chose them from the beginning for it.

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
In the method posed, what is foreknown is those who would believe.

Correct.

And what is predestined is what is to happen to those who meet God's criterion for salvation.

It is the same 'whom' - the ones He foreknew. They are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image.

And the calling here would be the effective call to salvation resulting from that prior believing God.

Surely the call precedes obedience to the call! The effectual call generates belief and repentance. When one believes God, justification follows. Call->belief->justification.

It's not a proof of what I suggest as such, just a demonstration of the verse fitting the system suggested. If fitting both your system and mine then it can be either (or neither)

I don't see your system here at all.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Surely the New Covenant shows that it is God who ensures His house will be filled? The Old Covenant was 'free-will' to its core - Do this and live. But man was unable to do it. So God brings in the New, I will. God's people will obey because He will cause them to, not the choice of their fallen natures. He will give them a new nature, one that will love and obey.
What I'm suggesting God to have done is construct a method of choice suitable to a people whose freewilled ability to chose for/against God had been diabolically skewed by sin within. He steps in and takes the place of man's inability to choose for God. But he doesn't do so in overwhelming fashion - he does so in order to restore effective balance to mans choice. He becomes mans choice for God on mans behalf.

If he didn't do so, then man could only ever chose against God - which, given it's inevitability, is no choice at all. God's stepping in so is a double-edged sword. It restores choice - but enables man to be rightfully condemned.

I'm pointing out that your theorising about what you think God should do is not what the Bible actually says He does. The New Covenant is not about Him setting men free to accept or reject Him. It is about Him ensuring they will accept Him. If your idea was true, God could not make this promise of an obedient people. It would not be down to Him, but to them - they would have the final veto.
_________________________________________________________________
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

If Gods primary desire is that those who want what he represents go to be with him - and those who don't, don't go to be with him, then his will isn't captive to fallen mans. His will would end up having precisely what it desires: men who desire him. And man's will would have precisely what it desires (albeit by passive expression): God and what God represents.

And if no sinner wanted what He represents, all of mankind would have perished. God in this system has no control over the outcome - if many believe, great. If few believe, not so great. If no-one believes, a lonely eternity. Or God can keep on creating worlds, until He gets one where enough men will believe to satisfy His purpose.

That's not the Sovereign LORD revealed in the Bible.
_________________________________________________________________
John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

antiskeptic said:

And if no sinner wanted what He represents, all of mankind would have perished. God in this system has no control over the outcome - if many believe, great. If few believe, not so great.

Hmm.

For the sake of simplification let's assume I'm posing man with free will as normally understood (the system I actually suggest see's man's fallen will propped up by Gods effort so as to enable the equivilent of a free choice).

Although theoretically the case that no one from 60 billion would choose for God, it's as unlikely as an honest coin landing on heads 60 billion times. A free will truly balanced can go equally this way as that on average.

But no matter if it didn't. If the prime aim is to provide choice then God is primarily satisifed that that choice is exercised. His love might be disappointed in the rejection of men. But his wrath will be quite content. God will have satisfaction whatever man chooses. He is no more love that he is wrath against sin. That much streams from the pages of the Bible, don't you think?

God has control over the outcome: all men must choose.

If no-one believes, a lonely eternity.

You're not being serious -surely? Are you suggesting that God was lonely - and that's why he created man? can I advise you not to take that one to the self-proclaimed heresy hunters at CARM.org

That's not the Sovereign LORD revealed in the Bible.

Nothing I say impacts on God's sovereignty. If his sovereignty demands a man choose one way or the other, then man shall do so. One way or the other.

Looking back to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I longed to gather you up .. but you were not willing". Does the fact that God reached out desiring that Israel turn - mean that their rejection impacted his sovereignty? Sovereignty means God will have want he wants. Extending man the choice not to want God needn't be something God doesn't want.

John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.

Again, that sense of God giving men to Christ. At least we're agreed that the core issue of salvation isn't belief in Christ but some precursor to that.

But how to decide whether men came to God thorugh conviction or predestined election?

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And if no sinner wanted what He represents, all of mankind would have perished. God in this system has no control over the outcome - if many believe, great. If few believe, not so great.
Hmm.

For the sake of simplification let's assume I'm posing man with free will as normally understood (the system I actually suggest see's man's fallen will propped up by Gods effort so as to enable the equivilent of a free choice).

Although theoretically the case that no one from 60 billion would choose for God, it's as unlikely as an honest coin landing on heads 60 billion times. A free will truly balanced can go equally this way as that on average.

So it's 50/50 whether a man will be saved? Seems to me most people who hear the gospel reject it.

But no matter if it didn't. If the prime aim is to provide choice then God is primarily satisifed that that choice is exercised. His love might be disappointed in the rejection of men. But his wrath will be quite content. God will have satisfaction whatever man chooses. He is no more love that he is wrath against sin. That much streams from the pages of the Bible, don't you think?

God has control over the outcome: all men must choose.

No, I don't think that covers it. If all rejected him, He would have no object for His love. Seems to me all His work in eternity past - knowing His people & predestining them, is about His love for them, not about achieving just a choice.

Quote:
If no-one believes, a lonely eternity.
You're not being serious -surely? Are you suggesting that God was lonely - and that's why he created man? can I advise you not to take that one to the self-proclaimed heresy hunters at CARM.org

OK, it was a bit pushy - but it was meant to capture the idea that God wanted us as His family. He would not be satisfied with less.

Quote:
That's not the Sovereign LORD revealed in the Bible.
Nothing I say impacts on God's sovereignty. If his sovereignty demands a man choose one way or the other, then man shall do so. One way or the other.

Looking back to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I longed to gather you up .. but you were not willing". Does the fact that God reached out desiring that Israel turn - mean that their rejection impacted his sovereignty? Sovereignty means God will have want he wants. Extending man the choice not to want God needn't be something God doesn't want.

God's sovereignty covers all things, including human rejection. But it also means He must get all that He absolutely determines. No Bride for Christ, no sons and daughters of the Living God - those are not options for the Sovereign LORD.

Quote:
John 17:9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
Again, that sense of God giving men to Christ. At least we're agreed that the core issue of salvation isn't belief in Christ but some precursor to that.

But how to decide whether men came to God thorugh conviction or predestined election?

As I pointed out before, all who are saved have come by way of conviction; but many are convicted who do not end up saved. The determining issue for salvation is God's predestining grace.
_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

So it's 50/50 whether a man will be saved? Seems to me most people who hear the gospel reject it.

The point was that it is unreasonable to expect 60 billion people given a balanced choice to all to choose one way. This is not to say they are the same as an honest coin.

No, I don't think that covers it. If all rejected him, He would have no object for His love.

It seems you're stepping into dangerous water: that God needed to create man.

Tell me, what did God do before he created man. Who or what was the object of his love - if the personhoods of the godhead itself didn't suffice.

Seems to me all His work in eternity past - knowing His people & predestining them, is about His love for them, not about achieving just a choice.

I've another post of yours to answer. Perhaps we can focus on this supposed predestining to salvation.

OK, it was a bit pushy - but it was meant to capture the idea that God wanted us as His family. He would not be satisfied with less.

He doesn't have to satisfied with less, given that he will have a family.

God's sovereignty covers all things, including human rejection. But it also means He must get all that He absolutely determines. No Bride for Christ, no sons and daughters of the Living God - those are not options for the Sovereign LORD.

Again, this hinges on your predestination position. You might agree in principle though, that if God did provide choice (in the manner suggested - which doesn't confound the exclusions of scripture) then there is no diminishing of his sovereignty when men choose to reject him.

Bear in mind that Gods certain talking about his bride comes from his knowing he'll have one. Bear in mind too that God doesn't have to determine event in order to know what will be - to suggest so is a philosophical limitation applied to God that has no scriptural basis.

As I pointed out before, all who are saved have come by way of conviction; but many are convicted who do not end up saved. The determining issue for salvation is God's predestining grace.

You've pointed it out. But I don't recall you giving an example where someone is totally convinced yet turns away. People getting shifty and uncomfortable with the gospel message poking around in their darkness is not someone totally convinced.

Is there not one case of someone in humbled admission of their uncleaniness who manifestly turns away? No finally lost thief on the cross? No finally lost woman washing Jesus feet with tears. Not one actual example?

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Perhaps this too has been dealt with in this other post. The destiny of a file folder called "Chosen People" pre-ordained. Not that this and that file is predestined to be placed within that folder.

If not elsewhere, could you do so here - given that so much of your position hinges on this.

antiskeptic

Rather than bat about the claims and presumptions again. I'll cover this post in brief and summarize the substance of where I think we are at the end. Okay?

wolfsbane wrote: »

And if no sinner wanted what He represents, all of mankind would have perished.

Indeed. And if choice God's prime interest then that would be fine. Saddening but fine.

God in this system has no control over the outcome - if many believe, great. If few believe, not so great.

"Not so great" a product of your presumption. If offering choice is God's prime interest then no one choosing him is great to (w.r.t. that prime interest.

Example: my dad was a pro-artist and when he died, I inherited a small, quantity of his most recent work. Folk I know, who were close to him, would want a painting as a mememto - so I offered some of those closest + some friends of mine to come around and choose a painting for themselves. I removed those that were most personal and left the rest available - some of which I myself really liked.

Folk came, choose and left: sometimes with paintings I really liked and leaving me with some I preferred a lot less or which were artistically weaker.

My prime aim: that they choose as they like was satisfied

My secondary aim: that they choose the way I would prefer wasn't satisfied.

Had everyone choosen in a way I didn't like it wouldn't have made any difference to my prime interest: that they themselves choose as they like.

If no-one believes, a lonely eternity. Or God can keep on creating worlds, until He gets one where enough men will believe to satisfy His purpose.

See above as to his prime purpose - bearing in mind the actual chances of what you suggest in a 60 billion choice pool. The idea of a lonely eternity really enters the realm of heresy (were we on CARM.org ). You need to stop beating this particular drum.


Areas for discussion:

I know what you claim to be the case so perhaps we can concentrate on working out the mechanics of things. For instance

We agree conviction is central but disagree on how that is wrought. An example of a person convicted with the same quality as someone clearly saved (ie: the thief on the cross) yet being identified as lost or turning away finally - would help dissolve my position. You're not being able to do so doesn't mean my position is proven, it just means we're stalemated on this point.

Predestination is a central plank of yours. Perhaps we could discuss my earlier parries of your predestining verses further. Currently, there is this idea of the destination of a file folder being that which is pre-ordained - not the people who will be placed in that file folder. The issue isn't that proof can be offered one way or the other: rather, the existance of that potential alternative stalemates alot of the structure you build on predestination.[/quote]


You can begin to see the need for adding concrete to the mix in these areas:

- IF people demonstrating total conviction (ie: they "fall on their knees" physically, emotionally, linguistically) come to be indicated as being saved - AND there are no cases of such people turning away THEN the case for the mechanism described by me is strengthened. Not proven, but strengthened.

- IF predestination fits a logical alternative to the Calvinistic one , then this whole business of "Elected to be saved" looses it's motive power. Plain reading of passages such as "for God so loved the world" would now require a means of salvation with global reach. That means of salvation cannot rely on the preaching of the gospel and the case for the system posed - which relies on something men globally are equipped with (conscience) strengthens.

What do you reckon? Our dealing with the detail and leaving the rhetoric?

wolfsbane

antiskeptic said:

Rather than bat about the claims and presumptions again. I'll cover this post in brief and summarize the substance of where I think we are at the end. Okay?

Thank you. That's a helpful summary. I am limited for time AND I had difficulty getting my head around your absolute conviction must lead to salvation idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
And if no sinner wanted what He represents, all of mankind would have perished.
Indeed. And if choice God's prime interest then that would be fine. Saddening but fine.


Quote:
God in this system has no control over the outcome - if many believe, great. If few believe, not so great.
"Not so great" a product of your presumption. If offering choice is God's prime interest then no one choosing him is great to (w.r.t. that prime interest.

Yes, if our choice is God's prime interest. God's choice of Israel the nation and His choice of the Church seems to me to suggest His love and not man's choice is His prime interest. There is no indication that He would be just as content to have no Bride as having one.

We agree conviction is central but disagree on how that is wrought. An example of a person convicted with the same quality as someone clearly saved (ie: the thief on the cross) yet being identified as lost or turning away finally - would help dissolve my position. You're not being able to do so doesn't mean my position is proven, it just means we're stalemated on this point.

Hebrews 6 shows us there are such:
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

And history tells us of some who, despite all outward appearances, apostatized and departed this world in unbelief.

The Parable of the Sower/Soils also reveals temporary profession:
Matthew 13:20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.

Predestination is a central plank of yours. Perhaps we could discuss my earlier parries of your predestining verses further. Currently, there is this idea of the destination of a file folder being that which is pre-ordained - not the people who will be placed in that file folder. The issue isn't that proof can be offered one way or the other: rather, the existance of that potential alternative stalemates alot of the structure you build on predestination.

The Bible does not speak of a type of people being predestined (a file folder), but of the people themselves:
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,


And the places where it does show God having a type in mind in determining His choice, show that it is not based on our response to Him but on His sovereign purpose:
1 Corinthians 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Plain reading of passages such as "for God so loved the world" would now require a means of salvation with global reach. That means of salvation cannot rely on the preaching of the gospel and the case for the system posed - which relies on something men globally are equipped with (conscience) strengthens.

1. Depends on who the world are: every person without exception? Mankind as His creation? If the former then Christ died for every individual from Adam to Antichrist; if the latter, then only His sheep may be in mind.

2. I at least appreciate the logic of your non-gospel salvation position. It offers a defence about the heathen that the free-will gospellers don't have. I am reviewing a book at present, a vitriolic attack on Calvinism, that cries aloud that God must love everyone equally and all must have equal opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. It claims the gospel is the power that removes the chains on the fallen will, enabling it to obey (or reject) the gospel. But not once does it refer to the fate of those who never hear the gospel! No wonder, for no gospel power must mean they cannot be saved, and that would vapourise their claim concerning the universal love of God.

But I of course reject your salvation by conscience scheme. All conscience can do is convict - that's why the gospel is sent to sinners.

And conviction does not save, despite your assertions. One must hear the gospel message - the knowledge of the one true God and His call to us in Christ:
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 24:46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Acts 11:13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

1 Corinthians 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Tell me, what did God do before he created man. Who or what was the object of his love - if the personhoods of the godhead itself didn't suffice.

Seems to me God always had us in mind - but our (lack of) understanding of 'time' in eternity makes a lot of our thinking speculative.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.