Fifty Million Rob Bell Fans Can’t Be Wrong
In 1959 RCA releasedFifty Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong—Elvis’ Gold Records Vol. 2.1 Elvis Presley was an exceptionally popular entertainer who was also one of the most controversial public figures of the late 1950s. The title of his second greatest hits album indicates a popular sentiment: It must be right, because millions of people believe it. But this sentiment does not translate to theology. Though many church fathers and theologians throughout the ages may have believed in a particular doctrine, it’s correctness is not established by that fact alone.
Rob Bell is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan and is the author of such books as Velvet Elvis, Sex God, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, and Drops Like Stars. Many evangelical Christians are familiar with his Nooma series of videos.2 Bell is influential in Emerging Church circles and is a popular speaker. Though his previous books have sold well, Love Wins is especially popular.
The twin premises of Love Wins are that God is a God of love and that the evangelical Christian view of God is too narrow. “Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell?”3 Bell asks. Love Wins challenges the traditional views concerning heaven, hell, and salvation. For the sake of brevity this review concentrates on Bell’s view of salvation.
Universalism
Simply stated, Rob Bell is a universalist. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson’s description of universalism also describe’s Bell’s views: “From time to time, however, a contrary position has been espoused in the Church, namely, that all will be saved. This position (is) known as universalism.”4 Some years ago Erickson noted this tendency in a list of trends within liberal evangelical circles: “A hope for near-universal salvation. God has not left Himself without a witness in all cultures, sufficient to bring people to salvation if they earnestly seek it.”5
Bell does not concern himself with “earnest seekers.” Instead, he arranges a list of passages from both the Old and New Testaments to describe God’s love for human beings.6 God must save everyone, reasons Bell:
How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
Sort of great.
A little great.7
Bell sees God as a failure if He doesn’t save everyone: “Will all people be saved, or will God not get what He wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?”8
One could call this “God is a failure” argument “extreme pathos.” Evangelical theology answers this dilemma, “Will all be saved? The church’s usual position throughout history has been that while some or even many will be saved, some will not.”9 At least two theological arguments stand against the universal salvation espoused in Love Wins. [amazon 006204964X thumbnail]
The nature of the atonement
Bell’s view of the extent of Christ’s atonement is apparently informed by the “Moral-Influence Theory.” This view was originally developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a theologian and professor at the University of Paris.10 Abelard “emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment (i.e. ransom) to the Father to satisfy His dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them.”11
The Moral Influence Theory was further developed at a much later date by Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) in the US and Hastings Rashdall in the UK.12 Bushnell wrote, “It is not that the suffering appeased God, but that it expresses God—displays, in open history, the unconquerable love of God’s heart.”13 Lewis and Demarest summarize this theory: “At bottom, then, people are saved by the compelling power of God’s self-giving love.”14
Bell views the traditional evangelical view of salvation as “God in the end doesn’t get what God wants”15 because God “wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (NASB, 1 Tim. 2:4). What will be the outcome of the lives of billions of human beings?
To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts.16
This is universalism, clearly presented and concisely stated.
The means and extent of salvation
The second theological problem with Love Wins is Bell’s view of the means and extent of salvation. How far does the death of Christ extend to all human beings?
Rsearch on this topic reveals a “kindred spirit” to Rob Bell: Nels Ferré of Sweden.17 As a youth Ferré was troubled by his father’s conservative understanding of the Scriptures, especially his eschatology. Ferré eventually immigrated to the US where “he built his own theology on the central thought of divine love.”18 “It is his understanding of God’s love that governs his interpretation of Scriptures and the issue as a whole.”19 Ferré described the means and extent of a universalist salvation in these terms:
The logic of the New Testament at its highest and deepest point is the logic of God’s sovereign love… Those who worship the sovereign Lord dare proclaim nothing less than the total victory of His love. No other position can be consistently Christian. All other positions limit either God’s goodness or His power, in which case both Fundamentalism and modern Liberalism have their own varieties of the finite God.20
Bell’s conclusions are mirror-images to those of Ferré. Concerning the love of God, he writes:
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God’s unrelenting, infinite, expansive love? Thousands through the years have answered that question with the resounding response, “God’s love, of course.”21
…
At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.22
Indeed, theologians throughout the centuries have written about universalism. Origen (ca. 185-254) probably first systematized universalism: “Origen also adopted with some enthusiasm the idea of apokatastasis or universal restoration, according to which every creature, including both humanity and Satan, will be saved.”23 But universalism is not the prevalent theological concept of salvation. Over the centuries a few writers and theologians followed Origen’s lead. Far more theologians have not.
Theological method
At this point we must ask the question, “How does Rob Bell do theology?” In the case of his universalism, Bell assembles a number of verses in an effort to support of the dominance of God’s love over all His other attributes. He then adds a number of “traditions” to the mixture and concludes that everyone must be saved from destruction.
On the one hand Bell does not consider many of the Scripture passages that obstruct his assertions. On the other hand Bell paints the opposing views in stark, evil terms. In response to some church doctrinal statements concerning the condemnation of unbelievers, Bell writes:
So, in the first statement, the “unsaved” won’t be with God. In the second, not only will they not be with God, but they’ll be sent somewhere else to be punished. And in the third, we’re told that not only will these “unsaved” be punished forever, but they will be fully aware of it—in case we were concerned they might down an Ambien or two when God wasn’t looking…24
Bell does not attempt to balance the opposing views against universalism. He makes little effort to compare and synthesize the data of the biblical passages and word studies and the biblical, systematic, and historical theology—and then determine a measured conclusion. This is not to say that Bell did not do any theological research, word studies and analysis. But his presuppositions allow no other conclusion than that Love Wins. In the final analysis, Bell’s theological method is careless and prejudiced.
What may the reader conclude from Love Wins?
Love Wins is as much a book about American popular culture as it is about theology. Bell’s underlying assumptions about salvation are probably based on the prevailing concept of “fairness,” that is, there are no losers and the authorities ensure an equality of outcomes—the authority in this case being God.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Bell perceives the traditional view of salvation as unfair because some are saved but others aren’t. Though Bell wishes the reader to think he is defending God’s honor, in reality he creates a god who is forced to serve human beings “because He loves them.” In this sense Love Wins is man-centered, or anthropocentric. Here salvation is a right and not the gift of God.
Is Love Wins a polemic against the evangelical view of the gospel? In response to the evangelical view that some are saved but others aren’t, Bell writes:
What kind of faith is that? Or, more important: What kind of God is that?25
This belief raises a number of issues, one of them being the risk each new life faces. If every new baby being born could grow up to not believe the right things and go to hell forever, then prematurely terminating a child anytime from conception to twelve years of age could actually be the loving thing to do, guaranteeing that the child ends up in heaven, and not hell, forever. Why run the risk?26
This statement is part of his “extreme pathos,” a prejudiced opinion against conservative evangelical Christianity. One might hope that Bell is merely overstating his case for emphasis and not revealing his true beliefs. However, though he makes many other harsh statements, Love Wins is not really a polemic.
The God who is revealed in the Bible is most certainly a God of love, but He is not limited to love. This is the major error of Love Wins. He is also the God of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and grace. He is infinite in His wisdom, eternal in His being, sovereign over the Universe, both transcendent and imminent, and yet He is not limited in any way by our finite understanding of these qualities or attributes. There is much we cannot understand about our great God: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (NASB, Isa. 55:9).
Perhaps the combination of Rob Bell’s writings, videos, personal appearances, large church and cultural influence has gained him millions of fans. But his personal popularity does not make him correct—nor does the popular culture he represents make him correct. Love Wins is poorly-done theology and a caricature of evangelical Christianity. How evangelicals wish that universalism was true! But it is not. The Bible is clear that not everyone receives salvation.
And no one’s heart breaks more for the lost than God’s.
Notes
2 Love Wins, dust jacket.
3 Quote from Love Wins dust jacket; “If you don’t have that (a personal relationship with God), you will die apart from God and spend eternity in torment in hell,” p. 10.
4 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, p. 1025.
5 Millard J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology. Carlisle (UK): Paternoster Press, 1998, p. 21. Though Erickson was describing the Evangelical Left’s openness to salvation through general revelation, Bell argues that salvation is indeed universal (p. 100).
6 Love Wins, pp. 98-103. Though the dust jacket describes Love Wins as “a deeply biblical vision for rediscovering a richer, grander, truer, and more spiritually-satisfying way,” the book consistently does not utilize standard biblical book, chapter and verse citations. Instead, Bell simply refers to chapters (Psalm 22, Philippians 4, etc.). It is frustratingly difficult to find the listed verses without the standard references.
7 Love Wins, pp. 97-98.
8 Love Wins, p. 98, author’s emphasis.
9 Christian Theology, p. 1025.
10 Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford (UK): Blackwell, 1998, p. 138.
11 Christian Theology, p. 803.
12 Ibid.
13 Quoted in Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 373-374 . It must be stated that neither Abelard nor Bushnell were universalists.
14 Ibid.
15 Love Wins, p. 103.
16 Love Wins, p. 108.
17 See Nels Ferré, “The Third Conversion Never Fails,” in These Found the Way, ed. David Wesley Soper (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1951) and The Christian Understanding of God (New York: Harper, 1951, p. 228).
18 Christian Theology, p. 1028.
19 Christian Theology, pp. 1028-1029.
20 The Christian Understanding of God, pp. 246-247.
21 Love Wins, p. 109.
22 Ibid.
23 Historical Theology, p. 25.
24 Love Wins, p. 96.
25 Love Wins, p. 4.
26 Ibid.
jimfrank Bio
Jim Franklin is a native of Covington, Kentucky and is 2004 graduate of Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He earned his MA in Theological Studies at age 50. He served twenty years in the US Air Force as a supply specialist and medical technician, retiring in 1997 as a Technical Sergeant. Jim was an Adjunct Professor of English with Grace College’s Prison Extension Division from 2008 to 2011. He is currently the pastor of Flora Grace Brethren Church, Flora, Indiana. Jim is married to Alice. They have two adult sons. Jim blogs with his good friend Jeff Bowers at “The World as Best I Remember It” and comments at The American Thinker as “Van Owen.”
- 14 views
The problem is this: just because you declare the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT double talk, but declare that Calvinistic doctrine IS double talk, does not make it so. Having made your pronouncements, you now proceed as if the point is settled. My point is to show that what seems like double talk to one is anything but to another. My point is also to show that as long as you pronounce Calvinism double talk, you will never be able to understand the nuances of Bible truth it grapples with and enables believers to reconcile.
I have repeated myself because I find your double talk assertions untenable, and I have gone to some lengths to show you why. You want to move on because you believe you have settled the issue. I have remained because I do not believe you understand the issue and the implications sufficiently to allow us to move further. Your challenge for me to “prove” it is not double talk is like asking an innocent man to prove he doesn’t beat his wife. How can he prove something that does not exist? Just because you assert Calvinism to be double talk does not make it so, except in the sense that many divine mysteries seem contradictory at first examination, much like the doctrine of the Trinity. But here we go again. You may be satisfied with the answer, “The Trinity is not double talk because I said so. Calvinism is double talk because I said so.” But these answers will not persuade thoughtful people, and eventually, I would suspect, will no longer commend themselves to you either.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[nbanuchi] 1. For your first analogy, what you “perceive” as my understanding is, as you know, the Calvinistic understanding. It is misleading to attribute an analogy that clearly reflects Calvinism as your perception of my understanding of Calvinism.Is it your contention that both of the analogies I used represent Calvinism and thus constitute “double talk” because the views are contrary?
2. Both your analogies represent two different Calvinistic views respecting salvation, in particular, the “divine decrees”. As you presented them, you give the impression that the first analogy is not Calvinism (but my “understanding” of Calvinism), while the second is Calvinism, as if the first is erroneous while the second is correct. However, since both analogies are Calvinistic views, what you implied was misleading.
3. In any case, since I quoted the WCF (of which, I assume, you are familiar)I am unfamiliar with the WCF (I am a Baptist not a Presbyterian). I am familiar with the http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents.htm 1689 London Baptist Confession though.
…and made a clear, although very short, presentation of the Calvinist view (e.g. post #40),In responding to Barkman in post #40 you wrote:
[post 40] Barkman wrote: “All men were already on the way to Hell.”It appears that now you are insisting (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the http://www.theopedia.com/Supralapsarianism] Supralapsarian view is the SOLE view in Calvinism.
This is what the Calvinist asserts but it is not an accurate reflection of what I see as taught by Calvinism, especially if the decree to save some and damn others is made before each man was created.
It is not!
I personally have not taken a position one way or the other as it is an internal conflict, although I would lean to the http://www.theopedia.com/Infralapsarianism] Infralapsarian view (the link redirects to sublapsarianism). If someone wants to start a thread to discuss the difference in the positions please do so.
4. Finally, since I am not arguing decrees per se, your comments #53 and #54 are irrelevant. My contention in the “Bell” thread, along with a few textual considerations, is centered around propositions made to explain Calvinism that I see as amounting to doubletalk; see my posts #40-#43. Therefore, “I was hoping to find at least one instance where a logical explanation can be made, which clearly shows that the assertions made do not cancel out each other and qualifications, if any, put forth do not change the meanings of words or phrases” (cf. post #47).The assertions DO NOT cancel out each other (the bold is mine) because no Calvinist holds to both views at the same time. In other words, one cannot be a supra and an infra at the same time.
–
Further study on the infra and supra views:
Phil Johnson’s http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm article showing the differences between the 2 views.
http://youtu.be/-4bofnLBQD4] YouTube video that gives a good introduction to the differences between the views.
The following quotes from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, affirm the infra view.
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter03.htm Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter07.htm Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )
2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
( Genesis 2:17; Galatians 3:10; Romans 3:20, 21; Romans 8:3; Mark 16:15, 16; John 3:16; Ezekiel 36:26, 27; John 6:44, 45; Psalms 110:3 )
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian] Is it your contention that both of the analogies I used represent Calvinism and thus constitute “double talk” because the views are contrary?No. It seems you are not reading my comments carefully. The issue was your explaining a Calvinist position and attempting to posit it as mine.
[JohnBrian] I am unfamiliar with the WCF (I am a Baptist not a Presbyterian)…Okay, I’ll have to read up a little the Baptist confession. Nevertheless, as one who holds a Calvinist position, I am surprised you are not acquaintred with the WCF especially since you seem familiar with the “supra” view. Don’t you guys discuss and refer to each other’s positions?
[JohnBrian] It appears that now you are insisting (and correct me if I’m wrong)…You are wrong. I already stated there were at least two views.
[JohnBrian] The assertions DO NOT cancel out each other (the bold is mine) because no Calvinist holds to both views at the same time…Nor did I in any place say that they did. Whose comments are you reading, anyway?
I would like to thank you for thank you for the links and apologize for any place where I was not clear. I can only hope this further clarifies things.
[nbanuchi] Nevertheless, as one who holds a Calvinist position, I am surprised you are not acquaintred with the WCF especially since you seem familiar with the “supra” view. Don’t you guys discuss and refer to each other’s positions?At 54, I am closer to the end than the beginning (of my life, that is). There are not enough years left for me to read all I want to read of books that are on my bookshelf. That requires prioritizing reading material, and the WCF has not made it to the list.
[nbanuchi] I can only hope this further clarifies things.I still am confused as to what exactly you think constitutes double-talk!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Sorry if there is confusion. From my post #40, here are two examples I cited from the WCF that I can only read as doubletalk:
- However, even the WCF seems to engage in much double-talk when, on the one hand it states, “By the decree of God…others (He) foreordained to everlasting death,” yet, on the other hand it reads, “to ordain them to…wrath for their sin.”
- Another example of double-talk in the WCF is found in 3:1, where it states, on the one hand that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” yet, right afterwards, on the other hand, it reads, “so as God is not the author of sin.”
1. “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.”
It seems to me that if “some men” were “predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life”, then those who were “being left” were “predestinated, or foreordained” to that end. Therefore, how can such a judgment be a just condemnation, which I take to mean, on the basis of desert?
2. Article 5, “The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man” contrasted with Article 6, “The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision.”
My question would be, which is it; are men to condemned because of own their sin or because of a divien eternal decision? To assert both as being true is (notwithstanding the disclaimer: “For all his works are known to God from eternity”) doubletalk.
Bottener, as your quotation suggests, apparently agreeing with Mozley, Luther, and Calvin, seems to go with the latter, therefore, any questions regarding the sinner deserving damnation is moot.
I have not yet had a chance to more thoroughly analyze the LBCF, but will do so as opportunity arises; in the meantime, please advise.
Thanks.
P.S. had to write quick so please accept my appologies for any grammatical or spelling errors.
JohnBrian’s point is that some Calvinists (I would guess quite a few) do not hold to the idea that the damned are chosen for that destiny before creation, then become sinners because they have been predestined to that. I seem to recall this view being termed double predestination.
Since many Calvinists do not hold to this, it wouldn’t be accurate to call it “the Calvinist view.”
So the view he’s commending, if I read correctly, is that God predestines those He has chosen to redeem but the others are passively left to the results of their nature.
So I’m not sure where the deserving or not deserving question fits in. We all deserve damnation. Some are graciously delivered (Thankfully!) but certainly not because they deserve to be.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1. I would think that the accurate Calvinist view would not be what the majority of what those who identify themselves as Calvinist believe in but what John Calvin himself taught and believed. Calvin should speak for Calvinism. No?
2. It seems Calvin did teach what we call double-predestination: “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death…” (Institutes 21:5). No?
3. This assertion that the “non-elect” are “passively left to the results of their nature” is clearly, at least to me, at odds with the Calvinistic claim that God decrees every historical event and action of man, at least according to the WCF (don’t yet know the official position of the LBCF), which leads, again, to doubletalk.
4. The Bible, as I stated earlier (if not this thread, it may be in the 2 Peter 3:9 thread), does not portray God as passive in condemning sinners to damnation, therefore, there is not only the problem of doubletalk but also an inconsistency with Scripture.
[nbanuchi] Aaron,No, Calvin didn’t found a movement and name it after himself (am surprised you didn’t know this)!
1. I would think that the accurate Calvinist view would not be what the majority of what those who identify themselves as Calvinist believe in but what John Calvin himself taught and believed. Calvin should speak for Calvinism. No?
2. It seems Calvin did teach what we call double-predestination: “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death…” (Institutes 21:5). No?He might have, not sure, but since being a Calvinist is not determined by full agreement with Calvin, this statement is irrelevant.
3. This assertion that the “non-elect” are “passively left to the results of their nature” is clearly, at least to me, at odds with the Calvinistic claim that God decrees every historical event and action of man, at least according to the WCF (don’t yet know the official position of the LBCF), which leads, again, to doubletalk.http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/1689econtents.htm 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith .
[Chapter 3: Of God’s Decree] 1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.God decrees all things, but is not the author of sin, nor are secondary causes removed. The non-elect are justly condemned because of their sin.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice.
( 1 Timothy 5:21; Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:5, 6; Romans 9:22, 23; Jude 4 )
A great illustration is Joseph in Genesis 50:20
But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.His brothers intended evil and were responsible for their sin, but even that served the purpose of God.
In the http://sharperiron.org/article/suffering-light-of-gospel] suffering thread you wrote:
[post 8] Many believers attempt to attribute sin, evil, and suffering to God as necessarily decreed or predestined events in order to “display” His glory. I find this answer unsatisfactory and damning to the divine character as if the rape of children in New York City all the way to the starving children in Somalia can ever demonstrate the holiness and justice of God’s person. There is no denying that God, in His wisdom can overcome sin and suffering, but they are not necessary for demonstrating His glory; God does not need evil to display the fulness of His holy love and perfections.If the rape of children could be stopped by God but is not, it must be because evil serves a purpose, like it did for Joseph and also like it did for the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 2:23).
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I respectfully submit that:
As far as your response #1, I’m under the impression you know what I meant (as shown by your comment under #2). Shucks, I could call myself a Calvinist!
That “God decrees all things, but is not the author of sin” or that “”God decrees all things” but the “non-elect are justly condemned because of their sin” are propositions that, as far as I read them, display doubletalk; they contradict each other resulting in nonsense. Parroting statements from creeds does not help explain how they are not doubletalk.
How can it be sensibly affirmed that God can “decree all things” and yet, at the same time, omit sinful acts as inclusive of “all things”?
As a I before stated, the Bible does not portray God as passive in the condemnation of sinners.
As far as Joseph, from what you assert, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity” to do evil against Joseph in order to obtain a good. Doesn’t somewhere the apostle Paul deny the charges that he teaches one is allowed to do evil in order to obtain a good? If that is true of us, as an argument from the lesser to the greater, would it not be more true for God to deny such charges against Him as you are making?
In any case, respectfully, I’ll let you (if you are going to be honest regarding what you believe is truth) counsel that distraught mother whose child was raped that God decreed and predestined it; that it serves God’s good purposes and occured for His good pleasure; or, to say it in a simple fashion, “It was a good thing your child was raped. You ought to thank God!”
And while you deny my assertions as mere emotional outbursts, let me know how that mother responds to your counsel.
[nbanuchi] In any case, respectfully, I’ll let you (if you are going to be honest regarding what you believe is truth) counsel that distraught mother whose child was raped that God decreed and predestined it; that it serves God’s good purposes and occured for His good pleasure; or, to say it in a simple fashion, “It was a good thing your child was raped. You ought to thank God!No, the rape is NOT a good thing!
But if God COULD stop the rape and He does not, then there must be some purpose for the rape, otherwise the rape is purposeless. The evil that wicked men do, and which they are guilty and should face justice for, still serves God’s purpose. The evil that Joseph’s brothers did served a purpose, the evil that the men of Israel did in crucifying Jesus served a purpose.
[Acts 2:23] Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;The brothers were guilty of sin against Joseph, the men of Israel were guilty of crucifying Christ BUT their sin served a purpose. It was not just random evil that God couldn’t do anything about.
If you think that affirming the fact that evil serves the purpose of God, then your argument is not against Calvinism so much as it is against the text of Scripture.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Again, I wish to emphasize that my response below is with the utmost respect.
Please, I’m apologize that we cannot agree; respectfully, you are merely continuing the doubletalk. Either the rape is evil, which has no purpose except to destroy, or it is a good determined by your assertion that it has a divinely decreed good (and, perhaps loving?) purpose. However, it cannot be both good and, at the same time, evil.
Also, to say that God “could have stopped” it or “allowed it” are statements that end in doubletalk if, in fact, God decreed it; decree as it is taught in Calvinism (cf WCF or LBCF).
I don’t get it when you say, “If you think that affirming the fact that evil serves the purpose of God, then your argument is not against Calvinism so much as it is against the text of Scripture” (is something missing in the sentence?). I do think “affirming…that evil serves the purpose of God” is contrary to the texts of Scripture (but the assertion, being consistent with Calvinism renders that doctrinall system to contravene the Bible).
God’s has no purpose for evil; but his ultimate plan for evil is to remove it, destroy it, and cast it out. And he began this removal decisively through the Cross. In spite of the attempts of evil to destroy, God has overcome the evil through the Cross. The final actualization of the demise of sin and suffering will occur at the Parousia.
Jesus was God’s elect sacrifice for mankind’s sin. It was not the evil per se done to him that obtained our redemption but the fact of who he is and his willingness to undergo and endure the evil and suffering cast upon him in order to be an atonement for that very evil and the sins of the world (=all men).
I do not believe sin and evil serves any purpose except to “kill, steal, and destroy”; at least, the Bible shows me nothing that can be of profit from evil, sin, or suffering per se. Of course, as with Joseph, I do believe that God works with us in order to obtain a good for us; or, to put it another way, God works in spite of evil - not because of evil - for the good of those whose hearts are towards him (Rom 8:28).
If you can explain how the assertions made, which I have given as examples (at least, one) are not doubletalk that may clear up things. Otherwise, I see your further assertions as continuing in the doubletalk and that you merely make an assertion and then cite Scripture proof-texts in no way validates your claims.
Please, again (and I say this seriously), if this is your belief, you should, as I previously suggested, tell a distraught parent whose child was raped that it was a good thing that her son/daughter was raped; that God had a loving purpose for decreeing the rape of her child. If not, why not? Is it not truth? Is trutrh no longer comforting? Is it not an expression of God’s love to the mother and child to decree the rape? Tell the mother the rape has a purpose, a good purpose; that God decreed it for their good. Give that kind of counsel. (While you’re at it, if she is not a professed Christian, you might also want to inform her of the Gospel message that she and her child may or may not have been elected by God for salvation; that her child, on top of being raped, may just wind up in hell…forever). And you can tell her, as you maintain, that the rape is evil but God decreed it - made certain of its occurrence, even worked everything to obtain the event - for a good, loving purpose. That’s fine. Tell her this evil is for the purpose of obtaining a good for her and her daughter, therefore, it is a good thing that her daughter was raped. Tell her…
Note, I did not say you should tell her that the rape itself was good but that the purpose for it was good, and therefore, it was a “good thing” to occur.
Let me know what she says.
Until then, I must respectfully maintain that your assertions are doubletalk and I have exhausted any further responses (as God decreed?) to your repetitive comments.
[nbanuchi] God’s has no purpose for evilI disagree! God does have a purpose for evil or else he would not have allowed it. It serves His purpose and only He knows what that purpose is.
The story of Job shows just that. God allowed Satan to inflict Job, but He restricted what Satan could do. Job in Job 31:35 says,
Oh, that the Almighty would answer me,and then beginning in Job 38:1 God does answer, but notice that God never tells Job the reason for the evil that Satan inflicted on him. I would summarize the answer God gave as Him saying to Job, “I am God, and you are not.”
If evil does not serve the purpose of God as it did in Joseph’s life, Job’s life, and the crucifixion of Christ, then it is just random. I reject the idea that there is anything random that happens, either good or evil.
Please, again (and I say this seriously), if this is your belief, you should, as I previously suggested, tell a distraught parent whose child was raped that it was a good thing that her son/daughter was raped; that God had a loving purpose for decreeing the rape of her child. If not, why not? Is it not truth? Is trutrh no longer comforting? Is it not an expression of God’s love to the mother and child to decree the rape?No, it may not be good to the child or the mother, but it nonetheless has some purpose, and only God knows what that purpose is. He is not obligated to inform us of the purpose anymore than he informed Job of the purpose for his suffering.
Tell the mother the rape has a purpose, a good purpose; that God decreed it for their good. Give that kind of counsel. (While you’re at it, if she is not a professed Christian, you might also want to inform her of the Gospel message that she and her child may or may not have been elected by God for salvation; that her child, on top of being raped, may just wind up in hell…forever).That is not the message of the Gospel. The message is “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) God is the only one whpo knows who the elect are, and we are commanded to proclaim the Gospel to all creatures (Mark 16:15). The proclamation of the Gospel is the means by which God saves the elect.
And you can tell her, as you maintain, that the rape is evil but God decreed it - made certain of its occurrence, even worked everything to obtain the event - for a good, loving purpose. That’s fine. Tell her this evil is for the purpose of obtaining a good for her and her daughter,I repeat, it may or may not be good for her and her daughter, I don’t know, only God knows, but the evil is not random purposeless evil, it serves the purpose of God, just as it did in the case of Joseph, Job, and Jesus Christ (3 J’s - there’s an outline for a sermon right there!)
Until then, I must respectfully maintain that your assertions are doubletalk and I have exhausted any further responses (as God decreed?) to your repetitive comments.We will have to disagree (as God decreed!)
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
The book of Job can be summarized as “I am God; you are not”?
I’m compelled to defend the book of Job from a misrepresentation of God’s character.
As far as your concerned, it can also be summarized as, “Might Makes Right!” or “You do what I tell you to do because I’m big and you’re little, and there’s nothing you can do about it (ever see the movie, Matilda?).” Or, “God Whips Job to Show Who is Boss!”
Just to show who’s boss?
Rather pathetic God you paint; a God with low self-esteem. To beat up a loyal servant and rape children just to show that He is God and His victims are not…
God did not need to show Job that He was God and Job was not; Job already revered God as God (cf. Job 1:1).
…and they say Calvinism does not portray God as a monster.
Well, then, how about a bully?
It appears that your anti-Calvinism is making it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you.
God is not a monster, He is not a bully, He is the Sovereign Creator of the Universe, and is totally OTHER than man.
He IS God, and we ARE NOT.
Read the text of Job, beginning with verse 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.God questions Job and shows him that He (God) is altogether different. Then read Job’s response in Job 42:2-6
2 “I know that You can do everything,Notice that once Job sees God as He is, he (Job) sees himself as he is, and repents.
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”
The God who reveals Himself to Job, is a God worthy of adoration and praise, no matter the evil that He allows to cross the path of His beloved.
I will leave the last word to you and will bow out of the discussion.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
It is not, what you perceive as an anti-Calvinist stance on my part , but the clearly illogical and self-contradictory assertions made by the teachings of Calvinism and your attempts at pushing ignoring my objections by positing to God such actions as belongs to a bully that make for an unreasonable discussion.
Your remarks on Job totally ignore my objection and every response you supplied offered nothing new to this discussion, anyway (that’s why it has been so repetitive).
I expected so much more from this forum but have found that, so far, responses follow the “party line” without any direct refutation of the objections made. And, of course, the discussion, without fail, always end with that famous line, “God is God” (which is an answer that actually answers nothing).
Although disappointed, I do appreciate your graciously offering me the “last word”. Thank you.
Discussion