Ouch! I've read this entire thread and do not see the right answer! So, I will try and wade in to this controversial topic...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:I know... quite a bizarre topic heading. Let's try to think about how these three concepts are related.
No, it's difficult, but not bizarre
-- It would only be bizarre if someone was unwilling to look at the evidence in favour of my controversial (but Biblical) approach...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:If you saw my previous thread about infants who die prematurely, you might be able to see where I'm going with this.
I'm new here, so I don't know, but I'll find out, I guess...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:Ever since I read Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins"... I have frequently thought about a chapter he entitled, "Does God Get What He Wants?" I think this is one of the strongest arguments for the UR position. If God really desires all people to be saved, then is He incapable of making that happen (even if it's after death)? I'm not too sure of the answer, but I think these three categories (Infants who die prematurely, the study of salvation, and hell) have an interesting cohesion when you analyze how they affect each other. My thoughts made me begin to question my own views a little bit.
Infants who Die
1) Calvinism - God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. Babies or children who die are either elected to be saved, or elected to burn in hell forever, dependent on God's sovereign choice.
False: While it's only through God's will to give us grace (Romans 9:16), nonetheless, Free Will is not abrogated for either humans (you and me) nor the angels (who WERE in Heaven -- and one-third fell) -- so, no: Denial of Free Will is incorrect. Moving on...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:2) Non-Calvinism - Babies and children who die are innocent of God's wrath and go to be with the Lord forever.
False: This violated John 3:16, Hebrews 11:6, and John 14:6 -- only by faith, something of which the children are incapable. While I would not disagree that the children are in heaven for the time being, their "eternal" fate is not sealed. Hebrews 11:6 states: "Without faith it it IMPOSSIBLE to please God," and so these babies are NOT capable of pleasing God -- but God will give them a chance because he is not partial or unfair. Continuing...
Soteriology
RICHinCHRIST wrote:1) Calvinism - God does not desire all people to be saved so He chose only a select few to inherit salvation. All non-elect people are incapable of coming to Christ to be saved, and God has no desire in drawing them even though He could.
2) Non-Calvinism - God loves all people and desires all to be saved. All people have the opportunity and capability to receive salvation through Christ by faith, if they choose.
CORRECT --so far (even though you did not get the correct answer -- yet, but you will - in time) Free Will is God's plan. Continuing...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:Hell
1) Eternal Torment - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life are subject to an eternity of conscious torment. Their souls are immortal and there is no way they can escape or cease to suffer this horrendous future unless they repent and follow Christ before they die.
God is impartial, and would not deny the infants Free Will -a thing he did not deny either angels or humans. So, they could not be eligible for hell -not yet anyhow. Continuing...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:2) Conditional Immortality - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life aren't innately immortal, so they cease to exist or suffer after they have received justice. Whether their annihilation is instant or after a varying temporal punishment is debatable.
This sounds like Soul Sleep -- this does not address 'eternal' fate, so I shall not answer it -at least for the time. Continuing...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:3) Universal Reconciliation - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life suffer a temporary sentence in hell which is meant to purify them and lead them to repentance. They have the hope of one day being fully reconciled to the Lord and saved by grace, even though they didn't repent before death.
God is impartial, and Satan has eternal torment: Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:..." - Continuing...
RICHinCHRIST wrote:How Does All This Tie Together?
First of all, we can see that Calvinism cannot jive with Universalism. God does not desire to save all people in one system, where He does in the other. Non-Calvinists could hold any view of hell and not contradict themselves, perhaps.
This is my question: In classical Arminianism, if God really desires all to be saved, and infants are saved, why does God allow people to live past the age of accountability if He foreknows that they will rebel against Him?
ANSWER: Because he gives EVERYONE the same Free Will -and to deny you and me Free Will when he will give it to the infants when they reunite with their parents in the Millennium would be unfair to us. Observe:
Since we have children that live in the Millennium ("6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." ISAIAH 11:6b,8, KJV) -and die -at a very old age (“And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” ISAIAH 65:20b, NASB) in the 1,000 Millennium Reign –and people, obviously with FREE WILL, who EVEN STILL are rebelling! (“And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” Revelation 20:9, NASB) -doesn't it make more sense that the Bible is referring to **these** children?
In other words, where *will* these children in the Millennium come from? And, what Scriptural prohibition is there to having the infants reappear then and be given Free Will? This would not be a 2nd chance, since they never got a first chance.
So, I spilled the answer early, but anyhow, let's see what else you say, and I'll try to answer it.
RICHinCHRIST wrote:This is especially pertinent if Eternal Torment or Conditional Immortality is true. However, if Universalism is true, it would make sense why God would allow people to live in rebellion against Him even though He foreknows it.
ANSWER: Because he doesn't deny us Free Will, something He apparently feels is needed to make His case that He's fair.
RICHinCHRIST wrote:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my dilemma with the classical Arminianism view (which I currently hold):
a) God desires all to be saved
b) God foreknows who will reject Him
c) Those who will reject Him can be saved if they die before the age of accountability
Reality: Many die rejecting Christ
Conclusion: God has seemingly not cared strongly enough about saving those people, even though He could have done it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is the case, how can it be said that God desires all to be saved? Calvinism is actually more logically consistent than this.
If God foreknows all things, and desires all to be saved, He should kill all children He foreknows will reject Him. If He does not take this opportunity to save them, then it seems He doesn't love them enough to spare them from the coming judgment. This is especially disheartening if eternal torment is true. In other words, Arminianism is guilty of the same portrayal of God's character as Calvinism (though not as repugnantly). If God really wants all people saved, which I believe He does, why would He not take advantage of the means by which He could accomplish His will?
It seems there are only a few logically consistent conclusions one can make:
1) Logically Consistent Calvinism - God doesn't desire all to be saved, so He eternally tortures those who have no choice but to reject Him. He also tortures babies who never got to reject Him yet. God only wills that the elect not perish. Forget about everybody else cause God doesn't care about them anyway!
2) Open Theism - God does not yet know the future decisions of people, so even though He wants all saved, He does not know who will be saved or who will not (so He is not obliged to intervene in killing people before the age of accountability).
3) Arminianistic Instant Annihilationism - Even though God desires all to be saved (and foreknows those who will reject Him), He allows people to live on in rejection of Him because He knows their punishment will be swift and nearly painless. He gave them a chance, but they missed their opportunity.
4) Arminianistic Universalism - God does foreknow all things, yet He is already planning on saving all people eventually, whether by His goodness in this life or His severity in the next. Therefore, His foreknowledge of those who reject Him does not thwart His desire to save all people.
Those are my thoughts. I should mention that I am speculating and just thinking out loud.
OK, those are my thoughts -- no one thought of the Millennium -- thinking only spirit bodies --or super glorified would be there. But apparently missing scriptures about people living to be a hundred & dying (in human bodies!) and the rebellion in Revelation at the end of the 1,000 years (thus proof of Free Will). LOL. Moral of the story: Search the Scriptures -- if you eliminate all the unscriptural answers, what remains (MILLENNIUM) ever how "weird" is the correct Scriptural answer.
And, yes, it's odd, but who in Isaiah's time thought Christ would come 2 (or 3 --or 4) times?
1) Christ The CREATOR - John 1
2) Christ the sacrifice (on the cross)
3) Christ the redeemer (He who raptures us)
4) Christ the KING (coming back with his raptured saints).
So, if Isaiah could be kept in the dark looking the the glass darkly, who are we to think we know it all. I submit my answer is the correct one.
Therefore, any woman who has a crippled child and want to "send him to heaven" so she will increase his "eternal" odds -- should STOP: This is not so - you can't twist God's arm and make the Maker accept the baby: God will give all a fair chance, and mercy-killings of this sort will not make a difference, and thus should not be done. (She might reason the child could grow up & reject Christ and that this would be "good," but the child will have a fair chance either way, and God is pro-life in the sense He would not set the system up to tempt the woman so.)
As an Ambassador for The Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), our Saviour (John 3:16) and ONLY perfect role model & example (John 13:15, 1st Peter 2:21),
I Am,
Sincerely,
Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland (between Tampa & Orlando), Florida, U.S.A.