The Horrible Decree
Ah! gentle, gracious Dove;
And art thou grieved in me,
That sinners should restrain thy love,
And say, "It is not free:
It is not free for all;
The most Thou passest by,
And mockest with a fruitless call
Whom Thou hast doomed to die."
They think Thee not sincere
In giving each his day:
"Thou only draw'st the sinner near,
To cast him quite away;
To aggravate his sin,
His sure damnation seal,
Thou show'st him heaven, and say'st, Go in, -
And thrusts him into hell."
Sinners, abhor the fiend:
His other gospel hear -
"The God of trust did not intend
The thing His words declare;
He offers grace to all,
Which most cannot embrace,
Mock'd with an ineffectual call
And insufficient grace.
"The righteous God consign'd
Them over to their doom,
And sent the Saviour of mankind
To damn them from the womb:
To damn for falling short
Of what they could not do,
For not believing the report
Of that which was not true."
"[The ordinary man] has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland." - G.K. Chesterton
Showing posts with label Hell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hell. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Two Mysteries: One Way of Viewing the Calvinism v. Arminianism Debate
I think a lot about the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate. For the uninitiated, Calvinism and Arminianism are paradigms for interpreting the Biblical Scriptures. There is a lot of overlap between them in terms of what they affirm and what they deny, but the reason they are typically viewed in opposition to one another is because of their differing views over the issue of predestination.
Both paradigms affirm that Heaven and Hell are realities, but disagree over the role of human decision in determining who goes where. Calvinists believe the Bible teaches that God has chosen who will go to Heaven and who will not prior to the creation of the world. Some people have been chosen for salvation, others for condemnation. Those who have been chosen for salvation will manifest their chosen-ness by coming to faith in Christ at some point in their lives, whereas those who have been chosen for destruction will never come to faith. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God has chosen to make it possible for all people to come to faith. People, then, have some actual power of choice to say "yes" or "no" to the love, grace, and revelation that God offers (whether this is precisely what classical Arminianism argues I can't say for sure, but it is what most people who call themselves Arminian today actually believe).
Both paradigms affirm that Heaven and Hell are realities, but disagree over the role of human decision in determining who goes where. Calvinists believe the Bible teaches that God has chosen who will go to Heaven and who will not prior to the creation of the world. Some people have been chosen for salvation, others for condemnation. Those who have been chosen for salvation will manifest their chosen-ness by coming to faith in Christ at some point in their lives, whereas those who have been chosen for destruction will never come to faith. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God has chosen to make it possible for all people to come to faith. People, then, have some actual power of choice to say "yes" or "no" to the love, grace, and revelation that God offers (whether this is precisely what classical Arminianism argues I can't say for sure, but it is what most people who call themselves Arminian today actually believe).
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Seminarian Musings
From
what I've noticed, Calvinists tend to affirm three ideas:
(1) God is loving and good
(2) Some people will go to Hell
(3) God is completely sovereign over salvation
In my opinion, Calvinists need to choose which one of these three ideas to get rid of. They try to affirm all three, but they can really only affirm two of them at once. If God is truly loving and yet some people will still go to Hell, then God must not be completely sovereign over salvation (in other words, He must allow human beings some say in the matter). If God is loving and completely sovereign over salvation, then no one should end up going to Hell (Calvinists really should be universalists, in my opinion). If some people will go to Hell and God is completely sovereign over salvation, then God must not be really be loving.
In other words...
If (1) and (2), then not (3).
If (1) and (3), then not (2).
If (2) and (3), then not (1).
I'd be interested in hearing any ideas anyone has as to how to reconcile all three, because at this point I can't do it.
It seems to me that the one Calvinists are most willing to jettison first is (1) – the idea that God actually loves everyone. That disturbs me. That is the LAST one I'd be willing to stop affirming. The one I think it makes the most sense to let go of – or at least the one that we need to have a more nuanced understanding of – is (3).
Thoughts?
(1) God is loving and good
(2) Some people will go to Hell
(3) God is completely sovereign over salvation
In my opinion, Calvinists need to choose which one of these three ideas to get rid of. They try to affirm all three, but they can really only affirm two of them at once. If God is truly loving and yet some people will still go to Hell, then God must not be completely sovereign over salvation (in other words, He must allow human beings some say in the matter). If God is loving and completely sovereign over salvation, then no one should end up going to Hell (Calvinists really should be universalists, in my opinion). If some people will go to Hell and God is completely sovereign over salvation, then God must not be really be loving.
In other words...
If (1) and (2), then not (3).
If (1) and (3), then not (2).
If (2) and (3), then not (1).
I'd be interested in hearing any ideas anyone has as to how to reconcile all three, because at this point I can't do it.
It seems to me that the one Calvinists are most willing to jettison first is (1) – the idea that God actually loves everyone. That disturbs me. That is the LAST one I'd be willing to stop affirming. The one I think it makes the most sense to let go of – or at least the one that we need to have a more nuanced understanding of – is (3).
Thoughts?
Labels:
Arminianism,
Calvinism,
God,
Hell,
Love,
reconciliation
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Soteriology: A Bunch of My Thoughts at This Point
NOTE: I started working on this post back in the summer. I worked on it for awhile, then abandoned it because I felt like the scope of what I was trying to talk about was just too broad. But a couple weeks ago I looked at it again and realized I had put too much work into it not to try and finish it (even if "finishing it" just meant getting it to a point where it was blog-worthy and ready for further refinement). I do think I'm biting off more than I can chew here, but as God helps me to sort through this stuff I have to start somewhere. So, here it is.
In 2007, I helped to staff a summer missions trip in Wildwood, New Jersey for seven weeks. It was a great experience - one of the best summers of my life. I learned a lot about what it looks like to live in community, to counsel those who are hurting, and to share about Jesus.
The theme of our project that summer was treasuring the Gospel, so most of our teaching focused on helping the participants to realize just how wonderful the Gospel message is. We spent most of our devotions in the book of Galatians, emphasizing freedom from legalism and assurance of salvation, and we spoke often about God's unconditional love - the idea that, because of what Christ has done, we can rest confidently in the knowledge that our redemption is certain. We told the participants that, because of Christ's sacrifice, God no longer sees our sin. We even asked them to evaluate themselves, only to hand their evaluations back with A-pluses at the top. Christ has earned your A+, we said. That's the good news.
In 2007, I helped to staff a summer missions trip in Wildwood, New Jersey for seven weeks. It was a great experience - one of the best summers of my life. I learned a lot about what it looks like to live in community, to counsel those who are hurting, and to share about Jesus.
The theme of our project that summer was treasuring the Gospel, so most of our teaching focused on helping the participants to realize just how wonderful the Gospel message is. We spent most of our devotions in the book of Galatians, emphasizing freedom from legalism and assurance of salvation, and we spoke often about God's unconditional love - the idea that, because of what Christ has done, we can rest confidently in the knowledge that our redemption is certain. We told the participants that, because of Christ's sacrifice, God no longer sees our sin. We even asked them to evaluate themselves, only to hand their evaluations back with A-pluses at the top. Christ has earned your A+, we said. That's the good news.
Labels:
Calvinism,
Compatibilism,
Exclusivism,
Free Will,
God,
Heaven,
Hell,
Inclusivism,
Jesus,
John 1,
Libertarianism,
Love Wins,
Rob Bell,
Salvation,
Soteriology,
Universalism
Monday, July 11, 2011
Danger: Attempt at Deep Thought Below
Yesterday in church the sermon was on Micah 6:8 - "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. That's what God wants. Not burnt offerings, rivers of oil, and sacrificed firstborns (verse 7). Thank goodness.
But wait a minute - how are we supposed to act justly and love mercy at the same time? Aren't those things at odds with each other? Mercy is, by definition, what we receive when we are spared the consequences of what we deserve. Justice, in contrast, is what we receive when we do get what we deserve. Therefore, if we are to receive or grant mercy, justice must be abandoned. If we are to receive or grant justice, mercy must be abandoned. And yet God requires that we do both. How is this supposed to work?
Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. That's what God wants. Not burnt offerings, rivers of oil, and sacrificed firstborns (verse 7). Thank goodness.
But wait a minute - how are we supposed to act justly and love mercy at the same time? Aren't those things at odds with each other? Mercy is, by definition, what we receive when we are spared the consequences of what we deserve. Justice, in contrast, is what we receive when we do get what we deserve. Therefore, if we are to receive or grant mercy, justice must be abandoned. If we are to receive or grant justice, mercy must be abandoned. And yet God requires that we do both. How is this supposed to work?
Labels:
Biblical Mystery,
Christianity,
Heaven,
Hell,
Jesus,
Justice,
Mercy,
Micah 6:8,
Theology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



