Rev. Timothy G. Muse

No. If you want God to simply be JUST... he would send ALL to Hell.

How thankful I am, that he is not only JUST, but Gracious!

(That's what Rom 3 refers to when it says "God presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this TO DEMONSTRATE HIS JUSTICE, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it TO DEMONSTRATE HIS JUSTICE at the present time, so as TO BE JUST... AND... (TO BE GRACIOUS) THE ONE WHO JUSTIFIES THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH IN JESUS"

Mageth

So God, for some reason, feels the need to show off to us humans?

Should I pour love and gifts on one of my children to display my grace, and whip my other child to display my "justice and righteousness"?

God's math simply doesn't add up...

Umm, earlier you indicated that it's "not by man's merit" that God's grace is received. Now you seem to be indicating that it is.

Mageth

If for God to be just requires him to send all to hell, then so be it.

However, for God to send most to hell but not some others, though both groups equally deserve hell and no one can do anything to merit God's grace, is unjust.

Magus55

How so? Perhaps its unjust to predestine some to get to go to Heaven, and others to go to Hell with no choice ( which is why I don't accept the Calivinist view), but God offered His Grace to everyone. The majority just won't accept it. Everyone deserves Hell, and everyone has been offered an escape from it. The rest is up to each individual.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

But this is to deny the free offer of the gospel! Jesus Christ came "to save sinners!" You can never "merit' anyone's grace, but you can "accept" or "receive" it when it is offered. The fact is though, that many do not want to accept and acknowledge the truth that God IS as good as his word says, and that WE are as sinful and blameworthy as his word says. John writes "He was in the world, and thought the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. YET to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.." Again, John writes 'This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. BUT whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he and done has been done through God."

It is not correct to say or possess the thinking that "there is nothing anyone can do to gain salvation". Again, the gospel is offered TO ALL, that you might not be included among those who continue under his wrath.

Warthur

No, but that's a mad analogy. I'm not plotting to kill God and I didn't kill any of his family members (don't try to pin the Jesus thing on me: I wasn't there, and besides, I'm neither Jewish nor Roman. ); even if I believed in him, I know that I wouldn't be able to hurt an omnipotent, omniscient entity anyhow.

OK, God has a choice about who he gives grace to. But to deny us that grace just for not believing in him, even when we as individuals have seen no reason to believe in him? (The Bible frankly doesn't cut it, because it's too easy to discount.) That's like saying you shouldn't save someone from a burning building just because they forgot to send you a birthday card.

Mageth

That appears to be the view I've been arguing against...unless I've grossly misinterpreted the Rev's posts.

Umm, the majority simply don't believe in the system. There's a difference between not accepting something one believes is true and simply not believing there's any truth to it. For God's "offer of grace" to be meaningful to me and many others, he needs to do a better job of convincing us of its reality. (Evidence of the poor job is seen here, as the Calvinist position and the one you espouse are both Christian positions, but dramatically contradict each other on some of the fundamentals).

This bothers me. A newborn baby deserves hell, why? For the audacity to be born human? What choice did the baby have in the matter? The system you think of as "just" is based on a terribly unjust premise.

Again, the Rev seems to disagree with this, unless I'm misinterpreting.

But again, I and many others lack belief in the "escape" you mentioned. To me, it's a man-made myth. How, then, can we be expected to accept or reject the offer of escape (one has to believe in it before one can accept it or reject it), or be blamed for simply not believing in it? If God gave us free will (and reason) because that was a good thing, why punish us for using it? Especially since his method of conveying the offer is insufficient to convince so many people that it's true.

Warthur

Hang on... all of humanity, whether or not they were good or bad, were condemned by the sin of Adam, right?

Then how come all of humanity, independently of whether or not they believe, can't be saved by the sacrifice of Jesus? After all, as Jesus is the new Federal Head, by your logic, Jesus's choices and sacrifices are in effect the choices and sacrifices of all humanity. Jesus was without sin; as the "Federal Head" and physical representative of humanity in your system, that means humanity is without sin, no matter what we do.

Great! See you in Heaven!!!

Mageth

But that act is doing something to merit it, plain and simple. Can't you see that? You make the act of accepting/receiving, you get "grace"; you don't make the act, you don't get "grace" (because you don't merit the grace if you don't accept it).

God's "grace" is conditional, then, obviously.

That may be true for some, but for many (myself included), the fact is that "not wanting to accept and ackowledge the truth" has nothing to do with it. My lack of belief has nothing to do with not wanting to believe. In my case, and the same is true for many others, the whole thing is simply a man-made myth. I lack belief in the whole nine yards. I don't consider it true. Thus, I see nothing to accept or reject.

Thanks for providing proof that the Bible contains errors and untruths. None of the above are true for me, or for many others.

Your earlier posts were quite confusing, then. You seemed to be indicating that there was nothing we could do to merit God's "grace". Now you are putting conditions on it.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

You err in that Adam was the Federal Head of all those who would be born below. Christ is the Federal Head of those who would be born from above.

To lead you to where your logic and common arguments often go next, it is true that there is a set number that will end up in heaven and in hell (and a question of how Christ could die for some, but the gospel be extended to all) but since you and I do not know who those include, IT BEHOOVES US ...as the grace is offered to us... to consider it and to receive it. As Jonathan Edwards puts it: It is a terrible thing to be 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."