For the Father to plan his Son's torture is unloving !

HE needs to eradicate evil at the soonest possible time available; HE cannot live with evil.

Therefore to know that HE postponed the judgement day so that the reprobate demons of the evil one and the sinful but good people of the kingdom can live together must mean that HE is forced by HIS own system to proceed in a certain way and must fulfill certain steps before taking the final step of the judgement.
Yet Jesus lived with sinners, evil and one if His own disciples was the betrayer, the son of perdition whom satan entered. God allowed satan into His presence to dialogue with Him and set parameters on what he would be allowed to do with Job. There are many other such examples that prove the sin / evil thing with God is a misnomer in Christendom.
 
the evil realm and adam, not just on this earth but with full transcendent context:

- planned the fall, tortured us, imprison us on this earth, imprison us in this flesh, tortured christ, murdered christ, and continually alter His words the way satan did to eve.


Our father did none of those things.
Well. I think these things are the painful chastisements given to us by GOD to train us in righteousness, Hebrews 12:5-11, that is, to open our eyes to our sin so we seek the redeemer and holiness and to open our eyes to the great need for the judgement day so we quit standing in the way of it by believing the judgement of men women and children is too harsh for a loving GOD.
 
Yet Jesus lived with sinners, evil and one if His own disciples was the betrayer, the son of perdition whom satan entered. God allowed satan into His presence to dialogue with Him and set parameters on what he would be allowed to do with Job. There are many other such examples that prove the sin / evil thing with God is a misnomer in Christendom.

Punish and separate evil, not eradicate it.

Eradicate would be annihilationism.

Satan is tormented right in front of Jesus and the angels forever.


No one—and I do mean no one—means God can literally not exist where evil is.

It's a metaphor for God's displeasure towards evil.
 
Punish and separate evil, not eradicate it.

Eradicate would be annihilationism.

Satan is tormented right in front of Jesus and the angels forever.


No one—and I do mean no one—means God can literally not exist where evil is.

It's a metaphor for God's displeasure towards evil.
Yet He loved them and ate with evil , wicked sinners . Hmmmmm

And even forgave them with no sacrifice just His words . You are forgiven and neither do I condemn you.

Another hmmmmmmm

Jesus was so penal with sinners . Hmmmmm
 
Yet He loved them and ate with evil , wicked sinners . Hmmmmm
Not anymore-not after the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus-
Joh_3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Rom_1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom_2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Rom_9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom_13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Eph_5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Col_3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Jas_1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
 
Not anymore-not after the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus-
Joh_3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Rom_1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Rom_2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Rom_9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom_13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Eph_5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Col_3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Jas_1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
God is immutable and does not change . Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever . Heb 13:8.

hope this helps !!!
 
God is immutable and does not change . Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever . Heb 13:8.

hope this helps !!!
I quoted the Scriptures-

Joh_3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Joh_3:36. ὁ πιστεύων … ἐπʼ αὐτόν. Christ has been represented as Sovereign, commissioned with supreme powers, especially for the purpose of saving men and restoring them to God.

Hence “he that believeth on the Son hath eternal life”. He who through the Son finds and accepts the Father has life in this very vision and fellowship of the Supreme; cf. Joh_17:3.

But “he that refuses to be persuaded,” lit. “he that disobeyeth”. Beza points out that in N.T. there is a twofold ἀπείθεια, one of the intellect, dissenting from truth presented, as here and in Act_14:2; the other of the will and life, see Rom_11:30.

But will enters into the former as well as the latter. ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, the wrath of God denotes “the fixed and necessary hostility of the Divine nature to sin”; what appears in a righteous man as indignation; and also the manifestation of that hostility in acts of retributive justice. This is the only place in the Gospel where it occurs; but in Rev_6:16, we have “the wrath of the Lamb”; also Joh_16:19, “the wine of the fury of His wrath”; also Joh_14:10, Joh_11:18, Joh_19:15. In Paul “the coming wrath” is frequently alluded to; as also “the day of wrath,” “the children” or “vessels” of wrath. On the refuser of Christ the wrath of God, instead of removing from him, abides, μένει; not, as Theophylact reads, μενεῖ, “will abide”.
Ex-Gr.

In 1 Pet 2-

"which has been rejected by men" This is a perfect passive participle. This may be an allusion to 1 Pet. 2:7, which is from the Septuagint of Ps. 118:22. The stone is disapproved by "the builders," which may refer to the Jewish leadership, but in Peter it is widened to all unbelieving humans.

This term, from apo and dokimazō, means the testing of someone or something to find if it is genuine. The Jews continued to reject Jesus as the Messiah and this rejection became a state of spiritual blindness (cf. Mark 8:31; Matt. 6:23).

Only two camps-those in Christ-those being blinded and in a state being blinded-by their own free choice-now is the time to see the word dokimazo and how it is applied to not only the unbelieving Jews-but to the unbelieving in the world.

But-


Guess you can interpret it your way-which is not necc the biblical way.
Johann.
 
Last edited:
I quoted the Scriptures-

Joh_3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Joh_3:36. ὁ πιστεύων … ἐπʼ αὐτόν. Christ has been represented as Sovereign, commissioned with supreme powers, especially for the purpose of saving men and restoring them to God.

Hence “he that believeth on the Son hath eternal life”. He who through the Son finds and accepts the Father has life in this very vision and fellowship of the Supreme; cf. Joh_17:3.

But “he that refuses to be persuaded,” lit. “he that disobeyeth”. Beza points out that in N.T. there is a twofold ἀπείθεια, one of the intellect, dissenting from truth presented, as here and in Act_14:2; the other of the will and life, see Rom_11:30.

But will enters into the former as well as the latter. ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, the wrath of God denotes “the fixed and necessary hostility of the Divine nature to sin”; what appears in a righteous man as indignation; and also the manifestation of that hostility in acts of retributive justice. This is the only place in the Gospel where it occurs; but in Rev_6:16, we have “the wrath of the Lamb”; also Joh_16:19, “the wine of the fury of His wrath”; also Joh_14:10, Joh_11:18, Joh_19:15. In Paul “the coming wrath” is frequently alluded to; as also “the day of wrath,” “the children” or “vessels” of wrath. On the refuser of Christ the wrath of God, instead of removing from him, abides, μένει; not, as Theophylact reads, μενεῖ, “will abide”.
Ex-Gr.

Guess you can interpret it your way-which is not necc the biblical way.
Johann.
Jesus befriended sinners, demon possessed , adulterers , pagans etc …. while they were sinners/ unbelievers and spoke with them , ate with them. Gods wrath will be upon those who die in unbelief but while they are still living there is still hope they will repent and believe in Him.

There are two sides to the wrath coin :)
 
Yet He loved them and ate with evil , wicked sinners . Hmmmmm

And even forgave them with no sacrifice just His words . You are forgiven and neither do I condemn you.

Another hmmmmmmm

Jesus was so penal with sinners . Hmmmmm
  • God is long-suffering.
  • NOW is the time to repent, Now is the Kingdom of God at hand, Now is God calling men to repentance.
  • Wrath is being stored for the Day of Wrath, when the door is closed and Judgement, rather than Mercy is the order of the day; Then the cup of wrath will be poured full strength on those that rejected so great a salvation BECAUSE they rejected so great a salvation. The wages of their rebellion will be paid in full. They will be cast out of the feast and shut out from the kingdom they rejected ... forever.
God does not change. His plan was made known in Genesis, and is fulfilled in Revelation. Holy, Just, Merciful, Righteous, Loving, Mighty, Patient ... everything, all the time, eternally unchanging ... GOD!
 
  • God is long-suffering.
  • NOW is the time to repent, Now is the Kingdom of God at hand, Now is God calling men to repentance.
  • Wrath is being stored for the Day of Wrath, when the door is closed and Judgement, rather than Mercy is the order of the day; Then the cup of wrath will be poured full strength on those that rejected so great a salvation BECAUSE they rejected so great a salvation. The wages of their rebellion will be paid in full. They will be cast out of the feast and shut out from the kingdom they rejected ... forever.
God does not change. His plan was made known in Genesis, and is fulfilled in Revelation. Holy, Just, Merciful, Righteous, Loving, Mighty, Patient ... everything, all the time, eternally unchanging ... GOD!
Amen
 
Jesus befriended sinners, demon possessed , adulterers , pagans etc …. while they were sinners/ unbelievers and spoke with them , ate with them. Gods wrath will be upon those who die in unbelief but while they are still living there is still hope they will repent and believe in Him.

There are two sides to the wrath coin :)
Nope-notice the Perfect-Passive-Participle, in 1 Pet 2
Unbelievers in a STATE of being blinded-I sound like a Calvinist but I'm not.

"which has been rejected by men" This is a PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE. This may be an allusion to 1 Pet. 2:7, which is from the Septuagint of Ps. 118:22. The stone is disapproved by "the builders," which may refer to the Jewish leadership, but in Peter it is widened to all unbelieving humans.

This compound term, from apo and dokimazō, means the testing of someone or something to find if it is genuine. The Jews continued to reject Jesus as the Messiah and this rejection became a state of spiritual blindness (cf. Mark 8:31; Matt. 6:23).


NASB   "and to this doom they were also appointed"
NKJV, Peshitta   "to which they also were appointed"
NRSV   "as they were destined to do"
TEV   "such was God's will for them"
REB   "this is the fate appointed for them"

Calvinists use this verse and Rom. 9:22; 1 Thess. 5:9 to assert that God chose some to salvation and some to damnation.

However, verses like John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9 show this cannot be true. God's election is primarily for holiness (cf. Eph. 1:4; 2:10); for Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:29).

This verse reminds me of Isa. 6:9-13. God's covenantal people had the light they needed to respond appropriately to Him, but they would not.

This continual rejection issued in hard hearts that could not respond. Only judgment was possible. The God of time and history knows what humans will do but allows them to do it and then He affirms and recognizes the consequences of their temporal/eternal choices.

It must have been very hard for these Jewish believers to deal with the Jewish rejection of Jesus. How could this happen? These early believers began to read the Scriptures for clues to this surprising unbelief.

Isaiah 6:9-10; 8:14-15; 43:8
Jeremiah 5:21; 7
Matt. 21:33-44; Mark 12:1-12
Luke 2:34; 20:9-18
Romans 9-11
1 Corinthians 1:23

The following quote is from F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, pp. 196-197, about "election" vs. "selection."

"Are 'election to salvation' and 'election to damnation' correlative terms?

  In certain theological systems they are, but it is important to test all theological systems by Scripture, and to remember that, when the teaching of Scripture is systemized, something is usually left out in the process. The term 'election' has become so involved in theological controversy that the sense of the Biblical teaching on the subject might be better grasped if we used a non-theological word like 'selection' in its place. Christ selected twelve men to be apostles (Luke 6:13); He selected Saul of Tarsus to be a 'chosen vessel' (Acts 9:15); but His selection of these men for a special purpose implies no disparagement of others who were not so selected. God selected Israel from among the nations (Acts 13:17)—to the great benefit of the other nations, not to their disadvantage. When the election of the people of God in this age is in question, it is not so much their 'election to salvation' as their election to holiness that is emphasized. This is so, for example, in Eph. 1:4 and 1 Pet. 1:1f; and similarly, in Rom. 8:29, the purpose for which God foreordained those whom He foreknew was that they should be 'conformed to the image of his Son.' In none of these places is there any suggestion of 'election to damnation' as a correlative. We should beware of generalizing from such particular references as those in Rom. 9:22 ('vessels of wrath made for destruction') and 1 Pet. 2:8 'they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do'). The general analogy of Biblical teaching on this subject indicates that some are chosen or selected by God—not in order that others, apart from them, may be left in perdition, but in order that others, through them, may be blessed."

www.freebiblecommentary-org.

Johann.
 
Jesus befriended sinners, demon possessed , adulterers , pagans etc …. while they were sinners/ unbelievers and spoke with them , ate with them. Gods wrath will be upon those who die in unbelief but while they are still living there is still hope they will repent and believe in Him.

There are two sides to the wrath coin :)
Agree to disagree brother-

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
The wrath of God (ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ)

Both ὀργὴ and θυμός are used in the New Testament for wrath or anger, and without any commonly observed distinction. Ὁργη denotes a deeper and more permanent sentiment; a settled habit of mind; while θυμός is a more turbulent, but temporary agitation.

Both words are used in the phrase wrath of God, which commonly denotes a distinct manifestation of God's judgment (Rom_1:18; Rom_3:5; Rom_9:22; Rom_12:19). Ὁργὴ (not θυμός) also appears in the phrase the wrath to come (Mat_3:7; Luk_3:7; 1Th_2:16, etc.). Compare wrath of the Lamb (Rev_6:16).

Abideth (μένει)
The present tense. As the believer hath life, so the unbeliever hath wrath abiding on him. He lives continually in an economy which is alienated from God, and which, in itself, must be habitually the subject of God's displeasure and indignation.
MV.



that believeth on: Joh_3:15-16, Joh_1:12, Joh_5:24, Joh_6:47-54, Joh_10:28; Hab_2:4; Rom_1:17, Rom_8:1; 1Jn_3:14-15; 1Jn_5:10-13

see: Joh_3:3, Joh_8:51; Num_32:11; Job_33:28; Psa_36:9, Psa_49:19, Psa_106:4-5; Luk_2:30, Luk_3:6; Rom_8:24-25; Rev_21:8
but: Psa_2:12; Rom_1:18, Rom_4:15, Rom_5:9; Gal_3:10; Eph_5:6; 1Th_1:10, 1Th_5:9; Heb_2:3; Heb_10:29; Rev_6:16-17

Johann.
 
Calvinists use this verse and Rom. 9:22; 1 Thess. 5:9 to assert that God chose some to salvation and some to damnation.
A proper Reformed Theology [London Confession or Westminster] would not claim "God chose some to damnation". Hence the use of terms like "passed over" in the confessions. (acknowledging the 'logical contradiction' while embracing the Biblical reality).

However, verses like John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9 show this cannot be true. God's election is primarily for holiness (cf. Eph. 1:4; 2:10); for Christlikeness (cf. Rom. 8:29).
Is it a distinction without a difference to speak about "election" to "holiness" and "Christlikeness" as distinct from election to "salvation"? Is is possible to be both "holy and Christlike" while being unsaved? It it possible to be saved while having no "holiness or Christlikeness"? It seems one cannot separate these things. To be saved is to be holy is to be Christlike ... so one must be "elected" to be all, or one is not elected to any.

  • If you were just refuting ELECTION to DAMNATION, then I agree [as a 5-point Calvinist and Particular Baptist]. I believe that is a hypercalvinist teaching not generally held by most "Doctrine of Grace" Christians ["Reformed" has other baggage associated with it that Baptists like me don't agree with].
 
A proper Reformed Theology [London Confession or Westminster] would not claim "God chose some to damnation". Hence the use of terms like "passed over" in the confessions. (acknowledging the 'logical contradiction' while embracing the Biblical reality).


Is it a distinction without a difference to speak about "election" to "holiness" and "Christlikeness" as distinct from election to "salvation"? Is is possible to be both "holy and Christlike" while being unsaved? It it possible to be saved while having no "holiness or Christlikeness"? It seems one cannot separate these things. To be saved is to be holy is to be Christlike ... so one must be "elected" to be all, or one is not elected to any.

  • If you were just refuting ELECTION to DAMNATION, then I agree [as a 5-point Calvinist and Particular Baptist]. I believe that is a hypercalvinist teaching not generally held by most "Doctrine of Grace" Christians ["Reformed" has other baggage associated with it that Baptists like me don't agree with].
I don't hold to Calvin or hypercalvinists-

Rom_6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Rom_6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

2Co_7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Eph_4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

1Th_3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

1Th_4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

J.
 
A proper Reformed Theology [London Confession or Westminster] would not claim "God chose some to damnation". Hence the use of terms like "passed over" in the confessions. (acknowledging the 'logical contradiction' while embracing the Biblical reality).

Baptist confession? Why are mixing the two?
 
Is it a distinction without a difference to speak about "election" to "holiness" and "Christlikeness" as distinct from election to "salvation"? Is is possible to be both "holy and Christlike" while being unsaved? It it possible to be saved while having no "holiness or Christlikeness"? It seems one cannot separate these things. To be saved is to be holy is to be Christlike ... so one must be "elected" to be all, or one is not elected to any.
1. Do all Christians start out as baby Christians? Why?

2. Why does Peter use so many OT titles to describe NT believers?

3. What is the significance of believers being called "stones?"

4. Why is our lifestyle so important?

5. Why should we as Christians obey governmental authority?

6. Why did Christianity not attack slavery?

7. What was Peter's advice to those in unfair circumstances?

8. What is the significance of Christ's death?

 
Back
Top Bottom