Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Thanks for joining the thread, sister!
I will have to stop now, to have some rest. But tomorrow, God's willing, I will comment on your post.
Good evening, everyone!
The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective
- Thread starter Pancho Frijoles
- Start date
I will have to stop now, to have some rest. But tomorrow, God's willing, I will comment on your post.
Good evening, everyone!
GodsGrace
Well-known member
Good night....
Tomorrow.
...then saving grace is fulfilled by the will of the receiver and he can boast of his work in accepting it, no?
Dizerner
Well-known member
Please take some time to study this and undo the false logic sowed by Calvinists:
There are two types of sinners depending upon their relationship with GOD - a relationship that had to be established while they were innocents (not enslaved to sin) by their own free will decision about the nature of reality and YHWH's claims.
The sinful elect who have given permission for HIS grace to save them against their sinful (not free) will, are given grace. The reprobate who denied HIM to interfere with their free will decision to become enslaved by sin, know grace is offered but cannot ever accept it because of their addiction to the pleasures and profits of sin and because the Holy Spirit is not allowed to work against their choices.
HIS grace is eternal but by stepping outside of HIS loving grace, they are eternally outside of the only power which can save them. They knew this fate might happen to them but they chose to believe that HE was a liar and a false god, unable to punish anyone - a strong enough repudiation of HIM that they knew that if HE ever proved HE was GOD that they were doomed to hell. They did in fact choose hell over bowing to HIM though they thought HE was lying.
So, salvation by grace forces HIS sinful elect to repent by its relentless convictions against their enslaved desire to be sinful forever, while the call to repent washes off the reprobate mind as HE could not overcome their addiction to sin because they chose to repudiate HIS help by their free will which must be held inviolable and sacrosanct or it is not a free will at all.
...those HE hates, HE never loved.
Those who accepted HIS claims and HIS gospel of salvation HE then loved and chose / elected to salvation. Those who rebuked HIM as a liar and so rejected the belief HE was their GOD were condemned and hated on the spot. Love never turned to hate since once given, it stays true forever.
Evil is not eternal in those who melt under conviction for their sin but for those sinners whom HE hates, their evil is indeed forever because HE cannot help them by their own free wil choice to repudiate HIM forever.
The evil people must be eternal because they were created to be HIS Bride. They are evil because they repudiated HIM as their GOD and husband. They are eternally evil because they chose to repudiate HIM as their saviour by their free will, putting themselves outside of HIS love, HIS grace and HIS power to save them forever because a free will decision must be sacrosanct and inviolable forever or it can't be called free.
No one has the power to escape their enslaving addiction to sin so by repudiating HIM as their saviour they are doomed; their evil exists somewhere in the outer darkness forever.
Dizerner
Well-known member
I think if you start a thread about what your favorite car is but forbid talking about its engine, you are being illogical and silly.
That's what I think.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
None of the 3 models are affected by their understanding of PSA, if I understand them correctly.
For example, A Presbyterian, an Evangelical Pentecostal and a Unitarian Universalist could believe in PSA, the three of them.
That would not change their corresponding proposals (Calvinist, Arminian and Universalist) to solve the issue.
Do you see any difference caused by PSA? If you do, please go ahead with your presentation of PSA and accept my apologies.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Are you personally convinced that God hates some people?
For example, do you think God hates Muslims, gays, Communists, scammers, atheist Chinese, Shinto Japanese, prostitutes. Jews, Gypsies, drug dealers, porn filmmakers, female Anglican priests, Donald Trump’s followers, shareholders of Pharma industry, cocaine addicts, news anchors, esthetic plastic surgeons, tax-evader millionaires, fashion designers, Mormons, agnostic astrophysicists, strippers, Internet hackers, Jehovah Witnesses, sly real state agents, gamblers, profane stand-up comedians, Carmelite monks or Carmelite nuns?
Do you suspect (just suspect) that God hates any of the men or women who participate in the Berean Apologetics Forum?
I am 58 and I haven’t met a single person I could say God hates. But probably you have… let me and our readers know, please.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
We already know why they are evil. But what makes you think they will be ETERNALLY evil? Can something evil be eternal?
We all already know that, my friend.
No human being has the power to escape their enslaving addiction to sin. That includes you and me
So, what’s different between, say, Pancho Frijoles, and the people you are describing?
I agree. But why would they be doomed FOREVER?
What makes you think that evil exist forever? Don’t you think that God will beat and destroy evil?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
We already know that the Holy Spirit does not force anyone to choose the right thing.
The Hoy Spirit persuades, convinces. What makes you think that God is not interested in persuading the addicts to sin to accept being rescued? Addicts I have known wanted to be rescued. They just didn’t know what to do or who to resort.
Why eternally outside? Why not temporarily outside?
Well, they will now realize they were wrong : that God was real, his commandments were just, and that their punishment is well deserved. Now what? What is going to happen after they realize this? What does God want to happen next?
Why would they desire to be sinful forever, if they are not getting any pleasure from it?
All they get is sorrow, pain, sadness, despair. Who desires such a miserable existence?
Why would God’s call wash off? Does God stop loving a soul when heart ceases to beat, lungs cease to breath and you see a flat line on the monitor?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi, GodsGrace!
I got this summary from an AI search about the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. I thought you may find interesting in order to understand why that theological system is called after his name:
Jacobus Arminius: A Life of Theological Inquiry and Controversy
Jacobus Arminius stands as one of the most influential theological figures of the Protestant Reformation, whose ideas would challenge the dominant Calvinist orthodoxy and create ripples that continue to influence Christian thought today. Born during a tumultuous period in Dutch history, his personal experiences of loss and academic pursuits shaped a theological mind that would question prevailing doctrines on predestination, grace, and human free will.
Early Life and Family Tragedy
Jacobus Arminius, born Jacob Hermanszoon, entered the world on October 10, 1560, in Oudewater, Utrecht, in the Netherlands. His early life was marked by profound tragedy, as his father Herman, a weapons manufacturer, died while Jacob was still an infant, leaving his mother to care for him and his siblings alone[1][3][4]. This early loss was only the beginning of tragedy for young Jacob. In 1575, when he was approximately fifteen years old, Spanish forces massacred the inhabitants of his hometown of Oudewater, and his mother was among those killed in this brutal attack[4][5][7]. These early experiences of personal tragedy undoubtedly influenced his later theological reflections on providence, suffering, and divine sovereignty.
Before his mother's death, Jacob had been adopted by Theodorus Aemilius, a priest who had Protestant leanings. Aemilius ensured that the young boy received an education at Utrecht, likely at the Hieronymusschool[4][5]. Following Aemilius's death around 1574 or 1575, Arminius came under the care of Rudolph Snellius, a mathematician who also hailed from Oudewater[5]. This new benefactor played a crucial role in Arminius's academic development, bringing him to Marburg and facilitating his enrollment at the newly established University of Leiden[5].
Education and Intellectual Formation
Arminius's formal education began at the University of Leiden, where he studied from 1576 to 1582[3][5][8]. Though officially enrolled as a student of liberal arts, this arrangement allowed him to pursue theological studies as well[5]. During his time at Leiden, Arminius studied under several notable theologians who would influence his intellectual development, including Lambertus Danaeus, Johannes Drusius, Guillaume Feuguereius, and Johann Kolmann[3][8]. Kolmann's teachings were particularly significant, as he criticized high Calvinism for portraying God as "a tyrant and an executioner"—a critique that would later resonate in Arminius's own theological work[3][5].
Following his studies at Leiden, Arminius continued his education under Theodore Beza at Geneva in 1582[3][5]. Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, represented the stricter interpretations of Calvin's theology that would later become the focus of Arminius's critiques. During this period of study, Arminius also visited the University of Padua and even traveled to Rome, broadening his exposure to different theological and philosophical traditions before returning to Geneva[1].
Ministry and Academic Career
After completing his education, Arminius was called to serve as a pastor in Amsterdam, where he was ordained in 1588[1][3][7]. His ministry in Amsterdam proved successful, and he developed a reputation as both an effective preacher and a devoted pastor[3]. In 1590, he married Lijsbet Reael, establishing his family life alongside his growing ministry[3][5][8].
During his fourteen years of ministry in Amsterdam, Arminius was generally popular, though his evolving theological views occasionally brought him into conflict with more strictly Calvinist ministers[7]. A pivotal moment in his theological development came in 1589 when the ecclesiastical senate of Amsterdam requested that he respond to the teachings of Dirck Coornhert[7]. Coornhert had challenged several Calvinist doctrines, including predestination, justification, and the punishment of heretics by death. Initially tasked with refuting Coornhert's views, Arminius instead found himself agreeing with many of Coornhert's arguments after careful study of Scripture, the church fathers, and later theological writings[7].
In 1603, Arminius's career took a significant turn when he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Leiden[1][3][4][5][6][7]. This prestigious position allowed him to develop and articulate his theological views more systematically, but it also placed him at the center of growing theological controversies. The last six years of his life at Leiden were dominated by theological disputes, particularly with his colleague Franciscus Gomarus, who staunchly defended the strict Calvinist position on predestination[1].
Theological Development and Controversy
Arminius's theological journey is particularly noteworthy for its evolution. In his early years, he affirmed the traditional Calvinist view of predestination, which held that God had predetermined who would be saved and who would be damned even before Adam's fall[1][4]. However, through his studies and reflections, he gradually came to question this position, finding it "too harsh" and problematic in its implications about God's character and human moral responsibility[1][3].
The core of Arminius's developing theology centered on his modified understanding of predestination. Rather than seeing God's election as unconditional and determined before the creation of the world, Arminius came to believe in a conditional election, teaching that "The divine decree of predestination is not absolute, but conditioned upon God's foreknowledge of faith"[1]. This position preserved God's sovereignty while making room for human free will in the process of salvation.
Despite the controversies his views generated, Arminius considered his theology to be harmonious with Calvin's essential teachings and within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy[4]. Nevertheless, his positions on predestination, free will, and grace were perceived as significant departures from Calvinist orthodoxy by his contemporaries, particularly by strict Calvinists like Gomarus.
Death and Legacy
Jacobus Arminius died on October 19, 1609, in Leiden at the age of 49, leaving behind a theological legacy that would continue to develop and influence Protestant Christianity for centuries to come[1][3][4]. Following his death, his followers systematized his teachings, and in 1610, they formalized his views in the Five Articles of Remonstrance[3][6]. These followers, known as Remonstrants, continued to advocate for Arminius's theological positions within the Dutch Reformed Church[3][5][6].
The controversy surrounding Arminius's teachings reached a climax at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), where his views were officially condemned by the Dutch Reformed Church[3][4][5]. In response to the five points of the Remonstrants, the Synod formulated what would later become known as the five points of Calvinism (often remembered by the acronym TULIP), directly countering Arminian positions[6].
Despite this official condemnation, Arminius's works continued to circulate, published in Latin at Leiden in 1629 and at Frankfurt in 1631 and 1635[3][6]. Over time, his theology gained wider acceptance and official "toleration" within the Netherlands[3]. More significantly, Arminius's theological perspective spread beyond the Netherlands to influence broader Protestant thought, particularly among Methodists and Baptists in England and the United States[4].
Conclusion
Jacobus Arminius's life journey from an orphaned child to one of the most influential theological voices of his era reflects both personal resilience and intellectual courage. Through personal tragedy, rigorous education, pastoral ministry, and academic teaching, he developed a theological perspective that challenged dominant views and offered an alternative understanding of God's relationship with humanity. Though controversial in his time, his emphasis on God's universal love, human moral responsibility, and the conditional nature of election continues to resonate with many Christians today, ensuring that his theological contributions remain relevant more than four centuries after his death.
Sources
[1] Jacobus Arminius | Biography, Arminianism, Beliefs, & Facts https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacobus-Arminius
[2] An Introduction to James Arminius - Holy Joys https://holyjoys.org/an-introduction-to-james-jacobus-arminius/
[3] Jacobus Arminius - Theopedia https://www.theopedia.com/jacobus-arminius
[4] Jacobus Arminius - New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jacobus_Arminius
[5] Jacobus Arminius - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius
[6] Author info: Jacobus Arminius - Christian Classics Ethereal Library https://www.ccel.org/ccel/arminius
[7] Jacob Arminius founds Arminianism | Christian History Institute https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/arminius
[8] Jacobo Arminio - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arminio
[9] Who Was Jacob Arminius? - Ligonier.org https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/jacob-arminius
[10] Who was Jacobus Arminius? | GotQuestions.org https://www.gotquestions.org/Jacobus-Arminius.html
[11] Who Was Arminius? - Westminster Seminary California https://www.wscal.edu/resource/who-was-arminius/
GOD HIMself told me HE hates sinners...
Ps 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
S8130. sane:
Original Word: שָׂנֵא
Definition: To hate, detest, be hostile to
Meaning: to hate
Ps 5:6
Berean Standard Bible
You destroy those who tell lies; the LORD abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit.
S 8581. taab
Original Word: תַּעָב
Definition: To abhor, to detest, to loathe
Meaning: to loathe, detest
I think it is Proverbs 6:16-19 that has a longer list of what HE hates using both these same words, sane and taab. And if you are getting ready to say: HE hates the sin but not the sinner: then please read Ps 5:5 HE hates all workers of iniquity, a reference to the person sinning. and vs6... the LORD abhores the MAN of bloodshed and deceit.
Last edited:
GOD would not create HIS Bride to be mortal so all beings made in HIS image are immortal. IF someone sinned the unforgivable sin then they are sinners as long as they exist...hence, eternally evil.
An eternal hell also implies eternal evil because if their evil ends, so would the need for their incarceration in hell.
There is no power that is able to reconcile them to GOD...they rebuked GOD as their saviour and they are addicted by the enslaving power of sin. They know the truth but they love the lie because they love their sin more than the truth, Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. - to the end;
IF we were created as eternally self and other aware spirits and
IF we were all created with a free will and
IF there is an unforgivable sin, a sin that puts the person outside of all grace and
IF some of HIS creation chose to sin the unforgivable sin and
IF it is true that a little leaven / sin leavens / corrupts the whole lump / person / community, then
IF the only way to protect HIS Church and heavenly Family from these eternally evil people was to banish them from HIS heavenly reality,
THEN an eternal hell is an absolute necessity to keep the eternally evil ones from corrupting HIS heaven.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
What is worse: to be mortal or to be eternally evil? You say that beings created in God’s image cannot cease to exist, but oddly enough, can be evil forever.
It is absurd. I say it respectfully. If you think a bit, You will realize that what you said is absurd, because you must be a noble and intelligent man.
What will evil resurrected people do for eternity? Blaspheme? Engage in massive sexual orgies? Nuke other worlds or clone babies for experiments? Create an even worse version of fentanyl and Fox News?
I think it is simpler to,visualize a universe in which God’s original plan for every person has been fulfilled. A universe of a victorious God that has shown every one that only the good exists… that evil by definition cannot prevail.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Jesus also said that the wine they were drinking in the Passover was his blood, and that we should eat his body and drink his blood.
Catholic priests claim to witness the instrument of the transubstantiation miracle in every mass.
The host becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes his blood. Not figuratively, but literally.
So, what should they tell you? Jesus said it explicitly: “This is my blood”. Do you trust and respect Jesus words? Or are you going through rationalization and say that the host and the wine are only symbols, and not the real thing?
No, Dizerner. We need reason as much as we need faith in interpreting the Scriptures.
Both reason and faith are gifts of God. Let’s put them at the service of love, which is supreme.
I kindly encourage you to ask yourself:
Which of the views in discussion helps me to be more kind, understanding and patient with my neighbors, especially those who don’t share my religious views?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi TedT
There mere existence of evil beings is already corrupting God’s heaven.
There are only two ways to stop them from corrupting heaven:
- Annihilation
- Conversion
