Replies

I promise to let you have the floor again tomorrow. I think I need to clarify my C&C comment earlier.

It is in your view of God allowing eternal hell to serve as an example and/or:

But God has a desire that we know Him. The only way he can do this is by electing some to salvation. From this, they can see his mercy and grace as well as justice and wrath.

An example implies, no requires, the possibility of learning something, of changing based on experience gained from the example. Absent this, it's is not an really an example.

If I take two identical twin brothers and kill one in front of the other randomly, what have they learned from this example? No matter what their crime, one has learned I killed him, the other that I did not kill him. This is not a lesson or learning experience in the normal sense. It's not a textbook example.

The spared twin may be grateful, may even have a Stockholm conversion, but viewing me as 'merciful' is not a reasonable conclusion. I certainly wasn't merciful to his brother, and he is identical in all respects. In fact, the very forceful point, I tell him, is that there is no reason at all I chose to spare him and there's nothing his brother could possibly have done to stop me from killing him - they both deserved killing and still do.

Except under psychological breakdown he wouldn't be grateful, nor loving towards his brother's killer and his tormentor.

Morever, your view is that there is nothing that he can change based on this example; I'll change him into exactly what I want him to be, no matter what. It is this lack of free will or of any discernable rhyme or reason that I see as the major flaw in your description of God. YOU may not see it as cruel, to kill one in front of the other arbitrarily - as an example - but it is the only intelligent conclusion that I can see.

I accept that you don't see this God as cruel. The main thing I object to is people teaching this view of God to others with the possible result that they will believe this is what Jesus taught, what Christianity truly is. I think this is harmful and the first rule of religious teaching should be do no harm.

There is a classic clinical psychology experiment. In it they take test dogs and deliver small shocks to them. For some the shocks follow a pattern - either they are in one specific location or after some particular behaviour.

The subjects in these cases stay alert and learn what to do or what to avoid.

For another set of subjects, they apply the shocks without any pattern or possibly discernable reason. The dogs in these experiments at first are alert and jump away from the shocks. But before long they stop jumping away. What they "learn" there is nothing they can do; they stay put and get shocked, then give up and become helpless whimpering puddles of pooch.

Now we are not animals, and religion is not solely about reward and punishment; however, to be an example, to teach something, anything, requires the possibility of learning or choosing, and cannot violate reason or some discernable cause and effect.

Because of this, I believe your underpinning - 'example' in your theology - fails.

Now, with my thanks for your time and patience, I leave the floor to you..

It is in your view of God allowing eternal hell to serve as an example and/or:
It is my belief, and Paul's, that God basically puts up with those who will never ever turn to him and werent' changed through election in order to teach those who were chosen a lesson.

"But God has a desire that we know Him. The only way he can do this is by electing some to salvation. From this, they can see his mercy and grace as well as justice and wrath." An example implies, no requires, the possibility of learning something, of changing based on experience gained from the example. Absent this, it's is not an really an example.
And well it does, for those objects of His mercy. The objects of wrath want nothing to do with him. If they would learn (which they won't., they have closed their eyes and plugged their ears and will not listem), they would understand. They won't. But God teaches His children about Himself in ways that they could not learn if he hand't left some people in existence who were getting the just payment for their sins and disbelief.

If I take two identical twin brothers and kill one in front of the other randomly, what have they learned from this example? No matter what their crime, one has learned I killed him, the other that I did not kill him. This is not a lesson or learning experience in the normal sense. It's not a textbook example.

The human condition is a little more complicated than that, and God's choice isn't random. It is just based upon His good pleasure, not anything we could do for Him.

The spared twin may be grateful, may even have a Stockholm conversion, but viewing me as 'merciful' is not a reasonable conclusion. I certainly wasn't merciful to his brother, and he is identical in all respects.

Both twins were diametrically opposed to you. They hated you. They wanted nothing to do with you. They BOTH broke the law. The punishment for that breaking of the law was death. You did not show mercy to the one brother, true. But you weren't obligated to do so. You showed mercy to the object of mercy and wrath to the other. And, if you are God, you have the right and power to do that, do you not? God made our minds. We screwed up our own disposition towards Him by choosing to sin. Hath not the potter the power over the clay to fix whatever He wishes to fix and to leave to destruction whatever He wishes? I believe He does. He is God, and we are not.

In fact, the very forceful point, I tell him, is that there is no reason at all I chose to spare him and there's nothing his brother could possibly have done to stop me from killing him - they both deserved killing and still do.
That's not what God said. That's not a Scriptural understanding. God had his reasons. They are His alone though and were according to His pleasure. We know it wasn't because of anything we could do because it is not by works of righteousness that He has saved us but according to His mercy. We know that. What ever other purposes He may have had, He hasn't chosen to reveal. We can't demand that he make them known to us. We are, after all, stupid sheep. We can not FULLY understand the mind of God for He is infinitely above us. But, he did not do this arbitrarily or without purpose. As to the "there is nothing the brother could have done..." that too is a distortion. God didnt' stop the brother from turning to God and choosing Him. Man would NOT do that. Could God have forced Him? Sure. The responsibilility was man's. God didn't stop him. Man would never ever turn to God on his own. It was man's decision, not God's, that sent him to Hell. It was God's decision that gave mercy to some so that they might truly know Him. Again, He is God, we are not.

Except under psychological breakdown he wouldn't be grateful, nor loving towards his brother's killer and his tormentor.

Huh???? Then he doesn't understand his and his brother's former state. You seem to want to put some worthiness into man. Man is evil. We were evil. Disgusting. Yuck. We were covered in sin and loved it. We despised God. We worked against God. There was absolutely NOTHING worthy or lovely or good in us that would have stood up next to God's holiness. As Isaiah said, ALL OF OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IS AS FILTHY RAGS. Germy. Filthy. Moldy. Yuck! We only deserve to be destroyed in the fire. Nothing else.

Understanding his own position and where he came from, the brother would be grateful because he would realize that God would be perfectly just in destroying them both. Man has no right or standing to demand God do anything for him. He doesn't owe it to both brothers to choose them both. God is holy and just and his justice says both sin-filled lives should be paid for by death. You have no right to require of God that he choose both or neither. That's above your and my pay-scale.

Morever, your view is that there is nothing that he can change based on this example; I'll change him into exactly what I want him to be, no matter what. It is this lack of free will or of any discernable rhyme or reason that I see as the major flaw in your description of God. YOU may not see it as cruel, to kill one in front of the other arbitrarily - as an example - but it is the only intelligent conclusion that I can see.
Because you have an exalted view of man and a view of God based upon what you want him to be, rather than what Scripture reveals him as.

D-Fendr, again I say re-read Romans 9. Carefully. Augustine referred to that very chapter as what changed his mind about this doctrine citing Ciprian and others. This isn't a Calvinistic doctrine. Augustine wasn't a Calvinist and Calvin wasn't an Augustine follower. It is the explicit teaching of Paul in Romans 9-11. Read it. Pray about it. It is strong meat. But, those who have understood it in light of who man REALLY is, see it as sweet and humbling.