[quote author="guibox"]
It is the Greek influenced mindset that interprets such imagery as eternal torment.

It is the Adventist-influenced mindset that turns “and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10) into a proof text for annihilation. See how easy it is to play this game?

Guibox, frankly, I’m very disappointed by your use of ad hominem arguments on this thread. By lacing your posts with insulting and condescending language, you’ve made it difficult for me to take you seriously.

Greg

[quote author="Guibox"]Gabriel,

Did it occur to you that the disciples thought it was a demonic spirit?

Yes, but I learned to look at the greek, and the greek uses pneuma. The text is from Luke, and I searched for Luke using pneuma when he speaks about demons. But Luke uses daimonion every time when it speaks about demons. The single instance in which Luke uses pneuma when he speaks about a demon, he uses it in an adjectival position for daimonion.

And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice Luke 4:33

Luke is very careful in making clear to us when he speaks about a demon by using daimonion every time, and I have no reason to read in Luke 24:37, 39 that he speaks about a demon. Instead I have all the reasons to reject this interpretation.

[quote author="Guibox"]Even in the story of the witch of Endor we don’t see the words ‘ruach’ or ‘nephesh’ being used to describe Samuel.

In the story of the witch of Endor, only adventists argue that when the Bible writer wrote “Samuel” we must read “demon”. I can say in a similar way that I don’t see the hebraic words for words for “demon” in this passage.

[quote author="Guibox"]Again, it is assumption and a pre-conceived notion of immortality of the soul that is driving your interpretation of the ‘spirit’ the disciples thought they saw. The Bible says otherwise.

I appeal to lexical proofs, not just assumptions. It is indeed in harmony with what I believe, but not with what you think that is my gratuitous assumption about “immortal soul”. Since I already told you twice that I don’t assume that a soul is inherently immortal, but that God sustains their existence apart from the body, as He sustains a demon’s soul existence, I have no other conclusion left that everything I’m saying here is treated like garbage, sent to the Recycle Bin immediately.

I second Greg in his evaluation, and since we cannot share a mutual respect in this discussion, let us agree to disagree. Too many insults have accumulated already.

Gabriel

Greg,

Terribly sorry if you cannot take me seriously on this subject. I apologize if I seem attacking. I will graciously bow out of this conversation as it seems to be going nowhere anyway.

For the record, Greg, I am also disappointed in your arguments on this matter too. From what I’ve seen compared to your other theological posts on this forum I expected much better arguments and exegesis than those that have been ‘annihilated’ many times over and over by not just the SDA church but great scholars like Oscar Cullman, John Stott, Philip Hughes, Edward Fudge and even William Tyndale himself.

I believe that if anybody reads with an open mind, Edward Fudge’s ‘The Fire That Consumes’, Oscar Cullman’s ‘Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead’ and Samuele Bacchiocchi’s ‘Immortality or Resurrection’ as well as seriously look closely at William Tyndale’s responses to Thomas More, one cannot but NOT come away with the conclusion that the immortality of the soul and eternal torment are Greek/Catholic beliefs and not Hebrew/Christian beliefs and that conditional immortality and annihilation are completely biblical and the evidence for them weighs much heavier than that for eternal torment.

I would strongly recommend these books to anyone.

Gabriel is correct, I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree.

Peace…

Guibox,

Do you agree or disagree with Stan that, while studying this issue may be important, it should not be one that divides Christians?

In the excellent book, “TWO VIEWS OF HELL: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue,” co-author Robert A. Peterson provides the following information about the unorthodox stance of Edward Fudge:

Fudge holds that Jesus was annihilated in his death.  In fact, Fudge devotes a three-page discussion in his book to the thesis: “Jesus’ Death Involved Total Destruction.” Here he quotes approvingly James Dunn’s statement, “Man could not be helped other than through his [Jesus’] annihilation.” Fudge marshals what he regards as impressive biblical evidence for the conclusion that Jesus was annihilated…

None of these verses teaches that Jesus was annihilated.  Fudge has to cite the KJV to find even one verse that uses the vocabulary that, according to annihilationists, teaches extinction.  Matthew 27:20 (KJV) says, “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” The text doesn’t say that Jesus was destroyed; instead it indicates the Jewish leaders’ intention to do away with him. Compare the way other translations render the end of the verse: “to put Jesus to death” (NASB), “to have Jesus executed” (NIV) and “to have Jesus killed” (NRSV). The only way Fudge finds annihilationism in these texts is by reading it into them…

Fudge, therefore, seeks to strengthen his case for annihilationism by arguing that Jesus endured final punishment for being annihilated on the cross.  The systemic implications of such a view are enormous.  Nothing less than orthodox Christology is at stake. It is possible to understand Fudge’s claim that Jesus was annihilated in one of two ways: either the God-man ceased to exist or his human nature ceased to exist. I have tried to be fair to Fudge by asking him twice in private correspondence to explain his understanding of Jesus’ annihilation.  He refuses to endorse or deny either of the two possibilities above. He affirms that Jesus truly died and was annihilated but won’t specify if he believes that Jesus’ humanity was annihilated or that his whole person, deity and humanity, was annihilated. 

Fudge says that he does not attempt to explain Jesus’ annihilation but leaves it in the realm of mystery. I confess astonishment that Fudge will not deny that the God-man ceased to exist for three days. If Jesus the God-man was annihilated and thus ceased to exist between his death and resurrection, then the Trinity only consisted of two persons during that period of time.  The Trinity would have been reduced to a Binity, or the resurrection of Jesus meant the re-creation of the second person of the Trinity.  In that case, the second person of the Trinity would be a created being. Such conclusions are ruinous for the Christian faith because they compromise the doctrine of the Trinity.

All I can say in conclusion about Fudge’s heretical views is that I am grateful that he is not my mentor on this important topic. He is apparently a better lawyer than a theologian. His powerful, courtroom style doesn’t translate into biblical truth.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis wrote:

“All I can say in conclusion about Fudge’s heretical views is that I am grateful that he is not my mentor on this important topic. He is apparently a better lawyer than a theologian. His powerful, courtroom style doesn’t translate into biblical truth.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Dennis,
I don’t subscribe to everything Fudge teaches either. But, have you actually read his book “Fire that Consumes”, the whole thing, instead of the condensed form presented in the book you refer to,"Two Views”?

Edward Fudge is not someone that can be written off that easily. He has given credible arguments to his position on eternal torment, and if he hadn’t been a real threat to the traditionalists on this topic, his book would not have received the hostile response that he got.

However, the credibility of Fudge’s work was raised considerably when none other than the great scholar F.F. Bruce, renowned for his work on affirming the reliability of the scriptures, wrote the forward to Fudge’s work. That speaks volumes to me when Bruce will give honor to an author who is very unpopular.

Also, it is an established fact, that those who actually translate the scriptures from the originals into English, such as William Tyndale and RF Weymouth, have seen the problems with the traditional view and have written very strongly against it.

John W. Wenham was respected as one of the greatest Greek scholars that ever lived, and he was not a liberal, and he wrote a book showing the weaknesses of the traditionalist position.

Also, Dennis, did you read the critique of Morey’s book written by Fudge I supplied in the link above? I wonder what you think of Fudge’s logical challenges and reasoning to some of Morey’s positions?

Robert Morey does deserve a lot of credit and is very charitable to those who disagree with his view. Also, Robert Morey will admit that Luke 16, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, is not a good argument for either the intermediate state or the doctrine of hell. He acknowledges that the standard SDA defense on this parable is legitimate.

FF Bruce, was not in full agreement with Edward Fudge, but Bruce’s call was to evangelicals to please stop being so dogmatic on issues which are not really as clear as the traditionalists claim.

One more question I have for you Dennis:

Who do you have more in common with? Do you have more in common with Edward Fudge, who is a five point Calvinist, or do you have more in common with a prominent former SDA leader, who has renounced soul sleep, but who still will make statements while speaking in public like “Jesus is just waiting for us to become willing”, with regard to our salvation?

Phillip Hughes is also a staunch Calvinist who does not believe the soul is inherently immortal, and have you read the ten pages from Philip Hughes that I posted above?

In other words, is soul sleep and annihilation worse heresies than semi-Pelagianism?

If man has even a miniscule part in his salvation, then the gospel of grace is compromised and leads to some form of works salvation. If a person has the doctrines of grace correct, then I would consider some of these other doctrines peripheral. Even Anthony Hoekema, who labeled SDA a cult did not do so because of SDA position on soul sleep.

Adventism and a large part of Christianity are compromised on salvation by grace alone through faith alone, on the acount of Christ alone, and I see this as a more serious threat to the gospel.

Stan

I want to give one more example of why the traditionalist position on eternal torment is not as strong as some would have us believe.

Dr. Mark Talbot, who is a staunch defender of the traditionalist position, and wrote a major article defending the traditional position wrote this about those who disagree:

“Theologically, a lot hangs on whether our sins merit everlasting punishment, including part of the answer to the question why only God incarnate could make adequate atonement for our sins. Yet the exegetical considerations advanced by Stott, Hughes, and others against the traditional doctrine are not so far-fetched that they can be rejected out of hand. A convincing defense of the traditional doctrine needs, then, to address the sorts of wider considerations that have prompted SINCERE believers like Stott and Hughes to depart from the plain meaning of the biblical texts. I do that here by arguing that the never-ending torment of the impenitent is moral in the sense of serving a just and proper end.”

“In my judgment, the exegetical considerations supporting the traditional doctrine are SOMEWHAT better than those against it.”
------------------------------------------------------
So how is it, if even a staunch defender of the traditionalist position, can make a statement as charitable to his opposition as that above, then what business does anyone on either side of this issue have labeling those who disagree as being heretics? The rhetoric on both sides of this issue understandably gets very heated and emotional. I have been very guilty of this myself.

I think we need to on both sides, step back and take a deep breath, and realize that as Christians we really have a lot more in common on the central issues than we realize.

Stan

Greg said:

New Mexico, I’m curious what you think about Jesus’ own words regarding the severity of the conditions awaiting those who will be in hell.

Separation from God is hell.  I recently received a post from a friend who is a member of the Church of Christ which made the point that all evil is separation from God.  Since God is love, happiness, and life, the separation from God which the wicked have imposed on themselves is hatred, misery and death.  This is not a state which God needs to impose on people, it is the natural result of their own choice to live apart from God.  The final judgment is simply a formal statement that people will be able to live and die according to their own choices.

Greg wrote,

Also, you mentioned that Calvinists build a theology around avoiding hell, but I’d encourage you to instead see that Calvinists build their theology around the sovereignty of God. If God is sovereign, it is His choice to save (or not save) any of us, since we all deserve everlasting seperation from Him because of our sin. Those who believe that God is totally sovereign don’t take joy in the knowledge that many will be in hell, rather, we see a greater urgency to proclaim the gospel so that sinners will be convicted of sin, leading them to repentence and faith in Jesus. Along these lines, I’m interested to hear your perspective on Romans 9, where Paul likens God to a potter and sinners to the potter’s clay. Paul directly answers the challenge you are making to God’s fairness by drawing attention to His sovereignty.

Quote:
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.’” (Romans 9:14-16 ESV)

“You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory–even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:19-24 ESV)

There is a question whether Muslims worship the same God the Jews and Christians do.  It appears to me that the attributes of the God you are describing is exactly the God the Muslims worship, Allah.  Islam means submission.  Science and philosophy have died in Islam 1000 years ago because of their view of God’s soverenty which denies human freedom.  With this view of God’s nature, the entire gospel becomes empty of any meaning more like a play designed for God’s amusement in which we are the helpless props.  Any mention of God’s love is meaningless since the entire act is for God’s amusement, not for the benefit of all His creatures.

It is clear to me that Paul is one of the most misunderstood writers in the Bible, probably because he was so deeply immersed in the Hebrew scriptures that unless we go back and check his original sources is is very easy to miss his meaning. I believe that is why the New Testament has a warning about those people who misinterpret Paul.  If we also make the mistake of abrogating the Hebrew scriptures it becomes almost impossible to understand Paul.

There is a certain measure of predestination in every life due to our varying natural abilities and due to God’s calling.  While our freedom is real it is not unlimited but is confined within the limits of our predestined fate.  The choice between Jacob and Esau was that type of predestination, where God chose Jacob before he was even born.  The call to the nation of Israel is a birthright which was passed on from Abraham forward, because of the promises of God, not because Israel was intrinsically better than any other group of people.  This call of Israel was not an act of exclusion of the rest of humanity, Israel was called specifically to be a blessing to the rest of us who didn’t receive that specific call.

The question then arises, did Paul mean to imply that God chose people to deliberately force them to turn away from Himself and to destroy them eternally?  I don’t think so.  The larger context in which this statement was made is Paul’s discussion about Israel and his deep distress that so many of the Jews, God’s own covenant people, hadn’t accepted Jesus.  After deep anguish, he resolved this paradox with the explanation that their rejection of Jesus was in God’s plan to help all people, in order to force the early church to take the gospel to the gentiles who had previously been largely excluded from the gospel, and the Jew’s fall was temporary. 

He said this blindness on the part of Israel was in part untill the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  For anyone who may believe that Paul has abrogated the Hebrew scriptures, notice how he carefully built his argument from the Hebrew scriptures themselves.  Also notice that the promise to forgive Israel is part of the new covenant.  So the issue then becomes, is God violent and untruthful or is God really a loving God who always keeps His promises.

Rom 11:25-36

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?”
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
NIV

The purpose of Paul’s argument is to show exactly the opposite from what Calvin apparently took from it.  Paul was showing how God would honor His promises to the nation of Israel made under the old covenant through the new covenant.  He also made it positively clear that God always keeps His promises which are given for the salvation of all people.

Greg said:

Finally, the beginnings of an answer to your hypothetical question about Muslims vs. Christians lies in the historical truth claims of Jesus. After his crucifixion, Jesus either rose from the tomb, or he did not. Christians believe Jesus authenticated his message by appearing to the disciples and over 500 other people after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6). When Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was written, his claims about the resurrection of Christ could have been verified by asking any of the living witnesses. Even the Jews acknowledged that Christ’s tomb was empty, but they claimed the disciples overpowered the Roman guards to steal it. The point of all of this is that Jesus made truth claims for himself that he subsequently authenticated by doing something in his resurrection that no human has ever done. We do not simply take a blind leap of faith into the Christian worldview hoping that we are doing the right thing. Instead, we root ourselves firmly in history and in the claims Jesus made for himself–claims which were prophesied for thousands of years beforehand and have never been refuted. We don’t cling to a nebulous hope that we are right, we cling to a solid faith that has been delivered to us “once and for all” by the finished work of Christ (Jude 3).

Greg, I appreciate your response.  I suspect most of the people at this forum probably believe I’m so far off base they don’t want to get involved in my crazy ideas.  At least you are polite enough to humor me.

Although I have also spent a great deal of time studying the various texts concerning the state of the dead, I believe deep exegesis is a waste of time until we have the ability to see the entire Bible as a unified whole, with an unbroken chain of truth from beginning to end.  No matter how excellent our powers of exegesis may be, unless we can fit our conclusions into this unified whole, our thoughts are not worth much. 

In asking the question about Muslims, I was drawing from my own personal experience.  I have had extensive deep theological discussions with Muslims about their theology and why ours is better than theirs.  Both religions claim to represent the one true God and both claim to be Abrahamic.  From my experience, I am convinced that if we abrogate the Hebrew scriptures, there is no way we can answer Islam since the validity of the Christ event is sustained from the Hebrew scriptures.  There are two answers why one is a Christian, one is experience, and the other is theological.  And it is this deeper understanding of theology which I’m trying to present in this forum.

In response to your answer, it is a very good answer, but will not make much of an impression on a Muslim since the Koran denies that Jesus actually died on the cross.  If you believe God can work miracles, as Muslims believe, it is very easy to accept the Koran when it teaches that God deceived the people at the cross so that they thought Jesus died on the cross, whereas actually He made a switch which was unrecognized by the onlookers.  Some Muslims even believe that it was Judas who died on the cross.

In the final analysis, after all the deep exegesis is finished and all the arguments are made, the main difference between Biblical Christianity and Islam is the difference between how we view God and His nature.  What kind of God do we worship?  So far as I can tell, Calvin’s God is the same being Muslims call Allah, not the God of love and truth which I find in the Bible. 

New Mexico,

The created, Islamic “Jesus” did not die on the Cross. The following link provides a definitive article on this topic entitled, ”The Muslim Jesus versus The Biblical Jesus: Twenty Scriptural Reasons Why They Are Not The Same Jesus.”

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Islam/sundquist.htm

Dennis Fischer

Dennis said:

The created, Islamic “Jesus” did not die on the Cross. The following link provides a definitive article on this topic entitled, “The Muslim Jesus versus The Biblical Jesus: Twenty Scriptural Reasons Why They Are Not The Same Jesus.”

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Islam/sundquist.htm

You are completely correct, there are substantial differences between the Islamic teaching about Jesus and His death and what we find in the gospels.  However, unless we look deeper, beyond those details, to discover the message which the cross was designed to teach us about God’s unconditional love we will fail just surely as do the Muslims.  If we miss the meaning of the cross, as I suspect is the case with Calvin, the result is a God who has almost the exact attributes as the Islamic Allah. 

The difference between Allah and the God of the Bible is God’s unconditional love.  The Muslims with whom I’ve had discussions live without the assurance of God’s love.  They commit heroics such as suicide missions because they believe this is the only way to achieve assured salvation.

New Mexico,

Did the God who destroyed the earth with a catastrophic flood love unconditionally? How about the God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Isn’t He the same God who commanded the Israelites to destroy entire populations of people, including infants (1 Samuel 15:3)?

Let’s be careful not to forget the Hebrew Scriptures that describe such events, and also let’s be careful not to make baseless accusations about the God of Calvin or anyone else, for that matter. I believe the responsibility lies with you to show us that the God depicted throughout the Bible behaves the way you say He does rather than simply assigning Christians who disagree with you to a Muslim worldview.

It would also help me greatly if I you could tell me what you think the texts I quoted from Romans 9 mean, particularly since you think my exegesis missed the mark.

Greg

Reading the Bible we see God repeatedly showing his covenantal love in a particular way, to a particular people, Israel. For example, He established a covenant with Abraham, not with Lot. Further, between Ishmael and Isaac, God elected Isaac to give him the blessings of the covenant made with Abraham, even if Ishmael was also the heir of Abraham as Isaac was. The same process of particular election, based not on something inherently in the man elected, but on God’s good pleasure, is seen in the choosing of Jacob above Esau “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”.

We see also how God established a covenant with David, promising him that he always will have a heir on the throne of Israel. And the way God exercised His love toward Solomon, David’s son is in a visible contrast with the way God acted toward the king Saul. God punished Saul for his rebellion toward Him by letting him be killed by his enemies and also refusing to let his sons inherit the throne of Israel which was theirs by right. There is no dynasty of Saul, his sons never acceded to the throne.

But when we look at David, his offspring was unfaithful to God as Saul was. Starting with the heir of David, king Solomon, we have gross sins of idolatry and horrible practices associated with it. In spite of this, God is keeping David’s heirs on the throne of Israel. Why? Because God made a covenant with David which He had not made with Saul

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.  I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” 2 Samuel 7:12-16

Explicitly God shows that He loves David and his offspring in a different way that He had loved Saul. God’s covenantal love shows that He deliberately decided to show His mercy to whom He wanted to show mercy.

When it comes to our present hope, we can trust the same covenantal love, showed to us IN CHRIST, and only IN Him. It is not a love manifested indiscriminately toward every person alive at this moment, but toward a particular group of people, the New Covenant people, those who are in Christ, covered with His righteousness, cleansed by His blood, and perfect in God’s eyes only by the imputation of Christ’s meritorious obedience.

Gabriel

Thanks Gabriel for that excellent treatise on the doctrine of election and how God is faithful to His Covenant promises.

This post would also be appropriate for the Covenant Theology thread.

New Mexico wrote:

“In the final analysis, after all the deep exegesis is finished and all the arguments are made, the main difference between Biblical Christianity and Islam is the difference between how we view God and His nature. What kind of God do we worship? So far as I can tell, Calvin’s God is the same being Muslims call Allah, not the God of love and truth which I find in the Bible.”
----------------------------------------------------------

New Mexico,

Have you ever read any of John Calvin’s writings?

I also used to have a negative view of John Calvin until I actually started to read his writings. The condensed volume of the “Institutes of the Christian Religion” would be a great place to start. You will find in his writings a man who had a deep passion for God, and for the inerrancy and accurate exegesis of God’s Word.

If a person believes in inerrancy, then I don’t see any other interpretation of the doctrine of election and predestination than what John Calvin taught. Jesus also taught the doctrine of election in John 6, and many other places.

Romans 9 is just too direct to ignore.

I agree with you that we have to read the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation to formulate our doctrines.

The entire Bible teaches the doctrine of election from the story of Cain and Abel to the call of Abraham, to the calling of Jacob, and the choosing of Joseph to rescue Israel from famine and so on… God is in control of our entire destiny.

I love to worship a God who is all powerful, and sovereign over everything. This concept does not reduce us to puppets on a string or to some form of determinism. It instead gives us maximum freedom to live our lives, because we don’t have to fear for the future, because we know who holds tomorrow.

Stan

This morning our pastor told the story about his little granddaughter who claims that everyone in her Christian school knows him and affectionately refers to him as “Pastor Tom.” She sweetly added, “But, I am the only one who calls you Papa.”

In another illustration, our pastor read the court decree of an adoption.  The judge made it very clear that, even if the parents find something wrong with this child, they cannot bring him back.  He is now legally their son. They have voluntarily adopted him. Like the prodigal’s father firmly believed, “Once a son, always a son.” The prodigal son never lost his sonship.  Indeed, once adopted into God’s wonderful family, we can never be unadopted nor unreborn.

No true believer ever loses his salvation.  To be sure, Christians fall at times seriously and radically, but never fully and finally.  We persevere, not because of our strength but because of God’s grace that preserves us. [Excerpt from Dr. R. C. Sproul; CHOSEN BY GOD, p. 187]

Our pastor further stated that only the members of God’s family can intimately address our sovereign God as their “Father.” Like my pastor’s granddaughter, only those in close relationship can truly call Him “Abba Father” ("Abba" being an intimate Aramaic expression equivalent to our “Daddy” or “Papa."). Interestingly, individual Old Testament believers never addressed God as their “Father.” This was a new salutation in the model prayer taught by Jesus in Matthew 6:9.

Dennis Fischer

Here is a quote from Calvin I found on the web:

When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before His eyes, so that to His knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present: and present in such a manner that He does not merely conceive of them from ideas formed in His mind, as things remembered by us appear present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually placed before Him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/calvin.html

It is a contradictiion to teach that “God is love” and that he chooses to create some people for the purpose of torturing them through no choice of their own.

If a person believes in inerrancy, then I don’t see any other interpretation of the doctrine of election and predestination than what John Calvin taught. Jesus also taught the doctrine of election in John 6, and many other places.

It depends upon the definition of inerrancy.  If inerrency means that every statement in the Bible is absolute truth apart from the human element, the culture, the environment and the scientific expertise of those who wrote the text, then I will have to reject that definition of “inerrancy.” Those who espouse that approach come across as holding an ideology rather than a reasonable approach to exegesis.  Although you may not hold this view, I can understand why people who accept this definition of inerrancy would want to make a complete break with the Hebrew scriptures since they themselves don’t find genocide, stoning homosexuals etc. palatable.  Therefore those portions of scripture must be sequestered where they can do no harm. 

I also understand why they would want to make the gospel into a magic bullet which guarantees them heavenly bliss regardless of their own behavior because they happen to hold the correct beliefs while other people, even those who follow a much more moral life will be cast into eternal torment because their beliefs weren’t up to snuff.  However, Jesus tore away that magic formula and taught that we would be judged by our works, not by our profession.

Matt 25:31-46
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
NIV

James echoed Jesus’ teachings that works are indeed the point by which we are judged.  James goes on to point out that even the Demons believe and tremble.  In other words belief as a mental consent to a factual statement is not a magic formula which earns us salvation.  The argument that Jesus kept the law so we don’t have to just won’t fly in light of these statements.

James 2:8-19
8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.
NIV

I believe it is fair to say that those folks who hold the concept of eternal torment also have discovered a way to interpret their theology to guarantee that it is someone else who is eternally tormented while they themselves will be among those who are especially favored by God. It is much less pleasurable to believe that you will be the one who loses the heavenly lottery and is elected for eternal torment.  I suspect that if those who hold this view understood that they might be the poor sucker who will end up in hell they would not consider this such a fair doctrine.

I believe I have already explained how I understand Romans 9 in context.  There is clearly a degree of predestination in every life since we are born with innate limitations due to our heredity and environment and due to God’s right to call each of us to a different function.  That is completely different that to take the next step and to maintain that God has made the choice whether we will be lost or saved before we are even born.  I don’t find anything in John 6 which would lead me to support Calvin’s theory.

There is a flip side to the radical concept of predestination which is completely compatible with God’s love, and althought I haven’t accepted it personally since I’m not sure that any type of eternal predestination is scripturally or logically sound, it does make a lot of sense for those who are inclined to predestination.  That is the doctrine of universalism which teaches that God will save everyone who has ever lived.  In other words one could take Calvin’s statement and postulate that hell is an empty set and that everyone is predestined to life.  Because God is such a good God, He will not consign anyone to torment.  It is possible to reach that understanding from Paul’s statement concerning the Jews in Romans 11, the conclusion of the extended discussion beginning in Romans 9, that Paul had arrived at this conclusion:

Rom 11:25-32
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. NIV

If I were convinced that Paul was actually teaching that even one person has been eternally predestined in this passage, I would have to conclude that by the end of the discussion Paul had arrived at the conclusion that the new covenant guaranteed salvation for every one of those Jews who God had bound over into disobedience.  His predestination was not used to bind them into eternal torment but into eternal life.

One more Bible text should be enough for now.

2 Peter 3:8-9
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. NIV

This text doesn’t make much sense if it is God Himself who has chosen some people through His own sovereign choice for eternal torment.