Azenilto Brito - 27 February 2010 01:28 PM

And there are those who even teach that God “predestinates” some to be saved, while the ones who are lost is because were not among the “elected”! They were born to live eternally burning later on!. . . . No wonder the quantity of atheists, agnostics and materialists that have inhabited the planet.

I also add my welcome to the forum Brito. I hope this message finds you well. I can’t help but point out a sad irony in your quote above. While the faith of most of the posters on this forum is insulted, the fact is that Adventism is an atheist factory.

I doubt that most of the people on this forum are terribly excited to debate the duration of hell at this point. The fact is, we are probably all much more interested in asking an Adventist about the doctrines they hold that are antithetical to the Gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. Until Adventists renounce their Gospel-destroying doctrine of the Investigative Judgement and their Gospel-ignoring eschatology, a discussion of hell will be meaningless.

Nate

Soli Deo Gloria - 02 March 2010 10:15 AM

I doubt that most of the people on this forum are terribly excited to debate the duration of hell at this point.

Agree

Soli Deo Gloria - 02 March 2010 10:15 AM

The fact is, we are probably all much more interested in asking an Adventist about the doctrines they hold that are antithetical to the Gospel of grace in Jesus Christ. Until Adventists renounce their Gospel-destroying doctrine of the Investigative Judgement and their Gospel-ignoring eschatology, a discussion of hell will be meaningless.

Exactly!

Gabriel

Who knows you guys ignore the Confessional Document of 28 points of the Adventist faith. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 19 give us the necessary assurance that what we teach is 100% in harmony with the principles of the Christian orthodoxy. This Investigative Judgment doctrine doesn’t contradict any of these points, thanks to God!

Besides, the subject here IS duration of the final punishment, and to try to desviate the subject with this obsfuscation of the matter seems very suspicious.

Azenilto Brito - 02 March 2010 04:46 PM

Besides, the subject here IS duration of the final punishment, and to try to desviate the subject with this obsfuscation of the matter seems very suspicious.

Have no fear of deviation or obfuscation, we are just too tired to re-engage the subject. In the meantime some of us had learned that this subject is too much energy consuming and less worthy of our attention as other subjects are.

Gabriel

Brito,

Hoping that you are not disappointed because the topic in which you are interested is not in our attention right now, I will try to explain the reasons why we consider the duration of punishment less important than salvation. We certainly agree that, aside who’s opinion is accurate, both of us believe that the lost will miss eternal life, they will miss heaven, they will have no fellowship with God. But don’t you think that we can agree about the fact that you may be right about the duration of punishment and still suffer it? If you miss the gospel, you may have an accurate view of what is hell, still your correct opinion will not prevent you going in hell. It is my opinion that in adventism the gospel is seriously enough corrupted in order that no adventist should be able in good conscience sleep well in his bed without having nightmares about how he will go through the time of trouble, passing through a judgment of works and living before a holy God without a mediator. Those doctrines that affect the way we are saved should be of foremost interest for adventists. At least, if they care about their future destiny and are not exclusively interested in preserving intact their beliefs and lifestyle.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 March 2010 08:13 AM

Brito,
But don’t you think that we can agree about the fact that you may be right about the duration of punishment and still suffer it? If you miss the gospel, you may have an accurate view of what is hell, still your correct opinion will not prevent you going in hell. It is my opinion that in adventism the gospel is seriously enough corrupted in order that no adventist should be able in good conscience sleep well in his bed without having nightmares about how he will go through the time of trouble, passing through a judgment of works and living before a holy God without a mediator. Those doctrines that affect the way we are saved should be of foremost interest for adventists. At least, if they care about their future destiny and are not exclusively interested in preserving intact their beliefs and lifestyle.

Gabriel

Gabriel, from a Reformed position how can having ANY incorrect (or correct, for that matter) view of the gospel affect your salvation? My opinion of or correct theology of hell will not prevent or cause me to go to hell. If we are elect we will be in heaven. If not, we will be in hell. Of course from this perspective hell isn’t a big deal...However, neither is having a correct view of the gospel when you get right down to it.

From an Arminianist perspective the doctrine of eternal hell IS a matter of life and death. If in fact I believe that my choices affect my salvation and an incorrect view of God is forced upon someone to the point that they see no alternative but to reject him and thus forfeit one’s salvation, then yes, how we present the doctrine of hell can have disastrous consequences for our salvation. A Calvinist doesn’t see the logic in it because it makes no difference either way. Further still, the Calvinist doesn’t really care. God is just and even torturing millions for eternity is a just and loving act because God is sovereign and He can do whatever He wants.

You can see how an Arminianist and Calvinist will see the importance of this issue differently.

guibox - 03 March 2010 08:41 AM

Gabriel, from a Reformed position how can having ANY incorrect (or correct, for that matter) view of the gospel affect your salvation? My opinion of or correct theology of hell will not prevent or cause me to go to hell. If we are elect we will be in heaven. If not, we will be in hell. Of course from this perspective hell isn’t a big deal...However, neither is having a correct view of the gospel when you get right down to it..

I already answered you in this post. General revelation is insufficient to resurrect people spiritually. Only special revelation through the gospel is able to do this. People need first to know a specific content about Jesus’ person and work in order to exercise faith and enter into a saving relationship with God.

Also from the reformed perspective God is sovereign over everything and had predestined not only the end (final destiny) but also the means toward this end (Christ’s life, death and resurrection and also the gift of faith given to the elect). There is a direct and necessary connection between means and end. Different means leads to different ends, faith in the true gospel is the only means that will lead to the desired end.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 March 2010 09:59 AM

General revelation is insufficient to resurrect people spiritually. Only special revelation through the gospel is able to do this. People need first to know a specific content about Jesus’ person and work in order to exercise faith and enter into a saving relationship with God.

And if they don’t are they the truly elect? If God is drawing them then they must be elect. If not, it sounds like God is on a fishing expedition to see who might just respond in faith. Either God has chosen them and will bring their salvation to pass or not. The necessity for them to respond in faith to the ‘specific content’ i.e., the ‘right gospel’, implies that they have the choice to not respond to it or respond badly if it is not a ‘correct gospel’. A false gospel will not cause God to transform us so we can exercise faith...Okay. Now what? The elect missed their chance and will wait awhile until they hear the true gospel? God snaps his fingers in frustration and says “Shoot!’ an opportunity missed! I guess I’ll have to wait until they hear a true gospel so I can draw them and change them! Maybe next time.”

If God is all sovereign
and nothing we can do will change our elected outcome
and God knows who are His and God will complete all He has started
and our responding in faith is merely pursuing an outcome already decided

then it shouldn’t matter what gospel is being promoted or heard by God’s elect. God will draw them to the correct one and will ultimately save them.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 March 2010 09:59 AM

There is a direct and necessary connection between means and end. Different means leads to different ends, faith in the true gospel is the only means that will lead to the desired end.

Gabriel

How exactly can ‘different means lead to different ends’ if the outcome is already decided and the elect are already chosen? Are you saying that a false gospel being preached can lead to the elect actually not becoming ‘awakened’ to exercise faith in the true gospel? How does any gospel being preached change any outcome when God’s sovereign will will be decided in our lives no matter what?

If God is sovereign over this ‘means the end’ and the ‘end itself’, then those that are elect will ultimately be led to Him under the true gospel no matter what gospel is being preached. The final outcome of the elect being in God’s hand and never being removed presupposes being led to Him by a true gospel.

Are you saying that God’s saving grace for the elect is dependent on whether or not the ‘true gospel’ is being preached? Is God a Calvinist God who works and is limited to Arminianist tactics?

Come on, Gabriel. Either the outcome God has set from the foundation of the world will be realised or we have the choice. Railing against a ‘false gospel’ of SDA’s should mean nothing unless our choices affect our salvation. A false gospel causes us to worship a false God and not accept His merits. Thus, your salvation is in jeopardy. Arminianists have every right to rail against a ‘false gospel’ if they see this in Adventism. Calvinism’s arguments against any ‘false gospel’ is a moot and redundant point.

guibox - 03 March 2010 10:50 AM

Are you saying that God’s saving grace for the elect is dependent on whether or not the ‘true gospel’ is being preached? Is God a Calvinist God who works and is limited to Arminianist tactics?

The preaching of the true gospel is the manifestation of God’s saving grace. The gospel IS the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). God’s saving activity and the preaching of the gospel are not two different things. Outside the gospel there is no such power of God for salvation. 

guibox - 03 March 2010 10:50 AM

Come on, Gabriel. Either the outcome God has set from the foundation of the world will be realised or we have the choice. Railing against a ‘false gospel’ of SDA’s should mean nothing unless our choices affect our salvation.

Every calvinist will affirm that our choices affect our salvation, just that we are powerless in our natural fallen state to make the right choice. Consequently only through God’s sovereign saving activity which is manifested in the gospel and the preaching of the gospel man is raised from his spiritual deadness and brought into fellowship with God, faith in Him etc. No true gospel, no positive results.

Gabriel

One of the most interesting “AHA” moments that I had regarding the fact that the reformed view about predestination was when I had read RC Sproul’s “Chosen by God” and I saw how the Bible identifies exactly the objection raised by arminians or semi-pelagians which Guibox reiterated in his previous post.

Basically Guibox’s objection can be formulated in this way: if the outcome is settled, the preaching of a false gospel cannot change the outcome (either positive or negative) and it’s irrelevant to find fault with such mistakes because nobody will be lost because somebody preached to him a false gospel. The elect will come to a knowledge of the true gospel and the reprobate will not be in a worse position than they were previously. Since God’s plans cannot be changed and the outcome is fixed, it’s irrelevant to find fault with people for supposedly bad things that are irrelevant to the result. It is argued that if the result can be changed it matters if somebody is preaching a true or a false gospel, but in the calvinist view the inability to change the outcome and God’s fixed plans eliminates any basis for condemning people’s sins.

Here are Sproul’s comments in Chosen by God.

.

Though Paul is silent about the question of future choices here, he does not remain so. In verse 16 he makes it clear. “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” This is the coup de grace to Arminianism and all other non–Reformed views of predestination. This is the Word of God that requires all Christians to cease and desist from views of predestination that make the ultimate decision for salvation rest in the will of man. The apostle declares: It is not of him who wills. The non–Reformed views must say that it is of him who wills. This is in violent contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. This one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.

It is our duty to honor God. We must confess with the apostle that our election is not based on our wills but on the purposes of the will of God.

Paul raises two rhetorical questions in this passage that we must consider. The first is, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness in God?” Why does Paul anticipate this question? No one raises that question to an Arminian. If our election is ultimately based on human decisions, there is no need to raise such an objection.

It is to the biblical doctrine of predestination that this question is raised. It is to predestination based on God’s sovereign purpose, on his decision without a view to Jacob or Esau’s choices, that prompts the outcry, “God is not fair!” But the outcry is based on a superficial understanding of the matter. It is the protest of fallen man complaining that God is not gracious enough.

How does Paul answer the question? He is not satisfied by merely saving, “No, there is no unrighteousness in God.” Rather, his answer is as emphatic as he can make it. He says, “Certainly not!” or “God forbid!” depending on the translation you are reading.

The second objection Paul anticipates is this: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ “ Again we wonder why the apostle anticipates this objection. This is another objection never raised against Arminianism. Non–Reformed views of predestination don’t have to worry about handling questions like this. God would obviously find fault with people whom he knew would not choose Christ. If the ultimate basis for salvation rests in the power of human choice, then the blame is easily fixed and Paul would not have to wrestle with this anticipated objection. But he wrestles with it because the biblical doctrine of predestination demands that he wrestle with it.

How does Paul answer this question? Let us examine his reply :

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and the other for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ( Romans 9:20–24 ).

The most important thing is that in the arminian sistem the objection will never be “You can’t fault man for his sins, for example preaching a false gospel if nobody can resist his will, if the outcome is fixed”. Fixed outcomes makes it impossible to condemn sin. That’s why, when the Bible presents these objections and answers them, it proves by the mere existence of these objections that the Bible teaches the calvinist view because only the calvinist view generates these objections. If the Bible would teach arminianism or semi-pelagianism, such objections will not be raised, or if they will be raised, they will be readily dismissed as straw man arguments. Instead the Bible assumes that the objection represents fairly what the Bible teaches and answers accordingly. The Bible doesn’t say “you are mistaken, God’s plans can be resisted, the outcome is not fixed, you misunderstood the message”. The opposite is true: the right of God to act as a potter having power over the clay and make vessels of wrath, to prepare them for destruction or glory is affirmed together with a rejection of man’s right to raise such questions. Man cannot find fault with God’s judgment on sin based on predestination. Sin is sin, a false gospel is a false gospel and is a sin to preach a false gospel. God will judge the preacher of the false gospel even if his preaching can’t obstruct God’s plans at all.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 March 2010 12:46 PM

The Bible doesn’t say “you are mistaken, God’s plans can be resisted, the outcome is not fixed, you misunderstood the message”. The opposite is true: the right of God to act as a potter having power over the clay and make vessels of wrath, to prepare them for destruction or glory is affirmed together with a rejection of man’s right to raise such questions. Man cannot find fault with God’s judgment on sin based on predestination.
Gabriel

I don’t believe that your quotes from Spurgeon have answered the question. It is not about questioning God in holding us accountable for sin. It is that if God’s will will be completed and His elect WILL be saved, it doesn’t matter what one preaches. Whether one is held accountable for that preaching is besides the point.

What an exercise in complete redundancy. The very fact that God has chosen people to be tortured for eternity with no way to choose any other recourse in this life BUT to continue to sin, then have God hold them accountable for something they cannot choose not to do makes no sense.

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 03 March 2010 12:46 PM

Sin is sin, a false gospel is a false gospel and is a sin to preach a false gospel. God will judge the preacher of the false gospel even if his preaching can’t obstruct God’s plans at all.

So who is held accountable for sin? The elect who is preaching a false gospel? CAN the elect be preaching a false gospel if as you’ve said before that it takes a true gospel for them to be changed to exert faith? Let’s look at this in the context of Adventism.

If SDAs are preaching a false gospel (as you all imply) and the elect cannot preach a false gospel for it was a true gospel that ‘converted’ them from total depravity. Therefore those preaching the gospel of the SDA church are NOT among the elect and were chosen as ‘vessels of destruction’ with no recourse for election.Well, so what if they are preaching a false gospel then? It’s redundant for God to hold them accountable for preaching a false gospel. They have no hope anyway.

If people in SDAism CAN be the elect and are preaching a ‘false gospel’, how exactly will they be held accountable for a false gospel? Will not God utterly save them eventually?

The problems of redundancy of my last post still stands, Gabriel.

guibox - 03 March 2010 01:18 PM

I don’t believe that your quotes from Spurgeon have answered the question. It is not about questioning God in holding us accountable for sin. It is that if God’s will will be completed and His elect WILL be saved, it doesn’t matter what one preaches. Whether one is held accountable for that preaching is besides the point.

Wrong. Gabriel already answered this charge that the means don’t affect the end. Guibox, you are doing a great job of showing us how little you understand our position, but you have yet to bring a credible argument against it.

I realize that when you hear “predestination” you automatically assume “fatalism”, but I’m asking you to forget what you think you know. We affirm that God ordains all things, and that man does what he does using his own “self-determined will” (those are Calvin’s words by the way). Since God ordains the means as well as the ends, we must use the means that God has ordained (i.e. preach the true Gospel). Predestination and foreordination establish our efforts, they don’t negate them. “… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, FOR IT IS GOD who works IN YOU, both to WILL and to WORK for HIS good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13) Guibox, if you’re going to bring up these charges against us, you at least owe it to us to read what we believe and try to understand it. R. C. Sproul’s book that Gabriel quoted from is a good place to start.

guibox - 03 March 2010 01:18 PM

What an exercise in complete redundancy. The very fact that God has chosen people to be tortured for eternity with no way to choose any other recourse in this life BUT to continue to sin, then have God hold them accountable for something they cannot choose not to do makes no sense.

Once again, your premise assumes that we affirm fatalism. We don’t. We affirm that people are responsible for the things they choose (which for those enslaved to sin is only sin), and that God is sovereign (like the Scriptures teach). Your objection is basically the same one that Paul says people will bring up against him when he treats the subject of election. “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” (Romans 9:19)

guibox - 03 March 2010 01:18 PM

So who is held accountable for sin? The elect who is preaching a false gospel? CAN the elect be preaching a false gospel if as you’ve said before that it takes a true gospel for them to be changed to exert faith? Let’s look at this in the context of Adventism. If SDAs are preaching a false gospel (as you all imply) and the elect cannot preach a false gospel for it was a true gospel that ‘converted’ them from total depravity. Therefore those preaching the gospel of the SDA church are NOT among the elect and were chosen as ‘vessels of destruction’ with no recourse for election.Well, so what if they are preaching a false gospel then? It’s redundant for God to hold them accountable for preaching a false gospel. They have no hope anyway.

If people in SDAism CAN be the elect and are preaching a ‘false gospel’, how exactly will they be held accountable for a false gospel? Will not God utterly save them eventually?

The problems of redundancy of my last post still stands, Gabriel.

Just because someone preaches a false gospel at a certain point in time doesn’t mean that the person cannot possibly be elect. Many Adventists have preached the true Gospel (Des Ford, just for one example) DESPITE the doctrine of the IJ. If you’re trying to get one of us to pronounce someone elect or not elect, it isn’t going to happen. God’s secret will remains just that: secret. It is His to know, not ours. We only know what He has revealed to us in His Word, and the Word is quite clear on this: 1. God ordains and controls all things, including the salvation of man; 2. Man is responsible for his own choices, actions, thoughts, etc. even though God is sovereign (although man is not able to “choose” what is not in his nature to choose, thus the necessity of grace); 3. Preaching the true Gospel does matter, and should be of utmost importance to us.

If you have decided a priori that Divine sovereignty is incompatible with human responsibility, then why talk to us about it? Your assumption is invincibly ignorant. If you actually want to deal with the issues involved though, you will eventually have to face the fact that the Scriptures teach both truths simultaneously, without ever giving a philosophical resolution to the problem.

Nate

Well, my friends.

The subject here turned to something very different--predestination. I have no time to engage in such subject, but just let me tell a little experience: I never payed much attention to this kind of discussion until I met a Calvinist suggesting that non-Calvinists transfer the decision of salvation from God to man. Then I decided to check that, and found a very interesting verse--Gen. 6:3.

From that text we read that the Spirit of God “struggled” with Noah’s time men, but they resisted and were lost in the Deluge. Well, then there was a previous “struggle” of the Spirit with those men. . . Which means that God was the one to FIRST OF ALL decide to send the Spirit to “struggle” with men. So, the INITIATIVE of salvation doesn’t come from man’s decision, but from GOD, who decides to send His Spirit to convince men of sin, justice and judgment (John 16:18).

Now, I checked how Calvin interpreted that text and it was very interesting to see it. Let’s reproduce Calvin’s comments on said text:

“. . . because we must not seek the sense of Scripture in uncertain conjectures, I interpret the words simply to mean, that the Lord, as if wearied with the obstinate perverseness of the world, denounces that vengeance as present, which he had hitherto deferred. For as long as the Lord suspends punishment, he, in a certain sense, strives with men, especially if either by threats or by examples of gentle chastisement, he invites them to repentance. In this way he had striven already, some centuries, with the world, which, nevertheless, was perpetually becoming worse. And now, as if wearied out, he declares that he has no mind to contend any longer. ‘Acsi Gallice quis diceret, c’est trop plaider,’ as if any one should say in French, ‘This is to plead too much.’ For when God, by inviting the unbelievers to repentance, had long striven with them; the deluge put an end to the controversy. However, I do not entirely reject the opinion of Luther that God, having seen the deplorable wickedness of men, would not allow his prophets to spend their labor in vain. But the general declaration is not to be restricted to that particular case. When the Lord says, ‘I will not contend for ever,’ he utters his censure on an excessive and incurable obstinacy; and, at the same time, gives proof of the divine longsuffering: as if he would say, There will never be an end of contentions unless some unprecedented act of vengeance cuts off the occasion of it.”

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.xii.i.html

As to the SDA doctrine of the Investigative Jugment, I am an Adventist for over 40 years and never ever met any SDA who loses a night of sleep or is always wringing his/her hands in anxiety about his/her name going through this heavenly investigation. Besides, if one reads topics 9, 10 and 19 of our official SDA Confessional Document may be assured that salvation in Christ gives us the necessary confidence that we, marching through the narrow path of sanctification, after attaining justification by faith alone, can have the certainty of approval whenever our turn comes before the Judge.

Nate, thanks for your contribution on this thread. My boss just leaved the country today for Germany and the next week will impose a busier schedule on me, so I’ll be online less frequently than I was these days.

Guibox, it took me a lot of time to understand the reformed faith and to adjust my previous beliefs to it. I understand that I can’t pretend from somebody who believed all his life that the earth is fixed and the sun is circling around it (geocentrism) to understand quickly heliocentrism. The transition from any kind of synergism (semi-pelagian or arminian) to monergism (calvinist) is the equivalent of a Copernican revolution. Even Michael Horton threw his bible when the message of Romans 9 got him. Perhaps instead of railing objection after objection to what it becomes obviously you have little understanding is not wise. Better read Sproul’s “Chosen by God”, it will clarify a lot of objections.

Gabriel

From John Calvin
“For as long as the Lord suspends punishment, he, in a certain sense, strives with men, especially if either by threats or by examples of gentle chastisement, he invites them to repentance.”

I still don’t get it. Why would God ‘struggle’ to ‘invite to repentance’. Is it not God who draws and changes and THEN people respond? Again, this sounds like an unknowing fishing expedition on God’s part to find out who are the elect. If God ‘struggled’ to ‘invite them to repentance’ and we see that NO ONE other than Noah’s family responded, then this makes God’s methodology of saving His elect a failure. The simple fact that they WERE destroyed and no one was saved shows that they were not elect. Unless they simply didn’t respond to Noah’s call but some will be eternally saved.

I don’t get it. However, seeing as apparently I am misconstruing Calvinism and don’t understand it, I will not ‘rail’ against it anymore, as some have accused me of doing.  The more and more I try to understand it, the more and more I realize that I will never accept it. Especially with an eternal hell also on the auction block.