Does God Create Reprobates?

[Arthur Brain]

Please enumerate the steps, 1, 2, 3....n that you view as the logical thought process used by God when creating the universe. The world now exists. So steps that are but fanciful flights of imagination about what God could have done versus what is actually now present are irrelevant. The steps should reflect a connection to the current state of affairs.

As an example, taking an infralapsarian view, see my earlier:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4495576#post4495576

For example, a Molinist would likely proffer something along the lines:

1: God’s natural knowledge of everything that could be
2: God’s middle knowledge of everything that would be
3. God's Divine Decree Here based upon something from 1 and 2 above
4: God’s free knowledge of everything that will happen in the actual world

After all, the OP deals with the decree and takes a view begging the question of what the logical steps taken when creating God took in support of the OP's odd view. If one is going to cavil about something one should be able to think it through and offer up a position for examination. Of course, Robert Pate resists any challenge to dig a wee bit deeper, hence my original response. Given you have an opinion, I am only asking to see it fleshed out in an orderly fashion.

AMR

The current state of affairs is that we live in a world as is evidenced around us. Where it comes to what God knows or is capable of knowing then I'm not one to put constraints on that. For example I don't agree that God having sovereign knowledge about everything impacts upon the will of another simply for knowing what happens in advance as some argue.

It doesn't strike me as particularly logical or loving to create mankind and set up the parameters whereby it would be impossible to restore or keep hold of all creation from the get go. I'm in opposition to the 'orthodox''open' view as much as your own on that score.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It doesn't strike me as particularly logical or loving ...

Why the singular focus on loving? I ask because when I see this it usually comes from our human ideas of love versus the plain "setting one's preferences upon another" from Scripture. It also seems to ignore all the other divine perfections. A judge who pardons each and every wrongdoer is hardly putting on display his full glory.

AMR

 

[intojoy]

I stand by my claim. Bain you're one of the 99 bud

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why the singular focus on loving? I ask because when I see this it usually comes from our human ideas of love versus the plain "setting one's preferences upon another" from Scripture. It also seems to ignore all the other divine perfections. A judge who pardons each and every wrongdoer is hardly putting on display his full glory.

AMR

Well, if God is love, then it follows that the focus rests on that first and foremost where it comes to the subject I would posit. So the notion of a loving deity creating mankind where through design - many or some end up in a created 'hell' of some sort - does not add up logically, especially if some are effectively rendered helpless to do anything about it while others are given just what they need, and apparently arbitrarily.

If God were to ultimately retain all of creation then that wouldn't necessarily negate justice or other attributes either.

 

[intojoy]

Did you actually read my post?

AMR

Little. My point is not that I'm right, it's that so many anti elect folks are so terribly upset and demanding fairness that I thought it right to place some perspective on the reality that the majority of the mass of humanity will not be saved.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I stand by my claim. Bain you're one of the 99 bud

Stand by it all you want, you're almost making B57 look reasonable...you're the kind of nut that embarrasses Calvinism and a nasty little piece of work to boot frankly.

 

[intojoy]

Stand by it all you want, you're almost making B57 look reasonable...you're the kind of nut that embarrasses Calvinism and a nasty little piece of work to boot frankly.

Sure Bain you really sound like you know a lot. Hehe

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure Bain you really sound like you know a lot. Hehe

Go look up empathy and compassion in a dictionary.

 

[intojoy]

Right professor Bain
I'm on it mate

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Little. My point is not that I'm right, it's that so many anti elect folks are so terribly upset and demanding fairness that I thought it right to place some perspective on the reality that the majority of the mass of humanity will not be saved.

But the "reality" you assert has no Scriptural warrant. That is the point of my post explaining the matter. When Scripture plainly speaks of a great multitude no one could number that should imply something very different to your basic opinion.

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

Stand by it all you want, you're almost making B57 look reasonable...you're the kind of nut that embarrasses Calvinism and a nasty little piece of work to boot frankly.

:thumb:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Factoid:
A Very small number of people have been saved from the mass of humanity. 99% of all humans to date have died unsaved.

What? Have you taken a poll or something? Where do you come
up with that percentage?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's not a fact, it's just you blabbering away some unsubstantiated statistic. You're really not a particularly pleasant or understanding guy are you?

Intojoy is a Knucklehead.

 

[musterion]

Stand by it all you want, you're almost making B57 look reasonable...you're the kind of nut that embarrasses Calvinism and a nasty little piece of work to boot frankly.

True, that. For all his idiocy, B57 is consistent and lets Calvinism's reprobative chips fall where they may (actually, where God preordained them to fall). I've never seen him try to tapdance around it.

 

[Robert Pate]

I would like to believe that many will be saved.

I would also like to believe that there is a second chance to believe and repent in the judgment.

However, Jesus said, "Few there be that find it" Matthew 7:14.

And then Romans 9:27 says that only a remnant shall be saved.

I find this disturbing.

 

[fishrovmen]

And then Romans 9:27 says that only a remnant shall be saved.

I find this disturbing.

A remnant of what? The whole world?

 

[beloved57]

I would like to believe that many will be saved.

I would also like to believe that there is a second chance to believe and repent in the judgment.

However, Jesus said, "Few there be that find it" Matthew 7:14.

And then Romans 9:27 says that only a remnant shall be saved.

I find this disturbing.

Invalid comments not supported by scripture!

 

[musterion]

I would like to believe that many will be saved.

So would I. Ever since discovering the unexpected universalist streak running through many folks in the Acts 28 camp, I've been mulling this in the back of my mind. They seem to hinge it on Col 1:19-20 with the assumption that reconcile means save. The problem is, they admit that the salvation of all would still require the faith of all, which is why many universalists also hold to some form or degree of Calvinistic fatalism mixed with a form of what looks like purgatory as God brings unbelievers to faith after death. THAT is disturbing.

 

[patrick jane]

It must be terrifying for new Calvinist parents, not knowing for years if their child is a reprobate or not.

 

[musterion]

It must be terrifying for new Calvinist parents, not knowing for years if their child is a reprobate or not.

Very true, so they'll raise their kids as legalistically as they can in order to "prove" the kid must be one of the elect, hoping he/she doesn't "fall away" when they're older. On the upside, it'd be hard to take any blame for bad parenting..."Yeah, my loser drug-dealing adult kid swung on a cop and has renounced the Bible, so she's obviously a reprobate. Not my fault, glory to God, mysterious ways, potter/clay, who art thou to talk back to God," etc.