Which version depicts a more loving God? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……

What about they hypothetical Chinese peasant who died without any opportunity to hear the gospel? Did he choose his fate? Of course not!

Did he choose to be born as a Chinese peasant who would never hear the gospel? No. Who chose that for him? God? Did _anyone_ choose it? Did it just happen? Was there _any_ purpose?

You claim Arminianism teaches a more loving God, but I absolutely reject that. Arminianism presents a God scarcely in control of His own universe, permitting senseless tragedy and chaos for no reason whatsoever.

Calvinism presents a God totally in control of the universe, predestinating and controlling things for His own reasons. Given that He is both loving AND in control, this is a much superior view of God IMHO.

I was raised spiritually in churches (AssembLIES of God) wherein I was taught that Calvin, Calvinist and Calvinism was the greatest evil since the Romanists introduced torture into church practice. Their general teaching was that God would send people to Hell even though they’d had spent their whole lives loving, serving, and believing on Christ as their Savior. They also taught that Calvinism meant that you could accept Christ and be saved, yet live a life of total reprobation for the ensuing 40 years or whatever. Simply put, I was taught that “Calvinist salvation” was random, not based on love or fairness, and therefore cruel and unloving. Dave Hunt has now hedged his career on his widely promoted book which portrays something close to this (false) view.

But as I now understand Calvinism, God will not be sending anyone to Hell who earnestly sought Him with all their heart and soul (ref. Deut. 4:29). Yes, this excludes the “notional” Christians, the my-god-my-way-here-for-my-wants Christians (Word of Faith), Christians who are ashamed of the Gospel (seeker-sensitive), and other wanna-be’s. Likewise, He will not be letting anyone in Heaven who “believed” on Him and then walked away (the metaphorical seed that fell on the rocks). Under Calvinism, as I understand it, those who go to Hell more or less don’t care anyway — be they Muslim, Pagan, feminist or whatever — because they reject Jesus’ Lordship over their life. So, even if God chose not to regenerate them to come to a saving faith in Christ, then the Hell-bound are still getting what they want. Or, more accurately, they’re not going to get what they don’t want anyway: an eternity worshipping Jesus. Since they’re not being deprived of anything they don’t want, how is it “unfair” of God withhold from them what they’re not wanting anyway?

Phil

PS: In regards to the Chinese man who never heard the Gospel, notice I said “reject” Christ because acceptance/rejection of the Gospel is so central to the NT. I believe based on the whole counsel of Scripture that God will judge the hearts of those who have not heard of Christ and thus decide their eternity accordingly. To argue that one MUST have heard of (and of course accepted) the Gospel to get in to Heaven is to argue that Hell is packed with people who never had the chance to hear the Gospel, as well as the mentally retarded who couldn’t understand it, as well as millions of aborted and still-born and miscarried babies. Way too many Scriptures would have to be violated (not to mention His character) for that to be true.

Your claim that God will judge the hearts of those who have not heard of Christ and thus decide their eternity accordingly runs pretty much in direct opposition to Romans 10, particularly verses 13-14.

Even if God _did_ judge them in the way you suggest, Romans 2:12-16 tells us what the verdict will be.

Regarding those mentally unable to understand the gospel or make moral decisions, I trust God will be gracious and good to them, and I just have to content myself with that.

The majority of difficulty with this arguement is that God is both just and fair… and that can seem contradictory. How can you have an absolute law that has exceptions? It cannot both be absolute and relative, can it?

I don’t have an answer to present here, but I would like to see how everyone responds to this line of thought. I personally am on Phil’s side of this (which Robert won’t at all be surprised by), but want to be involved in the discussion and see if anyone can sway me.

God is described as “just” in any case, with very little “oh, I’ll make an exception in this case because you just didn’t know”. The only passages I’m familiar with that express this kind of attitude apply it equally to all persons and make no exceptions for Chinese peasants.

God’s redemption or condemnation of people is not Biblically up for moral analysis. He is sovereign and can do as He pleases. We know He is good and just, so we trust His actions.

But in the case of the Chinese peasant, it’s straightforward to demonstrate a Biblical case for his damnation.

See:
John 3:18
John 14:6
Romans 3:23
Romans 6:23
Romans 2:12-15
Romans 5:12-21
Romans 10:13-15
Ephesians 2:1-5

For instance, look at taxation. The most “just” way to handle income tax is with some form of flat tax. Whether that is a percentage or dollar amount, everyone pays the same thing. However this is seldom considered the fair way to do things, as the first few thousand dollars a year are necessary to handle the basic necessities of life, such as food and shelter. Therefore we apply some basic “fairness” to the equation, by adding tax brackets. Thus we don’t treat everyone with absolute justice. We make some that can afford to pay more in taxes pay more in what amounts to a luxury tax. This is clearly fair, as we aren’t hindering anyone’s ability to live, but it isn’t really justice. We are treating the wealthy differently and more harshly than the poor.

In a similar way, you’re right when you say that election doesn’t seem fair. If God takes nothing in circumstances into account, then our greatest hope is that God will eventually end the existance of the damned and only keep the saved alive eternally. The sheer cruelty of punishing eternally an infant, someone so mentally damaged as to be unable to understand what is required, or that Chinese peasant we’ve been bandying about, goes against any concept I can have of God being a God of love.