There's nothing wrong with your reasoning on point 1 at all.  The below is a rather humourous look at it:

On point 2, I'm not in a position to interpret scripture with you, but I am aware that there are a lot of things in the bible that are not synonymous with a loving god.  If that's what you want, just ignore that parts that are not synonymous with a loving god and pretend they were never there.  You wouldn't be the first.  Problem solved.

Hi Gobot,

I am not sure what you are wishing for. Would you rather not be born? Cause you can't exist unless God gives you life.

I would have a slightly different take on the setting of point 1. We are born sinners and are all heading to hell because we are not right with God. God offered his Son as a reconciliation between men and him. So the choices are to accept his offer and go to heaven, or stay in your state (refuse) and go to hell.

The Love of God is better seen this way in my opinion.

On Point 2. There are a lot of things I don't understand. Something is clear though out of Romans 9. We are the creatures, the created ones - and God has a claim on us - nothing is owed to us. We were made to glorify God.

An explanation I like regarding God's hardening of hearts - is that God knows you before the foundation of the world. He knows your heart and knows therefore even before you lived your life if you will turn to him or not. Thus why he would harden the Pharaoah's heart, knowing full well that his heart would have never turned to God.

The dots don't all connect in the human mind but I believe it was meant that way

Amicably,

L

Good answers Laurelin.

Very good.

Blt

gobot - when I was young I liked to read a short passage of scripture and search for its meaning.  I still do that occasionally.  But more often now I search for the bigger picture - the picture I get from the entire text. 

This is what I see.  God is love.  God creates out of love.  Each and every baby born (and no, we don't have a choice about whether to be born) is loved by God - unique and precious in God's sight. 

I look for truth behind the stories in the Bible - and the very first story in Genesis says that God saw the world and it was good.  Each and every created thing - GOOD.  We are born good and loved.  Love freely given; unconditional love. 

I find examples of that love throughout the scriptures.  One of my favourite passages is from the book of Hosea.  The people appear to have forgotten God and gone their own way.  God (as personified by the prophet Hosea) is angry and considers withdrawing from them, abandoning them to their own devices.   Justifiable.  But no.  God declares "I am God and not man."  and God lets it be known how he will bless the people and restore them.  

Over and over in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures I find God's grace freely given - as God forgives the people over and over again.  Dying on the cross Jesus prayed "Father, forgive them." 

Somehow I don't see this loving God condemning a person to eternal punishment, no matter what they do.  They may close the door - but God waits patiently on the other side - knocking every so often, asking to be let in.  God's love never fails.

It sounds to me like the flaw you are making is this: you are assuming that everyone wants to spend eternity in paradise. Many people do not. It would be, in my opinion, most unloving for God to send people to heaven who do not love him and do not want to be with him.

Hello gobot and welcome to the WonderCafe.

That is one take on the system.  On the surface it is a works righteousness model where the individual human effects their own salvation independantly of God.  Theologically, I believe that this system is a dead end since all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

I concur that we do not choose to be born.  Once born, however; we appear to make a lot of choices.

We do not choose God but God chooses us, (if we can believe the witness who says as much) so your first preposition a) is flawed.  The choice for redemption is not ours to make.

Not really much of a trap.  God is sovereign whether we acknowledge God's sovereignty or not.  So God's justice or grace flow out of criteria that God establishes not criteria that we float.

That would depend upon whether God is only loving and whether or not that loving nature of God had permission or freedom to judge Creation according to God's own criterion and deal with Creation so judged according to God's own design.

There is much debate as to the whether the suffering is, in fact, eternal. Much of that debate hinges upon whether or not literalism is a must for interpretation of any or all points of the scriptural text.

Does that mean that your parents are bound by your understanding and interpretation of what it means to be perfectly loving or, might it mean that your understanding of perfectly loving is not itself perfect?

Essentially, in as much as Paul puts forward the notion that it does not depend upon human desire but on God's mercy Paul has built upon the notion of God's sovereignty.  It is out of that sovereignty that grace flows or hearts are hardened as the case may be. 

John Calvin fleshes this out in the doctrines of grace and in particular predestination which stipulates that God has chosen those who will participate in the eternal kingdom of God from the foundation of the universe which is prior to any activity that any individual could undertake.

This makes God the only agent in the process of redemption.  God saves or God does not according to the will of God.

Those who will be redeemed belong to the elect and God, via the Holy Spirit, operates in their hearts and minds and opens them to knowledge of their situation (sinful), as well as the knowledge of God's solution (redemption).  In that knowledge they go on to abundant living which is more than waiting for heaven and what is to come, it is about living a full life here on earth serving God and neighbour.

Those who are not to be redeemed do not belong to the elect and their hearts are hardened to the message of the gospel and any notion of God's grace.

None who desire God will lose God since God has saved them and prepares them for what is to come.

Those who despise God will not be confronted with God and, I would argue, are being spared an eternity of torment by a gradual numbing while alive.

Others, of course, will think or believe differently.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Or, in contrast to the Calvinist position, you could look at a Univeralist position: God's Love and Grace are extended to all (i.e. no elect), but some choose to reject or do not recognize these gifts. God does not condemn anyone, but those who truly turn their backs on God are condemning themselves. Inevitably, in the end, they will be saved, though for His Love is all-embracing.

Of course, Universalism also expanded the notion of God's grace to allow for it to be manifest in other religious traditions and eventually became part of modern UU'ism.

Today, we hold that that religious truth comes from many sources and the notion of Divine Grace is often interpreted very broadly (e.g. a loving, all-embracing Cosmos) or rejected completely (e.g. by our secular humanists).

Mendalla

Hi Mendalla,

Respectfully that is not a universalist position. 

Within Christian thought that is the Arminist position which is works righteousness.  It is far from universalist but rather it is more individualist as salvation is dependant not upon the grace that God offers but whether or not the individual accepts God's grace.

Where salvation can be earned or lost by the individual grace does not come into play as salvation is no longer in the domain of God's grace but human effort.

God does not condemn but . . . individuals condemn themselves by turning their backs on God and even then apparently not since God saves all even those who have chosen to reject God's grace and cannot save themselves.

Universalism, of necessity denies the existence of grace or justice because there can be neither.  If all are saved then there is no justice.  If there is no justice there cannot be any grace.

Actually no, Universalism didn't.  It levels the playing field by making grace a non-entity and justice non-existant.

Truth has but one source, that source connects through a variety of means.  The benefit is that there is no faith position that can rightly claim a lock on the will of God with respect to salvation since salvation belongs to God and God alone.

Grace and peace to you.

John