Who Said That?
Friday, June 9, 2006 at 09:21AM 
Who Said That?
"Indeed, God would save all men if He could . . . . God will achieve the greatest number in heaven that He possibly can. He does not love just some men; He loves all and will do everything within His loving power to save all He can . . . . God will save the greatest number of people that is actually achievable without violating their free choice."
You know the drill! Leave your answer in the comments section. Google searches do not count! Answer to follow in a few days.
Kim Riddlebarger
Many of you got this one right since a number of Reformed writers make mention of these words!
This comes from Norman Geisler, in an essay he wrote in 1982, entitled, "God, Evil, and Dispensation," in the book, A Tribute to John Walvoord (Moody Press, 1982), 102-103.
Reader Comments (56)
Why would you be suprised? This is a Reformed Blog. The quotation is not only counter to Reformed doctrine, it's a slap in the face of the Gospel. Very simply it presents us with a God who is helpless to save sinners unto Himself, A "cheerleader" as it were. That is not the God of the Gospel.
I just added this site to my favorites list because I liked his book so much, but so far it's just insults. The comments made in his "just plain nutty" section are horrible, both to cases in which I agree with Riddlebarger and cases in which I disagree. They remind me a lot of Hal Lindsey saying that amillennialism is “demonic.” I guess I'll remove this site from my list because it's clear I'm not going to get anything out of it. I like reading about Calvinism just because I think it's interesting, and it almost always gives me a deeper understanding of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
But, Rick, I can't leave without first saying that you clearly do not understand Arminianism. It has nothing to do with God being "helpless" by any means. That would be complete nonsense. It has to do entirely with His love. Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce?" It has to do with the damned openly rejecting God, and He allows them to go to hell because He is not going to cleanse them if they want to reject Him. God allows people to be damned because He is consistent in His love. He first gave free will, and when man fell, God, through incredible grace, gave man the chance to let God cleanse him. That was the entire purpose of the cross, to cleanse us of sin rather than just absolving it, because to absolve it would be to absolve the free will that He gave us so lovingly in the first place, and He would contradict Himself. And He continues in giving us this free will, or else we would all be saved. God doesn’t like seeing people damned, He wants to see them turn to Him (Ez 33:11). Therefore, if it were entirely according to His will as to who is saved, then all would be saved. Besides, according to your logic in which free will doesn’t exist, then what was the point of the cross? Couldn’t God have simply absolved the sin without it?
No, Arminianism’s God isn’t a weak God at all. In fact, it’s the exact same God as Calvinism. Arminians and Calvinists are not of a different religion. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with being Calvinist; I just think that it’s a mistaken doctrine. You should think the same thing of Arminianism.
I again want to stress the importance of correcting in gentleness. Please don’t forget this.
Goodbye, I won’t bother you again since it clearly accomplishes nothing.
He was quoting Geisler.
First of all, my sincere apologies for offending you. Second, I do consider many Arminians to be brothers in the Lord even though they are mistaken. Third I don't think that my comment was not necessarily hostile and not something to get too upset about - you are obviously playing hard defense - I commend you for that. Fourth, my "attack" was not on Arminians in general, it was on the above quotation - a statement that is clearly contrary to scripture and does in fact present us with a helpless God.
I have read "The Great Divorce" I enjoyed it -but it's fiction. If taken as hard theology, it is in most certainly in error.
I will not address the rest of your comment because it would take up too much space.
I would urge you to keep coming to this blog and to not stay away from it on account of the comments that may be mean-spirited (though in scanning them, I only see a few that would upset an ardent Arminian). Stay with it. Listen to the White Horse Inn, Read Modern Reformation...
Again, my apologies for the offense that you have taken.
I will not comment anymore on this thred, I will be happy to e-mail back and forth with you if you like in response to the rest of your comment.
First off, and I should have said this in my first post, my first two paragraphs weren’t directed at your comment, Rick, it was actually about this site in general. Your comment wasn’t insulting, it was others’ comments and a lot of things Kim has said that surprised me (and I wasn't referring to insults towards me, either). I was interested when I first saw the link to this site because I thought Kim’s book was great, but I have to be honest in saying that when I came in I was horrified at what I read. In his book, he seemed to at least treat other theologians respectfully when he disagreed with them, and this site is like a completely different person. I saw the “Just Plain Nutty” page, and everything on there is a direct violation of 2 Timothy and 1 Peter. I know that’s harsh to say, but I must be honest. His mockeries of Dave Hunt, Bruce Wilkenson, Charles Stanley, and Dan Brown are far from gentle, and I say this as someone who actually agrees with him on a lot of these, especially Brown’s higher criticism. The post about the pope especially worried me, comparing him to an icon of homosexuality, Dorothy of “The Wizard of Oz.” I don’t mean to troll, but I can’t just pass by it either.
Another thing that I should have said before is the connection between this quote and basic Arminianism. I can’t help but see this saying in light of the undeniable concept that God doesn’t contradict Himself. God isn’t going to start “violating their free choice” because that would mean contradicting the blessing He already gave, and in this sense this concept goes hand-in-hand with Arminian conditional election. This quote doesn’t seem to be worded particularly well (I wonder how it reads in context); I probably would have said something like “within His plan” rather than “within His loving power,” but nevertheless it seems to be basic to Arminianism and hardly contrary to the Gospel at all.
I might as well say something about the Great Divorce, too– You’re certainly right that it’s not hard theology–Lewis himself was the first to say that in the preface–but my point concerns the concepts behind it, that “You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys,” and “If we insist on keeping Hell (or even Earth) we shall not see Heaven.” The point I’m trying to make is that it is the choice that God gives us whether or not to resist His grace, because if we reject Him, He is not going to force Himself upon us. That’s only one part of His consistent love.
I appreciate your offer of email discussion, but I doubt I would have the time to give any particularly engaging input (I must admit that I’m a theological lightweight anyway). I do plan on reading some of the classics at some point, like the works of Calvin and the Canon of Dort, but right now I’m actually preoccupied with Classical Greek Philosophy, an entirely different topic.
I think you are being too sensitive (perhaps due to your theological and philosophical positions). I don't think Kim is sinning and disobeying Scripture by poking fun at a few silly things that some Christians say and do. I think there should also be a humorous response at times to certain things.
I do not mean to isult you, but have you read the entire Bible? If you have, you should have noticed Elijah ridiculing the prophets of Baal, God telling his priests that he would cast exrement in their faces, Jesus calling people brood of vipers and children of the devil, Paul telling the Galatians that certain men who were leading them astray should mutilate themselves, etc. Also notice how Paul informs a whole church, the Galatians, that the apostle Peter and others were acting as hypocrites. The Bilbe contains strong language for both the believer and unbeliever.
Now I am not trying to defend all of Mr. Riddlebarger's entries. Perhaps he has gone too far at times. I know that some who have posted comments on his blog have
gone too far with their comments. I must admit that I too can get a bit careless if I don't pay close attention to what I say. Blogs are a good place for people, even the more careful ones, to get carried away with their comments; when you don't see someone in front of you, you may become more bold or careless in your language. But remember, at times we don't simply have the option but the responsiblity of saying what will perhaps anger and alienate some.
I know it's not Swindoll (3rd comment, C Willis)
He may not be reformed, but I heard one of Swindoll's sermons on predestination a few years ago. It was definitely Calvinistic (yet I don't know if he would hold to Limited Atonement or not).
Maybe you meant Charles Stanley? He's an Arminian.
"Strong" is an understatement, I understand that, but that does not by any means give reason for mockery. Remember that Paul said we need to be hoping for God to grant them repentance.
I understand that you think I'm being overly sensitive, but this is a public site and doubtlessly plenty of saints have been offended and upset at reading that Dave Hunt is "living proof that accountants should not do theology." And any Catholic that comes by will certainly not think well of reformed theologians after reading about the pope wearing a "cocktail dress."
I just looked over Just Plain Nutty and do see it offensives or mockery. As a pastor of the flock it is Pastor Kim's duty to inform us of arthors which take a doctrine or Christ and misrepsent them. I am glad that he does this and would say you need to chill out a little. This web suite is toward those who are reformed. Look at the Pat Robertson Claim or The Fashion Statement (Catholic Church). It was not mockey just reporting the truth in a humerious way. Your complaint on the arthors like Stanley, Brown & Wilkerson were factual not mockery. I would ask you to open your mind and try not to forget to laugh a little at the same time as learning the truth.