Is Paul more loving than God?

[Andy T.]

Actually Scripture says nothing of intelligence, but loving the darkness more than the light.

That's fine, then Asians love darkness more than whites. Doesn't matter how you slice it - I'm just showing the weak argument of the OP.

 

[Andy T.]

That doesn't necessarily mean the gospel.

That's not what your quote says above. It gave the examples of the Ethiopian and Cornelius, both of whom had the Gospel brought to them.

That's ok, I understand why you are hestitant to go down this road.

 

[Andy T.]

BTW, you can leave out the frail attempts to rebuke me for my views, they presume my position is incorrect and disregard the very purpose for a soteriological debate forum, which is to debate differing views.

I'm not campaigning to have these types of OP's removed, but I am being honest that your arguments are much better when you stick to the Scriptural evidence against C, and I've seen you make some of those arguments - and they are generally cogent from the A perspective. However, threads like these are lacking and unfair. Conjecture. Not the least of which, it has backfired on you.

 

[Skandelon]

That's not what your quote says above. It gave the examples of the Ethiopian and Cornelius, both of whom had the Gospel brought to them.

That's ok, I understand why you are hestitant to go down this road.

Of course "further revelation" could refer to the gospel as was the case with these too examples, but I, the author of this article, or others who hold to this view don't believe the gospel MUST necessarily and effectually be sent to all who positively respond to the light of God. Now, you can put your fingers in your ears and pretend we believe that even though we don't in order to make your "backfire" argument actually applicable, but I'm telling you that is NOT what I believe.

Thus, you have created straw man argument here brother. That's ok, I understand why you went down that road, but now that it has been properly explained to you there is no shame in going back.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not campaigning to have these types of OP's removed, but I am being honest that your arguments are much better when you stick to the Scriptural evidence against C, and I've seen you make some of those arguments - and they are generally cogent from the A perspective. However, threads like these are lacking and unfair. Conjecture. Not the least of which, it has backfired on you.

1. It may have backfired on a straw-man you created, but not on my actual views.


2. "God is no respecter of persons" is a scripture passage the last time I checked. And the OP was directly related to Paul's expression of love in Romans 9, which is also scriptural, so I don't see any basis for this accusation.

 

[Andy T.]

Of course "further revelation" could refer to the gospel as was the case with these too examples, but I, the author of this article, or others who hold to this view don't believe the gospel MUST necessarily and effectually be sent to all who positively respond to the light of God. Now, you can put your fingers in your ears and pretend we believe that even though we don't in order to make your "backfire" argument actually applicable, but I'm telling you that is NOT what I believe.

Thus, you have created straw man argument here brother. That's ok, I understand why you went down that road, but now that it has been properly explained to you there is no shame in going back.

If that is not the logical conclusion (that those who continue to progress in their "positive response" will hear the Gospel), then what is the purpose of using the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian?

So are you saying the reason some tribe hasn't heard the Gospel is solely the fault of disobedient Christians? What about prior to the time of exploration when North America was not even known? Was it the church's fault then?

 

[Andy T.]

1. It may have backfired on a straw-man you created, but not on my actual views.


2. "God is no respecter of persons" is a scripture passage the last time I checked. And the OP was directly related to Paul's expression of love in Romans 9, which is also scriptural, so I don't see any basis for this accusation.

Trying to use that passage to disparage Calvinism as racist because more whites (as a percentage) are Christian than Asians? That's a Scriptural argument?

 

[Skandelon]

If that is not the logical conclusion (that those who continue to progress in their "positive response" will hear the Gospel), then what is the purpose of using the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian?

Because those are two biblical examples of the where the revelation did increase, just because we don't have a narrative of others who never do actually hear the gospel doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The article was in response to the question "What about those who never hear the gospel?" Do you really think the author was saying that everyone who has any positive response does hear it? Of course not, which is why he spoke of those in the OT who never had heard it. Read the whole thing again and I think you'll see his point.

So are you saying the reason some tribe hasn't heard the Gospel is solely the fault of disobedient Christians?

I think that is what Paul teaches. "How will they believe unless they hear?" There a several passage about blood on the hands of unfaithful messengers (I can look them up later, don't have time now, but I think you know the ones I'm meaning)

What about prior to the time of exploration when North America was not even known? Was it the church's fault then?

Again, even in those times those people are without excuse with regard to the level of revelation they have received and will be judge according to that level of revelation. God is gracious and I trust him to be just in these instances.

 

[Skandelon]

Trying to use that passage to disparage Calvinism as racist because more whites (as a percentage) are Christian than Asians? That's a Scriptural argument?

Let's get something straight, Calvinists here do as much disparaging of our beliefs as we do of theirs, which is why I asked you to drop such rebukes. They are meaningless on a baptist debate forum because it presumes there is nothing in which we should be debating because it would "disparage" someone else's belief. Understand?

This was a practical question regarding the view that God is no respecter of persons. Clearly God does have a reason (though I know you don't claim to know what it is) for choosing to save more of one type of person than another. This seems to contradict that verse.

If the president said I am no respecter of persons and then elected to his cabinet a relatively few number of a certain highly populated race of people then there would be questions about his claims.

I'm not suggesting Calvinists believe God to be racial motivated in his election of people to salvation. I'm simply stating that this verse better supports the concept of God appealing equally for all races to come to be reconciled, rather than his electing more of one race than another for some unknown reason.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you will look at what's going on in the world at the moment, the Gospel is going out in tremendous power to Asia and Africa, while declining in Europe. IMO this is the fulfillment of Luke 1:53.
He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent empty away.'

Steve

 

[Andy T.]

I'm not suggesting Calvinists believe God to be racial motivated in his election of people to salvation. I'm simply stating that this verse better supports the concept of God appealing equally for all races to come to be reconciled, rather than his electing more of one race than another for some unknown reason.

First, just because there may be higher percentages of believers among some people groups does not raise any question on the validity of the Doctrines of Grace. It is evident that the Gospel has been spread to all (most?) nations and that spread is continuing. And of course, we have prophecy that this will occur - ever tribe, tongue and nation. You brought up Asians, which is quite ironic since the church is probably growing fastest in Asian countries.

Second, Arminians can't escape this charge (a weak charge it may be), either. Unless you believe in a deist god who just stands back and relies on humans to sort it all out, which does seem to be your argument: Lack of missions is why some people go to hell; lack of positive response is why others go to hell.

So on the one hand, I fail to see how the charge even sticks on DoG, and on the other hand, I don't see how Arminianism can escape that charge, unless you fall back into deism. I guess from your vantage point I must be blind to the great wisdom which is so clear to you.

 

[Skandelon]

First, just because there may be higher percentages of believers among some people groups does not raise any question on the validity of the Doctrines of Grace.

In light of the verse which claims that God is no respecter of person's, I contend it does, which is why I made the case.

Lack of missions is why some people go to hell;

Ez 3:16 And at the end of seven days, the word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,'and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul

Seems like God holds his watchman accountable to me? Why if not for the reasons this passage clearly suggest?

Rom 10:13 For "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not everyone welcomes the Good News...

Why would the feet be so beautiful if they weren't coming to rescue the perishing?

lack of positive response is why others go to hell.

2 Thess 2:12 Then they will be condemned for not believing the truth and for enjoying the evil they do.

Sounds like a "lack of response" to me.

 

[Andy T.]

In light of the verse which claims that God is no respecter of person's, I contend it does, which is why I made the case.

Why does the % have to be equal among all people groups? Pure conjecture on your part. You have proved nothing.

Ez 3:16 And at the end of seven days, the word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,'and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul

Seems like God holds his watchman accountable to me? Why if not for the reasons this passage clearly suggest?

Ok, you have contended it is the fault of the "church" as to why the % of Christians is not equal among all people groups. I put church in quotes, since I guess we are all collectively guilty of this verse and none of us will have our souls delivered and will end up in hell. We're all doomed, by your reasoning, because the % of Christians is not equal among all people groups.

Why would the feet be so beautiful if they weren't coming to rescue the perishing?

We both agree that the means God uses to save people is through the proclamation and spreading of His Word. No quibble here.

2 Thess 2:12 Then they will be condemned for not believing the truth and for enjoying the evil they do.

Sounds like a "lack of response" to me.

So the logical conclusion (the same type you try to pin on Calvinism) is that since some people groups are more saturated with Christians is that they, as a whole, are wiser (or insert blank) than those other people groups who enjoy evil more. Thus, Arminianism promotes racism, since we can conclude that those other people groups aren't as good as "whites." Again, I would never make such an argument against my brothers in Christ, but that is essentially the same type of charge you have laid at your brothers in Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

Why does the % have to be equal among all people groups?

It doesn't, but if God really isn't a respecter of persons and he is choosing to save more anglos, then one can certainly speculate as to why that might be.

Ok, you have contended it is the fault of the "church" as to why the % of Christians is not equal among all people groups. I put church in quotes, since I guess we are all collectively guilty of this verse and none of us will have our souls delivered and will end up in hell. We're all doomed, by your reasoning, because the % of Christians is not equal among all people groups

I didn't suggest that our sin of neglect wasn't covered by Grace along with all the rest, just that our laziness and disobedience does have real effect.

We both agree that the means God uses to save people is through the proclamation and spreading of His Word. No quibble here.

So the logical conclusion (the same type you try to pin on Calvinism) is that since some people groups are more saturated with Christians is that they, as a whole, are wiser (or insert blank) than those other people groups who enjoy evil more.

What? I've never claimed that some people groups are more saturated with Christians because they are wiser.

 

[Andy T.]

It doesn't, but if God really isn't a respecter of persons and he is choosing to save more anglos, then one can certainly speculate as to why that might be.

Just like we could also speculate as to why more anglos are saved, if Arminianism is true. Speculation is all it is. And not very helpful from either perspective.

I didn't suggest that our sin of neglect wasn't covered by Grace along with all the rest, just that our laziness and disobedience does have real effect.

The Ezekiel passage you cited above indicates that our souls will be delivered if we obey the command, so I was just following the passage you used to defend the reasoning that disobedience in missions is why more Asians aren't saved. Just trying to be consistent with the passage.

What? I've never claimed that some people groups are more saturated with Christians because they are wiser.

Just speculating myself, like you have been doing all along.

 

[Skandelon]

Just like we could also speculate as to why more anglos are saved, if Arminianism is true. Speculation is all it is. .

True, but our answer (the gospel wasn't spread in that region of the world as much because the church didn't take it there, and that Asians false religions and strict governments may have hardened them more from accepting the gospel) doesn't bring into question God's reasoning for saving less Asians than anglos. From our perspective, it's man's fault alone for the lack of conversions among Asians, not God's lack of desire to save them.

The Ezekiel passage you cited above indicates that our souls will be delivered if we obey the command, so I was just following the passage you used to defend the reasoning that disobedience in missions is why more Asians aren't saved. Just trying to be consistent with the passage.

I know that is what you were doing, which is why I reminded you that the law of OT was fulfilled by Christ and now Grace covers our failures of the Law (which I know you understand). However, that doesn't negate the law in that we are still supposed to avoid lies, murder, adultery, covetousness etc...in other words, if I lie I still reap the results of that lie because the lie is MY FAULT. It hurts others, it may even cause someone to be killed. In the same way, my sin of not being the watchman can still hurt others...breaking God's law usually does.

Just speculating myself, like you have been doing all along.

I guess, the difference it that I'm backing up my speculations with actual scripture.

 

[Andy T.]

I guess, the difference it that I'm backing up my speculations with actual scripture.

But you haven't shown how the "not respecter of persons" passage proves that it follows the same % of people groups must be Christians. Furthermore, millions upon millions of these other people groups are being saved. Just looking at strict %'s is a rather one-dimensional way of looking at it. We could break it down even further and get ridiculous and say that 25% of Georgians are saved while only 20% of Ohioans are saved. But in raw numbers, more Ohioans are saved (since they have a higher overall population). So which number should we look at? It's silly, and I don't see the point of your original assertion other than to stir dissension.

I guess from your Arminian perspective God must be continually frustrated since his goal to save the same % of people groups has not been remotely successful. And what about the consummation of the world with the new heaven and earth - will he still be frustrated since those %'s will never be equal? When I read Scripture I don't see a frustrated God. Saddened by man's sin and the evil in the world, yes. But frustrated? No.

 

[Skandelon]

I guess from your Arminian perspective God must be continually frustrated since his goal to save the same % of people groups has not been remotely successful.

Well, he does express frustration for those who refused to tell others, so in that regard yes; but I'm not claiming God wants to save an equal percentage of people from each group, I'm only claiming he doesn't prefer any group over the other and I've already answer your question as to why more might be saved from one group than another. As I said, from our perspective, it's man's fault alone for the lack of conversions among Asians, not God's lack of desire to save them.

And what about the consummation of the world with the new heaven and earth - will he still be frustrated since those %'s will never be equal? When I read Scripture I don't see a frustrated God. Saddened by man's sin and the evil in the world, yes. But frustrated? No.

Depends on how you define frustrated. There is much talk of God's anger, patience and other such emotions that seems difficult for us to fully understand with regard to his divine nature.