Featured "Targeting" and Soteriology

Iconoclast...you posted....

Praise God! That is one of my fAVORITE scriptures. Its just so wonderfull. God is sooo good!

And to think that any sinner on the earth, can respond to Gods gosple message, and simply, with sincerity, place thier faith in Christ, and...recieve eternal life!!

Its Glorious!

 

NOBODY believes that.

Even Arminians believe that people must hear the Word of God in order to be saved.

There are billions of people who live and die and never hear the Word of God which means that it is not true that ANY SINNER on earth can respond to God's Gospel and receive eternal life.

You can't respond to a Gospel you have never heard. Billions every generation live and die having never heard.

All of those exclamation points and emotionalism and so little thoughtfulness.

 

All I have to work with is the fraction of the passage from Deuteronomy 30 that you posted. If you look at Moses' words you will understand that he was not writing about salvation but obedience to the Law. Carry the context back to chapter 27 and you will clearly see the contrast between blessing and cursing is based on obedience, or disobedience, to God's Law. To extrapolate the free choice in salvation from this part of the last book of the Law is beyond any respected hermeneutical system. I appeal to some of the non-Cal's in here to agree with me on this. You can still hold to the free will position, but please do not gut a passage of scripture of its context. It is poor scholarship and forces an idea into a passage instead of understanding the idea contained within the passage.

 

A COMPLIMENT!! There's a first time for everything after all.
:smilewinkgrin:

Not if God has decreed the the consequences- which, of course, he has.

I'll have to go back and read my post but I thought I said "most". If not, I should have.

I still think that this is true.

There are open theists who believe that God does not know which particular future is going to take place- but these folks are still way in the minority.

Even Dr. Rogers believed that God did indeed KNOW exactly who would and would not accept Christ, which means that he believed each person's salvation was set in eternity past.

 

So to summarize, many people do not believe the future is fixed.

Many people believe we sin of our own volition, and not because our choices have been predetermined. God is not the author of sin.

Some Arminians do not believe our salvation was predetermined before creation, and many non-Cal also believe nearly everyone has the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel, provided they are exposed to it.

Several challenged the characterization of absurdity for the Calvinist defense, but it remains absurd. The argument from silence, i.e. everyone who believes and is saved was secretly called, and no one else even has an opportunity to believe, has absolute no support in scripture, but is instead demonstrated false in passage after passage, such as Matthew 13:1-26.

Sin has consequences for ourselves and our loved one. Our sins result from our choices and we can choose at least some of the time to seek God and trust in Christ.

 

Luke...

You posted...

Really? Millons never hear??

Lets see what God has to say...

ALL recieve Light.

I recommend you spend less time with your Calvinistic propoganda, and more time with Gods pure truth found in the scriptures.

Unworthy of a response.

 

Okay. Let me get this straight. Do you think that this "natural revelation" is enough to save a person without him having ever heard of the Gospel of Christ?

I'll not condemn you if do think this. But I am going to make a point if you don't.

 

Luke..

You asked,,,

Absolutly.

These are NOT people who have heard and rejected. These are people who never heard the gosple. Millions of people lived and died and never heard the gosple in any way or form

God being the supremely magnificent God He is has, aprarently not forgotten these ones, and will give then opportunity.

And btw...its not "natural" revelation, as you called it. Its Divine revelation

And I praise Him for it.

 

A1C,

First, theologians on both sides of the aisle, consider natural revelation to be the common knowledge that there is a God through the witness of creation. This knowledge is not able to save inasmuch as it does not reveal man's sin or the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. Divine revelation is communication from God, usually through the agency of the Holy Spirit, although there have been instances of christophanies (pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus Christ, i.e. Daniel 3:25). Divine revelation typically occurred with the patriarchs, prophets, and Apostles. These are commonly agreed on terms that Calvinist and non-Calvinist theologians, scholars, and pastors use all the time.

God is not fair according to our definition of fair. He is under no obligation to save anyone. Among the attributes of God you never read the "fair God." You will read about the just God; the holy God; the loving God; the merciful God et. al. If God is fair, as we understand fair, then he is under compulsion to either save everyone or condemn everyone. That is the fair thing to do. But God is not fair. God is holy and just; loving and merciful. God saves some based on the counsel of his own will, and all that he saves come through his son, Jesus. Those that do come through Christ, do so on the basis of faith. Paul wrote:

Romans 1:15-16 15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Paul was eager to preach the Gospel because he knew that without hearing it there was no possibility of being saved. God does not save the tribal person in the bush, who has never heard of God or the Gospel, just because he may have lived up to the light he had. Is that fair? No. Is it fact? Yes. I believe you are making the error of fashioning a God to fit your worldview. This is dangerous for you are exceeding the clear teachings of Scripture.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: The jn 1:9 trump card again...he uses this more than someone else mis-uses eccl7:29...lol

it does not matter what they actually mean.....just post the verses and ascribe whatever mystical meaning you want to!

 

:wavey: Yes another good post...a nice and kind response offering correction, but already the jn 1:9 trump card has been played.:wavey:

 

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deu 32:4)

Speaking of God's attributes...God is Truth. All His ways are judgment, and He is Just in that judgment; I would say the (apparently Calvinistically overlooked) attribute of Truth in this matter should be clear that it is fair, why?, it is based on the free will of the creatures to respond, or not. For God's judgment to be in truth means the creatures being judged have the volition to chose after being having been exposed the light which God provided to every man in the world. Yes (John 1:9)! Why else would no man have an excuse when it comes to judgment (Rom 1;20)? Sounds fair to me.

God is fair as we understand truth in the matter of judgment,and without Truth what values does the Calvinist have left to hold to God's attributes? Nil, the doctrine of determinism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

I depends on how you define fair. If by fair you mean that God is just in all His dealings with man, then I suppose that definition will suffice. But is that the normative understanding of fair? I do not think so. Fair gives the impression of equity. Does God owe one person the same as another? Is God under compulsion, as a fair God, to ensure that every person is exposed to the Gospel at least once in their life? If we answer "yes" to that question then is it fair that person A hears the Gospel message fifty times but person B only hears it once? Is that how we are to understand God?

You are reading into Deu. 32:4 what is not there. You wrote:

Even in English grammar since when is truth synonymous with fair unless the object is fair itself? You are trying to find fairness in the text when the larger context is one of guilt and judgment. Look the two verses after the one you quoted:

Deuteronomy 32:5-6 5 "They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation. 6 "Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you."

Moses is writing to the nation of Israel. Should God be fair here and act according to their folly? No. The LORD displayed mercy to Israel, a mercy flowing from His grace; a mercy that Israel did not deserve.

Deuteronomy 32:7-13 7 "Remember the days of old, Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, Your elders, and they will tell you. 8 "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel. 9 "For the LORD'S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance. 10 "He found him in a desert land, And in the howling waste of a wilderness; He encircled him, He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of His eye. 11 "Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, That hovers over its young, He spread His wings and caught them, He carried them on His pinions. 12 "The LORD alone guided him, And there was no foreign god with him. 13 "He made him ride on the high places of the earth, And he ate the produce of the field; And He made him suck honey from the rock, And oil from the flinty rock,"

If God was fair He would have condemned Israel in Deut. 32; pay them back for all their unfaithfulness towards Him.

All of us need to thankful that God is not fair. We should be glad that He has not paid us back for all our sin. Instead of fairness we receive mercy and grace.

 

Even Dr. Rogers believed that God did indeed KNOW exactly who would and would not accept Christ, which means that he believed each person's salvation was set in eternity past.

Just a footnote to second what Skandelon said. Dr. A. Rogers believes God can know something will happen in the future and not cause it to happen, so he does believe God's knowledge of the future sets it in stone.

By the way, Dr. A. Rodgers believes we are fallen and therefore depraved, but this depravity does not result in being unable to hear God. So he too does not equate being spiritually dead with being unable to hear. He cites the usual passages, Adam could hear God after he ate and therefore was dead. I do not think that follows but that was his argument. He cites Romans 1 where unregenerates know all sorts of spiritual things, again showing "dead" people can hear and understand God's revelation. He cites John 1:9 which says God lights every man.

Dr. A. Rodgers also rejects unconditional election, and accepts as I do election conditioned up faith.

The good doctor rejects limited atonement and cites, guess what, 1 John 2:2. Then he points to verse 16 to demonstrate world refers to fallen mankind and not to the elect.

Then he goes 4 for 4, rejecting Irresistible grace, citing Acts 7 and Proverbs 1:22.

And like me, he accepts eternal security, once saved always saved.

Candor requires I point out that Dr Rodgers accepts total omniscience, and that when the Bible speaks of foreknowledge, it refers to God's knowledge of the future, both of which differ from my views. And finally he defends the "mystery" view that even though we cannot make sense of it, whosoever wills enters into the kingdom through a door that reads from God's side "chosen before the foundation of the world."

But his agreement of 4 out of 7 of my views demonstrates the Bible teaches that the TULI points of the tulip are bogus.

 

MorseOp

For some reason my copy and paste function has quit on me (not surprised considering I am on a computer)

So I have to respond in a very crude way.

You disagreed rearding the truth that God will give potentially saving revelation to those have not heard the gosple.

The scriptures prove you wrong.

In the book of revelation we find the passage of scripture that informs that at that time there were saved people..IN HEAVEN from every single tribe and every single tounge alive on earth at that time.

It is a complete imposibiity for the gosple to have been heard by every tribe and toughe on earth at that time.

And yet, there they were. In heaven. Still there today.

How did they get their?

I know. The scriptures tell us.

 

Now be careful, don’t hurt your argument by admitting to the divine attribute of Truth in all His dealing with man, it may lead to confession of a genuine offer of grace being made with all men next, and that is extremely self-defeating to the determinist doctrine.

Ah, here we go, I knew that "But" was coming…

On the contrary a normal understanding of “fair” would include “impartiality” and in the subject at hand this relates to divine judgment being "just" in relation to God being a God of Love, Mercy, Truth and a genuine offer of grace gifted by the means of “true” availability. All this logically has to be based on Him giving His creatures the volition that would assign responsibility for their actions during judgment. To deny that is to deny He is Truth.

Owe??? God is Truth, it has nothing to do with the strawman fallacious attempt that would suggest "owing", what it has to do with is His Being and Nature, all His ways, including “judgment” being in "Truth".

That is like asking does God have to have truth to be a God of Truth? Or can’t God make 2+2=5…or how about make a rock so big that even He can’t lift it?

You are simply striving to develop ways of disagreement with that all God’s ways are judgment and just in "truth" concerning all His creatures in all His creation. Are you suggesting it is necessary that we understand God through a Determinist’ view of pre-selected partiality rather than understanding that He can give sufficient light to all His creatures on which He bases His judgment in an impartial way?

I’m sorry, but it is you reading your doctrine into that clear scripture. You are demonstrating a mere desperate attempt of trying separate truth away from coming to a conclusion (divine judgment), which would include all the divine attributes of Love, Mercy and Justice, and your question amounts to, “Does fairness have to be based in truth?” That is like asking can’t T+F=T? The answer is NO, BTW.

As per Deut 32:4: All of God’s ways are judgment in truth and He is Merciful as well as Just. The fact that God displays mercy does not equate to that one must sacrifice the Divine attribute of Truth in judgment. Your argument remains centered on trying to rest on that premise while you try to read the doctrine of Determinism into the associations between all His ways being judgment/truth/just and are still attempting to remove the central aspect of “Truth” from the equation.

That is man’s idea of justice and fairness but God’s way includes an offer of mercy and grace in His judgment with a condition of a true response, ...whether or not some men would like to consider that condition fair or not. Hmmm?

We need to be thankful that in His Merciful Love He gave a genuine offer of Grace to whosoever will believe in love of the truth that He brought into the world, namely the Light, Jesus Christ, whom He sacrificed to fulfill a promise of an offer of redemption for all in the world He lovingly created…and that He did this in Truth.

It is Not instead of fairness, that argument amounts to an attempt to use ambiguous semantics of redefining the meaning of “fair” to support determinism by separating fairness from the aspects of truth in regards to divine judgment to fit that doctrine (That is the point of reference concerning the meaning of “fair” coinciding with “truth” which you are trying to separate).

We need to accept ALL divine attributes being in Truth; one being that His offer is given in “truth” and this comes with a condition of requiring a “true” response. We need to be thankful that He is Truth in all His ways and be grateful that we have the volition to respond to Christ’ drawing of all men unto Him through His Word. It is “true” that from the beginning that God, in His Great Love, that He Divinely designed a world in which He thought it Just to provide a means of a “true” offer of mercy by divine grace through “true” faith which is given in “love of the truth” for all His creatures, whosoever will believe.

True faith requires a true response. We should be thankful that His justice is based on “truth” in His judgment and should understand that He knows our hearts, whether or not we are “truly” responding in love of all that is “True” of Him and we should NOT be trying to rest on an excuse of inability and claiming that fairness can only come through not having a “real” (true) choice in the matter of a true response. How does such a belief of the Determinist not equate to the message being a mere illusion, a lie? The doctrine of determinism must attempt to toss out the value of truth (that has been shown to be abundantly clear by your arguments) and in the process Determinism unavoidably becomes a fatalistic theology at its roots.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Rom 1:20)

 

Careful; you are too close to me on this. You know what that could get you.

 

No, I would be in good company :thumbs: