"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life", or derivatives of this statement, are patently unbiblical. I concur with you, Rick, that we are to tell our children that God is love, but we cannot speak with certainty that God loves any individual sinner. God's love is not static. It is not a feeling. God's love is always in action achieving His desired purpose.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Evangelism
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
- Status
"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life", or derivatives of this statement, are patently unbiblical. I concur with you, Rick, that we are to tell our children that God is love, but we cannot speak with certainty that God loves any individual sinner. God's love is not static. It is not a feeling. God's love is always in action achieving His desired purpose.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
.. i.e. "Them".
That is consistent for the Calvinist POV. Credit where credit is due.
But it is not consistent with "God so loved the WORLD - yes really!"
And it is not consistent with "God is NOT WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3.
And it is not consistent with "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD".
And it is not consistent with "WE BEG YOU on behalf of Christ BE Reconciled to God" 2Cor 5.
So when the Calvinist teaches his child to sing "Jesus Loves Me" he is being biblically correct but when he tells his child "God is Love but that does not mean He loves you. We really don't know if God loves you no matter what the Bible says to the contrary" - they are being true to Calvinism but not true to the Bible.
A few posts ago we were asked to contrast these two scenarios.
1. Arminian. Tells his child "God loves the WORLD - and that includes YOU. He died for you and His Holy Spirit is urging you to accept the Gospel. Please accept Christ as your Savior and live forever". This has God all on board for the salvation of that child and asks the child to agree to it.
2. But Calvinism tells the little child "God is Love but may not necessarily love you. But I love you whether God does or not. Let us pray and ask God to consider loving you and sovereignly saving you. Who knows??? Maybe He will sovereignly make that as His choice. We can always hope".
Now we are asked to view the two and consider which one is more Biblically correct.
What say you?
Are you really so married to the idea of adding "not really WORLD and not really ALL" to all the Bible texts that say Calvinism is wrong?
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Making it "sound like" Jesus died "to save us" -- died to save THEM.
The Arminian view of it would have been fully consistent to the point of reading "God so Loved" scripture to them saying "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" because as the Bible says "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" - please accept Christ as your savior --- in your "Bible reading".
Little children respond well to such a loving God.
OR did you keep adding each time you read something like "God so Loved the WORLD that He gave" -- "well not really the WORLD just the FEW of Matt 7 that he selects out to go to heaven". Because the more you add "well not really all" and "well not really WORLD" in your Bible reading with your little children - the more they get a dim view of the God of the Bible.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
2Cor 5
18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God
Hopefully Calvinist parents will one day be comfortable with this level of direct blatant evangelism with their own children.
in Christ,
Bob
I've already answered these questions. I've explained to your that "world" almost never in any language in any time period means every single person on the earth.
Your failure to address those answers is proof positive that you are in over your head in this debate.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You did not show through exegesis of the actual Bible texts listed that "World does not really mean world" and that "all does not really mean all".
Therefore there are no "answers" to address.
It is easy to claim that "mountain does not always mean literal mountain" -- "a mountain of difficulty" - but that does not prove that Mt Everest is not a real mountain.
You simply argue that if World or ALL is EVER used in a way that is not fully inclusive - well then it must NEVER be used in that way when it gets in the way of OSAS - -- that is no exegesis - that is eisegesis at its purest level.
Your use of circular reasoning is obvious when you address the problem of John 3:16 "God so loved the WORLD -- yes really!" by an argument of the form "not really world - because that would not work with OSAS and so we must assume that this is one of those times when WORLD should not be taken as all inclusive. That way OSAS will survive it". -- as if this proves OSAS survives the text.
You cannot blame the flaw in your response - on me.
The hermeneutic that accepts the apparent meaning of the text unless something in that text argues against it - is the most consistent and reliable.
Think about it. What JW doctrine could not survive if the agreed upon hermeneutic was "just reach for any alternate interpretation that does not get in the way of your preferred doctrine whenever the Bible appears to contradict your tradition"??
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not explain that nouns are nouns either. I shouldn't have to. I pointed out to you a very obvious thing- that WORLD almost never means every single person on earth in history.
That is a fact that even the biggest moron on earth would acknowledge. So I don't have to PROVE the obvious- or at least I should not have to.
You have yet to remotely begin to support with exegesis your ridiculous claim that "world" DOES mean every single person.
You just keep copying verses and CLAIMING it does.
Thinking people require more than claims without warrant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ryan,
We have been through this before and I dispute your understanding of what Paul wrote. If Paul meant to say that God was actually reconciling the entire world (without distinction), then the entire world would be reconciled. Unless you are a Universalist that is not, and will not, happen. Additionally this passage makes no reference to the love of God, or to the love of God without distinction.
As a Calvinist parent I raised my child in light of the Gospel. I did not tell her that "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life." God forbid that I should do that! Just as Rick said, I raised my daughter to understand that God is love. I also taught her that God is holy and cannot abide sin. In short, I proclaimed the Gospel to her. Praise God that she came to the point in her life that she understood her sinfulness and her guilt before a holy God. She repented of her sins and trusted in Christ. Now I can say to her, "God loves you!"
EXACTLY.... praise God from all blessings flow!!! :godisgood:
See Bob, this is the crux of the whole matter regarding biblical interpretation... IE., there are really only two positions that a person can occupy on this matter. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. I side with those who believe that salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it.
- Status