Is God Insincere With The Gospel Offer?

[George Antonios]

We're just splitting hairs now guys.
One thing is certain: God offering a man a false offer of salvation makes God a cruel deceiver of the worst sort.
Calvinism is a slander to God's character made palatable by the supposed great humility which that heresy allows a man to claim.

 

[George Antonios]

Your position doesn’t address the untold billions that died never hearing the gospel.

You're right. I was focusing on one point. About that:

1) "untold billions"? Where do you get that?
2) A very very small minority never heard. If a man never heard, it's because he wasn't honest enough with the 2 witnesses that God gives to every man: creation and conscience. If a man isn't honest with those 2 witnesses, then God is under no obligation to provide further light. I.e. the man who never heard, never heard because he showed he didn't want to hear the 3rd witness by refusing the first 2 witnesses.
Cornelius for example was honest with the light he had, so God sent him a preacher.
I know of a man in Iran who turned to Christ by reading his Qur'an.

 

[canadyjd]

I want to clarify one thing first. You claim that I said "very likely", but I actually said is "very possible" not even "probably". Do you know what the difference is

Looks like a distinction without a difference to me.

Just like your belief God wants us to give an insincere offer of salvation to those God knows will reject the gospel.

There is no real difference between your position and the reform position on the matter of “insincere” offer of salvation.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

God doesn't Call a person to say He is a Liar, or insincere.

God Calls Saved souls to say, "Nay but, O man, who art thou?"

That doesn't mean that, for example, an omni-potent fiend is automatically righteous even when he does evil.

God must still be righteous, as well as omni-potent.

The reply of O man, who art thou is to a man arguing that it's not just of God not to save him even though he follows the works of the law whereas he saves the man who doesn't work - not to a man arguing that it is not just of God to randomly choose people without a criterion.
Paul tells you at the end of the chapter that there is a criterion, and that criterion of selection is not works, but faith.

 

[canadyjd]

We're just splitting hairs now guys.
One thing is certain: God offering a man a false offer of salvation makes God a cruel deceiver of the worst sort.....

And yet, God tells us to make that offer of salvation to people He knows will reject it.

How does that not make your view the same as the reformed position on he issue of an “insincere” offer of salvation?

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

Just like your belief God wants us to give an insincere offer of salvation to those God knows will reject the gospel.

Just because he knows he will reject the offer doesn't make it insincere. You know that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Looks like a distinction without a difference to me.

Just like your belief God wants us to give an insincere offer of salvation to those God knows will reject the gospel.

There is no real difference between your position and the reform position on the matter of “insincere” offer of salvation.

peace to you

I am sorry there is no point in going any further on this as it is clear that you really don't understand what you are saying as it is out of your depth

 

[canadyjd]

That doesn't mean that, for example, an omni-potent fiend is automatically righteous even when he does evil.

God must still be righteous, as well as omni-potent.

The reply of O man, who art thou is to a man arguing that it's not just of God not to save him even though he follows the works of the law whereas he saves the man who doesn't work - not to a man arguing that it is not just of God to randomly choose people without a criterion.
Paul tells you at the end of the chapter that there is a criterion, and that criterion of selection is not works, but faith.

You are simply wrong. The criterion for salvation is God’s choice and that is the point of the chapter.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

The reformed view is that God so constituted mankind in fallen Adam as to render man unable even to see his fallen condition.
It's like drugging a man unconscious then burning him eternally for refusing to answer your call while he was unconscious.
That is WORLDS away from pleading with a conscious man to answer your call which he willingly rejects.

 

[Dave G]

you anwser actually shows that God desires the salvation of ALL human beings, whether Jews or non Jews!

I disagree, sir.

My response indicates that the Lord will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ), SBG.
While I believe that He does indeed desire to save a representative portion of the human race ( rather than cast us all into eternal punishment ) I no longer believe ( like I did some 20 years ago ) that His will is to see each and every sinner saved.

 

[George Antonios]

You are simply wrong. The criterion for salvation is God’s choice and that is the point of the chapter.

peace to you

Well let's ask the guy who wrote the chapter. Just check PAUL'S CONCLUSION:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of FAITH.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Rom 9:32 WHEREFORE?

Oh, I know! I know! Because of God's eternal decree of unconditional election?!

No:

Because they sought it not by FAITH, but as it were by the WORKS of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and WHOSOEVER [NOT THE "ELECT"] BELIEVETH on him shall not be ashamed.

The conclusion must interpret the development. Calvinism gets so lost in the development of the chapter that it forgets Paul's own conclusion of what he just said.

 

[canadyjd]

I am sorry there is no point in going any further on this as it is clear that you really don't understand what you are saying as it is out of your depth

I understand what I’m saying and so do you. You can’t answer the questions, you won’t even try. Only possible reason is you can’t.

Just explain why your position that God tells us to proclaim the gospel to those He knows will reject it is not an insincere offer of salvation but the reformed position is an insincere offer?

I’ll wait patiently over here and out of my depth.

Peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

My response indicates that the Lord will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ),

No one denies that God is "sovereign" is setting his own criteria of salvation. But there are still criteria. Paul literally concludes that chapter by saying that the criterion is "faith".

 

[Dave G]

Here once again Calvinism denies Matthew 23:13 where some fallen people are seeking God by seeking to enter the kingdom.

I recognize the truth of Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18 and many others, Van.

That we as men are dead, and the only way that any of us seek Him is because of His work.

Usually when cases are cited where people are seeking God, salvation, eternal life, and the like Calvinism's answer is to say they were not "really" seeking God.

Quite the contrary.
See my above.

Seeking the Lord and His ways is a matter of the heart, not a matter of outward obedience.

 

[Dave G]

However, in this verse, they were effective because they were in the process of entering the kingdom.

I see that they were entering the kingdom, because God had mercy on them and they were / are His elect.
In other words, nothing they did, in and of themselves, ever resulted in the Lord granting them His favor.

For a good example of this, see the book of Ruth.

Calvinism has no answer, so they will change the subject.

Firstly, I'm not a "Calvinist" as I don't follow John Calvin.
But you are free to pin me with any label that you like.

Secondly,
Instead of changing the subject, why not answer post # 108 where I pointed out your changing of the words of Scripture?

 

[George Antonios]

I no longer believe ( like I did some 20 years ago ) that His will is to see each and every sinner saved.

...and what a relief that was...

 

[SavedByGrace]

I understand what I’m saying and so do you. You can’t answer the questions, you won’t even try. Only possible reason is you can’t.

Just explain why your position that God tells us to proclaim the gospel to those He knows will reject it is not an insincere offer of salvation but the reformed position is an insincere offer?

I’ll wait patiently over here and out of my depth.

Peace to you

 

[Dave G]

No one denies that God is "sovereign" is setting his own criteria of salvation. But there are still criteria. Paul literally concludes that chapter by saying that the criterion is "faith".

I'm sorry George, but I disagree.

The criterion is not faith, which is a benefit of being saved, but is rather God's purposes according to election ( Romans 9:11 ).
Paul literally spells it out in Romans 1 through Romans 11.
He tells the Roman believers why they have the faith that they have, which distinguishes them from the unbelievers around them.

The reason why people believe is because of God's work in a willfully rebellious sinner, drawing them to Himself in a merciful act of His grace.
The Lord Jesus tells us the same things in Matthew 11, Matthew 13, John 3, John 6, John 8, John 10 and many other places.

If you are unable to see that, then I am sorry, sir.

 

[canadyjd]

Just because he knows he will reject the offer doesn't make it insincere. You know that.

Is a man capable of accepting the offer of salvation if God already knows he will reject it? Of course not.

Your position is no different from the reformed position on the issue of whether the offer is “insincere”.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Right. No answer. No attempt to answer.

Looks like it’s time to ignore the fact you can’t answer and start another thread attacking reformed theology.

bananas

peace to you