Is God Partial?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: wonderful assertion -- please show that it is actually "true"/

HP: It is as simple as believing God has chosen to share His gospel message via the means of man who has been granted a free will and is limited in many respects as to the completeness of the task of sharing the good news for many reasons. Again, God is under no obligation to share it with any, and is under no obligation to share it with all. That in no way takes away from the fact that the atonement was made for all and is sufficient for all.

It is not as if thou God arbitrarily picks a selected few as the Calvinist would have us believe, but rather that he has chosen to limit Himself in the spreading of the gospel message to finite means that is not a perfect and universal in its handling of the task. Why God has chosen this means, the utilization of man with a free will to share the news is not within my abilities to understand. There is nothing arbitrary about God’s choosing. It is the means He chose, for reasons known to Himself, why men are engaged in the sharing of the news and men thereby chosen by that means.

Foreknowing those that would have the opportunity to respond to a message disseminated by free moral agents, and foreknowing those free moral agents that would fulfill His stated conditions, we are chosen by God. There is not anything arbitrary about that in the least. There certainly is a mystery involved in the chosen means, but nothing points or necessitates anything arbitrary as you suppose.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP:
I will say this. Just because God indeed does choose some while leaving others without hearing the message, is no indication that His means or individuals chosen are arbitrary or arbitrarily chosen.

BobRyan:

wonderful assertion -- please show that it is actually "true"/

I probably should have added "IN the light of Roman 2 where it stated that your arbitrary selection idea is not true".

BR : You still have failed to grasp God's mercy . He has been merciful to some . That is His perfect right as God . Since all deserve condemnation
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1035633&postcount=20

You have failed to grasp the point - still.

GOD COULD have sovereignly chosen to say

"God so loved the arbitrarily selected FEW that He gave His son"

and COULD have sovereignly chosen to say

"Christ is the light that coming into the world enlightens JUST A FEW -- just those God arbitrarily selected"

God COULD have sovereignly chosen to say

"Christ is the atoning sacrifice for OUR SINS alone -- and possibly for those FEW who are as yet unsaved but still arbitrarily selected to BE saved some day"


There is NO DEBATE on the fact that HE COULD have made a gospel composed of that kind of Calvinist arbitrary selection core doctrine. After all - ALL sinned and ALL are condemned.

BUT INSTEAD God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE to say

"God so loved the WORLD that He gave..." yes REALLY
"Christ is the light that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man"
"Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our SINS and for the WHOLE WORLD"
"God sent His son to be the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD"
"God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance"
"IF ANYONE hears my voice and opens the door THEN I WILL come in"

Calvinism continually tries to "go back in time" and pretend God is just now choosing scripture AS IF TO SAY "HE could have sovereignly chosen it either way" and indeed He could! But the book is NOW WRITTEN friends!

God has clearly MADE His sovereign choice!

Why not simply accept what it says??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rippon
God is Sovereign
He is "allowed" to choose a few brands from the burning . God is not be to faulted for permitting Himself to choose who He wants . As a matter of fact , God can do anything He wants and no worm of the dust can say otherwise .

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1035633&postcount=20

Allow me to illustrate your point with perfect clarity sir.

You argue that we should NOT be whining and complaining about those who go to hell - rather we should focus on the FEW that are arbitrarily selected (recall there is NO DIFFERENCE between the saved and lost that SHOULD predispose God to SELECT one over the other in Calvinism) -- and note the MERCY shown to THEM.

And so ...our illustration BEGINS..



5 and 4 pt Calvinist Future Scenario:

“Showing” the requirement of 4 and 5 point Calvinism to have the “luxury” of a cold disregard for the non-elect “When the non-Elect are finally Known”. (In the perfect Calvinist Utopian future). This scenario simply removes that “luxury” (for a moment) in order to emphasize the point 4-5 Pt Calvinism makes about God Himself – vs the view that “God so Loved the World that He Gave…Really” (something that both Arminians and 3-pt Calvinists seem to Agree on).


When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry

"Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear – "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Hallelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not.
(For within Calvinism it IS all about the saved/elect in the end)

We see the Calvinist blessing the fact that God chose him albeit not his precious daughter. AND that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's.

So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

By contrast – Moses’ prayer of intercession on behalf of the CHILDREN of Israel is to blot out HIS name and take THEM!!


<You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?>

Here we see Calvinism’s view of God who (arbitrarily from the POV of human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
[/quote]



Calvinist future scenario complete!


Notice the “focus” in that perfect Calvinist utopian future - is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!

JohnP
I see no reason to rejoice over the death of anyone but I glory to God it wasn't me.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1576/15.html#000217

All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians (and our 3-Pt Calvinist Bretheren) - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance". Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too. I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: It is as simple as believing God has chosen to share His gospel message via the means of man who has been granted a free will and is limited in many respects as to the completeness of the task of sharing the good news for many reasons. Again, God is under no obligation to share it with any, and is under no obligation to share it with all.

God declares that "He Draws ALL" you say "oh no - not really ALL" as you have well stated above.

God says HE "convicts the WORLD of SIN and righteousness ANd of judgment" you say that "This is not enough".

God says He "ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN" and you say "this is not enough for salvation to actually be accessible - available"

In each case where God is arguing against your "does not share with all" argument you say "that is not enough".

What does this get you? What problem is solved by swimming up stream against scripture on this point?

ESPECIALLY when you have the contradicting argument that the Atonement in fact WAS made FOR ALL!!

That in no way takes away from the fact that the atonement was made for all and is sufficient for all.

It is not as if thou God arbitrarily picks a selected few as the Calvinist would have us believe, but rather that he has chosen to limit Himself in the spreading of the gospel message to finite means that is not a perfect and universal in its handling of the task.

The problem is that when God DOES show a perfect universal means for ALL you keep saying "yes and though that reaches all it is not enough".

So you keep getting back to the "story that is told" and the fact that not ALL have "the same level of story".

Romans 2 deals with that point. Those who have no access at all to the WORD of God.

Why do you keep ignoring it??

What does it get you?

What problem is it solving?

in Christ,

Bob