Predestination: Meaning and Application

[bound]

The word thing is such a precise term. Wow. You are actually going to academically argue that time is not a thing. Let me offer you a definition for the word thing from dictionary.com, "Thing: An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence." So as you can see time is a thing. Is it an object, no? You are limiting the word thing to material matter. Time is not material matter but it is a factor in understanding creation. Creation is subject to time and space. Matter cannot exist eternally due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Heat Death would ensue from the state of equilibrium that all systems eventually reach. If you want to talk about time and eternity, I am your Huckleberry.

Grace and Peace,

Awesome, I appreciate the opportunity to work out a few theories with you.

Okay, first I agree with your point concerning time being a 'thing' within the context of your definition. It is true I was speaking particularly about creation (i.e. material creation) and thus giving 'thing-ness' the characteristics of object-ness.

With regards to time and it being a part of understanding nature, again I agree Creation by it's very nature is not Eternal and thus change and through it the ability to measure it (i.e. time) is an inherent attribute but I don't believe it is a necessary component in understanding God or His Foreknowledge of all things (Omniscience) in which I believe we both agree.

Your point is not necessarily apparent in terms of the need to understand the metaphysics of time for our theological discourse. Causality does not necessarily have anything to do with time. Determination is not necessarily Fatalism. So what is your point?

It is true that everything God knows must occur according to his will. If it did not, then God would be wrong in what he knew. For an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong in what it knows. However, it does not follow from this that all events are determined (i.e. caused by God). God could simply determine that we be self-determining beings in a moral sense. The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make the event determined. But the fact that God does not force them to choose, is enough to establish that human free acts are not determined (caused) by another but by oneself. God determined the fact of human freedom, but free creatures perform the acts of human freedom.

If such is not the case if God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible. One is only responsible for a choice if there was free will to avoid making it. All responsibility implies the ability to respond, either on one's own or by God's grace. Ought implies can. But if God caused the action, then we could not have avoided it. Hence, we are not responsible.

I will state my hypothesis once again and you please feel free to interject. My view is that God is sovereign and created the world with a predetermined outcome. That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion. Sin has now entered the world and completely corrupts man's relationship with God the creator. While God elected some and not others, each one who is elect must believe on Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Those who are non-elect will not believe on Jesus Christ, either due to an inability or lack of opportunity. Regardless, man's will is not coerced or forced or violated in the process of regeneration and conversion to Christ. Apart from the gospel there is no opportunity for salvation.

Well I'm glad you admit it as only a hypothesis because although you suggest your thesis allows for free exercise of human will if you assume God's Foreknowledge is molested by said will I don't honestly see any moral responsibility for evil outside of God Himself as not only the secondary cause which is a given in most theistic theories but in fact the primary one in yours.

I find this morally unacceptable for a 'Good' God and more in line with the Gnostic Demiurge.

Could you address my concerns and perhaps illuminate if I am understand you incorrectly.

Peace.

 

[npetreley]

What gets me is the use of language on this board. I would offer for your consideration one more metaphor, a news paper.

Are you suggesting that some of us need to be paper trained?

 

[npetreley]

Hello, it was a joke. For the record, I personally have been attact just now by you now for the second time, and do you see me getting all upset? On the contrary I am trying to show you that you can be bigger than reactionary statements. But for the record, if I hurt your feelings then I am so sorry. I apologize to everyone especially those are seriously offended both morally and socially for my apparent break in form from what otherwise has been a decent track record.

For what it's worth, I took it as a joke, and I would have laughed even if it was my picture and you said the same thing to me. However, for the record, regardless of what his picture looks like, I seriously think he should take an anger management class, and that is not a joke. I don't know if hypertension is the cause or will be the effect, but the kind of outbursts I see here sure look like hypertension and emotional issues to me. I know he'll take that as an insult, but it is honest concern, based on the fact that I had hypertension problems from being overweight, and I know how that affected my mood and behavior. And there's always the reverse, too -- anger can cause hypertension, which just makes anger harder to control.

 

[Brother Bob]

For what it's worth, I took it as a joke, and I would have laughed even if it was my picture and you said the same thing to me. However, for the record, regardless of what his picture looks like, I seriously think he should take an anger management class, and that is not a joke. I don't know if hypertension is the cause or will be the effect, but the kind of outbursts I see here sure look like hypertension and emotional issues to me. I know he'll take that as an insult, but it is honest concern, based on the fact that I had hypertension problems from being overweight, and I know how that affected my mood and behavior. And there's always the reverse, too -- anger can cause hypertension, which just makes anger harder to control.

If you notice I never say anything to anyone except when joking until they first attack me. I don't take kindly to being attacked and neither do you Npet;
You are a lot like me whether you admit it or not for no one and I mean no one can say something negative to you without you attacking with all you got the same as me. So, if I need some medication then so do you and if you do not believe it go back and look at your posts. I think you are very intelligent but like me you get really involved. I don't call that "losing it" but maybe some do. It is my way of defending my position on any given subject. I do not personally attack (with the exception of joking) unless first attacked and for some odd reason it has always been a Calvinist. Maybe you can explain that part. We have been kinda close and then we go for the throats. You and I.
This entire thread went peacefully until BP/T began to talk about my picture being a picture of hate and I needed the net. Then it blew and you know that is the truth and if you don't then go back and read the thread. This guy is into unprogramming and then reporgramming. You think that don't scare me. Sounds like someone else I saw on the news about 20 or 30 years ago.
Npet; I would much rather be your friend than your enemy. If you attack me then I will respond in kind. If you show respect then I will likewise to the same. peace

I will make you a pact. You go take a anger management class and I will too. You deal with weight. I deal with trying to live with only half my heart left. You don't know me and could never judge me until you walk a mile in my shoes. As I said, you are just as quick to jump as I have ever been. Kindness has been something hard to find in you.

Also, my responses has always been in response to others like yourself. You all can not get me to accept your beliefs and cannot overcome the Scriptures I put to you so you attack. You say you don't see nothing wrong with him making fun of my avatar but it was done for other reasons and you know it, but he didn't stop there, he went on to "get the net" and I will not post them again but said way too much. Again, read the thread and see if it was not peaceful until he started with the remarks. Now just for your knowledge, I have always been just the way I am now and I suspect you have too.

 

[npetreley]

You are a lot like me

I'm sorry, Bob, but God forbid.

 

[Brother Bob]

I am talking about responding on here and the posts speak for themselves.

For what it's worth, I took it as a joke, and I would have laughed even if it was my picture and you said the same thing to me. However, for the record, regardless of what his picture looks like, I seriously think he should take an anger management class, and that is not a joke. I don't know if hypertension is the cause or will be the effect, but the kind of outbursts I see here sure look like hypertension and emotional issues to me. I know he'll take that as an insult, but it is honest concern, based on the fact that I had hypertension problems from being overweight, and I know how that affected my mood and behavior. And there's always the reverse, too -- anger can cause hypertension, which just makes anger harder to control.

I guess I am supposed to take this as a favor. Gee thanks,

 

[Benjamin]

I was thinking Bob’s picture looked a bit like Jack Nicholson.

 

[Brother Bob]

Thanks Benjamin;

Isn't this something that this thread has demeaned to my picture and because they had no answer for not using the whole chapter of Paul and I pointed it out to them they attacked my picture. I put my dog up so they can't get to him. After the attack, I responded so I need a anger management class. lol

Its the old saying, if you don't like the message then kill the messenger and tell the world he was angry.

Just for the record npet;
please show my losing it and be sure to give the context and if you were in it. Please post where it is so I can go see why it happened. Most of all please show if I sinned for the Lord said to get angry but sin not.

 

[npetreley]

I will make you a pact. You go take a anger management class and I will too. You deal with weight. I deal with trying to live with only half my heart left. You don't know me and could never judge me until you walk a mile in my shoes. As I said, you are just as quick to jump as I have ever been. Kindness has been something hard to find in you.

I don't think I need an anger management class, Bob. And believe me, you haven't got the foggiest clue what I've been through, and what I live with daily. I won't burden you with the details, but if stress and heartache always led to temper and physical problems, I'd be long dead by now.

I can't walk a mile in your shoes, though, either. I did have a father with only half a heart left. He passed away earlier this year after about 2 years of not being able to recognize me anymore because his weak heart didn't get enough oxygen to his brain and the result was vascular dementia. He only had half a heart (or less for all I know) because he had a massive heart attack several years ago. Now, my father, I know he sure had major league anger management issues since I was old enough to recognize them. And although I'll never know for sure, I'd bet anything that his anger is what led to both his lengthy battle with hypertension issues (he was thin) and his heart attack. If you're like anyone, you're like my dad. Not only did he fly off the handle, you couldn't tell him a thing. I really miss him, despite the way he was, though. So I'm not saying we can't be friends. But I'm nothing like you.

 

[Brother Bob]

Wonder if you are anything like your Dad? Seems to me with your knowledge you would show more kindness than the rest but I guess not. I don't need a anger management class either. Do I get anger, you bet. You talk down to me, you talk about me or family I might add, you especially make fun of me you got your hands full. If you talk to me you probably got a friend. I walk miles for someone in need. I give until it hurts for people in need. I have served for Pastor for 25 years and ordained minister for 34. I see to all my churchs needs and members so for someone on BB like yourself or another to attack me because I don't believe as you do then I respond. I always have and too old to change now. People either accept me for what I am or leave me alone and I certainly will leave them alone. I have preached 2 funerals this past week, I preach at least one a week and sometimes more. Not just my denomination but several call me to take care of their love ones so that don't sound like a anger management case does it. You judge me wrongly because of how I respond to being attacked on BB. Well, you attack, I will respond. If someone came in my yard and attacked me I would run them off in a hurry. I would not say "son come in for a while". I would put them off my land. Too many people playing the hypocrit and getting people in the church for the wrong reasons. We are here to serve the Lord and that means being able to do the hard part as well as the easy. Everyone cannot lead a church. They are not able to stand up when standing is necessary so the church goes the way of the wind. Yes, I am a very strong willed man and give my life to working for the Lord. Don't read this and say I forgot love and kindness for if you knew me you would know better. peace

 

[npetreley]

Whatever, Bob. I'm not going to get into a contest with you on how hard my life has been or how great I am. I think, instead, it's time to go back to making good on my decision not to respond to your posts anymore.

​

 

[Brother Bob]

Very well npet;, but work on the kindness thing ok, but I guess that is the love of God.:flower:

 

[Brother Bob]

npet;
For what it's worth, I took it as a joke, and I would have laughed even if it was my picture and you said the same thing to me. However, for the record, regardless of what his picture looks like, I seriously think he should take an anger management class, and that is not a joke. I don't know if hypertension is the cause or will be the effect, but the kind of outbursts I see here sure look like hypertension and emotional issues to me. I know he'll take that as an insult, but it is honest concern, based on the fact that I had hypertension problems from being overweight, and I know how that affected my mood and behavior. And there's always the reverse, too -- anger can cause hypertension, which just makes anger harder to control.

Please take care of yourself and leave me alone for you started this discussion, not I.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

It is true that everything God knows must occur according to his will. If it did not, then God would be wrong in what he knew. For an omniscient Mind cannot be wrong in what it knows.

Hence, my suggestion that the distinction in positions on predestination based on foreknowledge loses its significance when you consider the merit of what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that that God is basically reverse engineering the process of election without causality.

However, it does not follow from this that all events are determined (i.e. caused by God). God could simply determine that we be self-determining beings in a moral sense.

This is where you are offering what in effect is a Theodicy or a defense of God. You do not want to attribute causality to God because you view the world as less than ideal due to sin. You for obvious reasons do not want to attribute sin to God, therefore, your effort is to distance God from sin through suggesting that he knew it would happen but did not cause it to happen. For example, as I have already suggested by way of illustration that the states issues drivers licenses but they are not liable for the harm done due to DUIs. Neither is God liable for evil due to free moral agency. But that does not remove from God causality in determining the outcome of creation. The problem of evil is an entirely other ‘thing’ to discuss but let me just say for our present discussion that I have already addressed this concern in my hypothesis by stating the following:

That this world is the best of all available worlds or it is ideal inasmuch as God created it and he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, ie perfect. Therefore, he could have created the world another way but he chose to create this world the way he did. As a part of that creation man was endowed with a free moral agency. The fall resulted from man's rebellion.

I could unpack this statement but it would take more time than is currently available to me. Let me just say that I am not suggesting that God does not allow for free moral agency. Free moral agency is a factor in resolving the problem with evil. Notice I said the problem 'with' and not 'of' evil. If evils existence was a problem then God would be liable for allowing for evil. Yet even evil is permitted by God and therefore serves a purpose in the greater scheme of ‘things.’

The fact that He knows for certain what free creatures will do with their freedom is enough to make the event determined. But the fact that God does not force them to choose, is enough to establish that human free acts are not determined (caused) by another but by oneself. God determined the fact of human freedom, but free creatures perform the acts of human freedom.

I understand your point here and believe me I sympathize with your efforts to defend God. The defense is not necessary nor is it a proper defense. In defending God from evil you are doing damage to his sovereignty as creator. It is like asking do you want to get hit by a bus or freight train?

I can resolve the above concerns however without doing damage to either human free moral agency nor the sovereignty of God. For the moment let’s just suppose that the end is all that matters. We will not focus on the means by which we got to the end. In the end according to God’s foreknowledge which you agree if he has knowledge then that must be based on actuality or it must be factually correct. Therefore if he envisions creation with you being saved in the end, that must inevitably come to pass. Can we at least agree on that?

If such is not the case if God is the cause of all human actions, then human beings are not morally responsible.

Okay, I am not saying that this is going to be easily understood, but I want to go back to my earlier illustrations on election. Can you not agree that God could set up a maze which would have the necessary stimuli in place to successfully motivate the rat to both the rat’s and God’s desired end. The rat is put in a scenario where he makes choices, that is to say, he is not a remote control rat. The end result is the same as if he where a remote control rat. Why? Because of superior intelligence. Our intellect simply does not match up to the mind of God. God no more needs to violate our free moral agency than a scientist needs a remote control to get a rat to successfully negotiate a maze.

One is only responsible for a choice if there was free will to avoid making it.

In a system of human legal justice that would be the case, but keep in mind that our ways are not his ways. Let me ask you this theological question, are you guilty of sin before God? Could you have decided not to sin? So why are you found guilty of something you really had no ability to avoid?

All responsibility implies the ability to respond, either on one's own or by God's grace. Ought implies can. But if God caused the action, then we could not have avoided it. Hence, we are not responsible.

Based on your reasoning, I guess no one in the world is responsible for sin then, because ought implies can. And since we cannot help but sin we are free from moral culpability, according to your logic.

I did notice that you went on a diatribe at the end of your reply. I hope it made you feel better. Yet, I also hope that you can better understand that I am in no way wanting to do violence to the institution of human free moral agency.

 

[npetreley]

This is where you are offering what in effect is a Theodicy or a defense of God. You do not want to attribute causality to God because you view the world as less than ideal due to sin.

I'm sorry if this takes the thread off topic, but I can't help but respond to this. It is this very concept "the world is less than ideal due to sin" that C. S. Lewis used to show that atheism makes no sense. I loved his reasoning on this, especially because I used to think the same way when I was an atheist. He pointed out that, if the chaotic mess of sin is all there is, then we should never know that it's a chaotic mess, since we're part of it. We should have no knowledge that it's just a chaotic mess of sin, since we would have nothing against which to measure the state of the world to know that it's wrong. It would be as if we lived in a universe with no light. We wouldn't know it's dark, because there's no light against which to compare the darkness.

Lewis was a hard-core free willer who used some of the same incorrect arguments I see here (robots, etc.), so I don't agree with everything he taught. But he was a master at communicating truth to self-deluded pseudo-intellectuals (of which I was once one) with his apologetics style.

P.S. I really enjoy your posts.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I'm sorry if this takes the thread off topic, but I can't help but respond to this. It is this very concept "the world is less than ideal due to sin" that C. S. Lewis used to show that atheism makes no sense. I loved his reasoning on this, especially because I used to think the same way when I was an atheist. He pointed out that, if the chaotic mess of sin is all there is, then we should never know that it's a chaotic mess, since we're part of it. We should have no knowledge that it's just a chaotic mess of sin, since we would have nothing against which to measure the state of the world to know that it's wrong. It would be as if we lived in a universe with no light. We wouldn't know it's dark, because there's no light against which to compare the darkness.

Lewis was a hard-core free willer who used some of the same incorrect arguments I see here (robots, etc.), so I don't agree with everything he taught. But he was a master at communicating truth to self-deluded pseudo-intellectuals (of which I was once one) with his apologetics style.

P.S. I really enjoy your posts.

Your point is well taken.

 

[J.D.]

C'mon guys, leave Bob's picture alone! Hey, who drew that funny looking beard on it??

Seriously though, goading humor doesn't work well here, I know, I've tried it. If we were all face to face, and we could here the vocal inflections, we would probably be enjoying the goading amongst ourselves instead of getting angry.

Brother Bob, although I can't understand your postings most of the time, and I think you're not intersted in an open exchange of thoughts, nevertheless, I still respect you and if I needed someone to come to my side in a fight to the death, I would want it to be you. But remember this, contrary to what you may have been told, it's really okay to be wrong about something sometimes, to be corrected, to re-think your position, and then come out fighting even stronger than before.

 

[Brother Bob]

Thanks

J. D.;
I thank you for your advise. I see you have laid this all at my door step and that is what I do not understand about the Calvinist, unless you take up for each other regardless of the truth. I have never wanted any trouble and can take a joke as well as anyone but He was not joking. He was using my avatar as a way to get back at me because he couldn't explain why Paul went on to say the Gospel had went into all the world of which he had not answer so he attacked me personally. You don't really think I care if someone makes fun of my picture do you? Its when they do it in meanness that I care. When one Calvinist disagrees with me then here come several and join in the attack and that is wrong. Almost every fight if you will look at the posts were not started by me. I admit I fight strong when attacked. I maybe need to leave BB for I do not like what is happening such as being call a liar, hypocrit the worst ever been seen, cherry picker, nut case you name it all in the name of Christianty. I been a Christian too long to know that is not Christianty but meanness and meanness comes from the devil. I am plain here for its time to be plain. If I leave I don't want anyone to think I left because of Scriptures but left because of the unchristian attacks.
__________________

Brother Bob, although I can't understand your postings most of the time, and I think you're not intersted in an open exchange of thoughts, nevertheless, I still respect you and if I needed someone to come to my side in a fight to the death, I would want it to be you. But remember this, contrary to what you may have been told, it's really okay to be wrong about something sometimes, to be corrected, to re-think your position, and then come out fighting even stronger than before.

I take out of this that you think I will not accept it when I am wrong. If you would please give me an instance I will gladly respond with Scripture but because my take on the Scripture does not agree with yours does not give you a right to say then "bro bob is angry" for I am not. I am simply stating my case. No one on here has convinced me of the Calvinist doctrine as of yet. I strongly believe Salvation is to all that will believe. I feel so sorry inside that we can’t communicate without me being the dog. I am never jumped on because of Scripture but because I give a different take on the Scripture than the Calvinist and the argument starts with me being called "too angry" because I post fast and answer plainly. I believe what is truth is to tell what you really believe and not be political correct. I would give anything if we could be friend but I guess its not to be, for I will never be a Calvinist. I even think its wrong to call yourself a Calvinist. It has gone too far and God is hardly ever mentioned anymore. Makes me afraid for this kind of discussion. I guess I am saying too much and none have accepted what I have said before and I don’t expect you to now. Thanks again for trying, maybe someday we will truly be friends. God Bless,

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

J. D.;
I have never wanted any trouble and can take a joke as well as anyone but He was not joking. He was using my avatar as a way to get back at me because he couldn't explain why Paul went on to say the Gospel had went into all the world of which he had not answer so he attacked me personally. You don't really think I care if someone makes fun of my picture do you? Its when they do it in meanness that I care.

Bob,

This all my fault. I resorted to light hearted pot shots, but they were light hearted. You know what gets me is this, you cannot possibly know what my motivation was in poking fun at your avatar. Yet, you state matter of factly "He was using my avatar as a way to get back at me because he couldn't explain why Paul went on to say the Gospel had went into all the world of which he had [sic]not answer so he attacked me personally." WOW! You must have read my mind to know all that because I never said as much. Are you a mind reader? You have never even met me but you know what I am thinking and my motives. Bob you are good. Alright you got me. I was in trouble there, the walls were closing in around me and then it hit me. Hey, I will create a diversion and maybe he will get off his point. Well, that is a joke. But what is even funnier is that you are being serious. If you want to defend yourself Bob that is fine but do so with proportionality. Your responses are way more forceful than the attacks waged against you. You said that my head was so big that it was bound to explode.

When he falls flat on his face you will run another way. Anyone with his head blown up that big has to burst.

Did I come after you because that insult? Yes, but with humor. So I stated that if anyone was about to explode it was you based on your Avatar. You say you can take a joke but you have not shown that ability in this thread. It is like anything said against you is a personal attack as if it was vulgarity.

I think your proportion control is in question, warning joke coming, so Bob back away from the table there pal. Get it your responses are out of proportion, like someone who eats too much is out proportion on their portions.

Which reminds me of a joke my good ole Papa once told me.

There was this preacher who came over to eat with a family after church one Sunday.

The mother served up a nice bucket of fried chicken.

Of course she offered the preacher the first helping by asking, "Would you care for a helping of my fried chicken Rev.?"

He said in response, "I don't mind if I do. I believe I will have a portion."

Two brothers were sitting in amazement.

The younger brother asked the older brother, "Say, what does portion mean?"

The older brother answered, "I don't know, but I think it means darn near all of it."

What is the moral of the story Bob? Use portion or in your case proportion control... If you would use measured responses then it would appear less hostile. You had to compile a list of everything I ever said that was candid in order to make it appear out of proportion. My comments are subtle and intended to be tongue and check. But you make it very personal and come out with both gun blazing so to speak.

Now if you are going to be insistent in getting a viable response to your Romans 10 suggestion, let me post the entire portion in question:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”

20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”

21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

In the context of our discussion on predestination, may I remind anyone who has been diverted by this melodrama, I made the point that you are wrong about everyone having a chance to receive salvation. You were suggesting that your view was superior to my view because you suggest that God gives everyone a chance. Why? Because you suggest that everyone has the freedom to receive the gospel. I pointed out that your view of God was no different than mine if you believe that someone must receive Christ in order to be saved. Why? Because not everyone has the opportunity to receive Christ due to the fact that not everyone has heard the Gospel. To which you appeal to verse 18 in Romans chapter 10, the very same passage that argues you must believe the Gospel in order to be saved. Millions of the lost I can imagine have been lead to the Lord by preachers who used Romans 10:8,9 to lead the lost to the Lord with this passage. Why? Because it is as plain as day that Romans 10 argues for the need to hear the Gospel in order to be saved. Why? Because is says so:

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent?

The logic goes as follows: 1) You need to call on the name of the Lord to be saved; 2) In order to call on the name of the Lord you need to believe; 3) In order to believe you need to hear about the Lord; 4) In order to hear about the Lord you must have a preacher; and 5) In order to have a preacher he must be sent.

This supports my claim which is that the gospel is indispensable to someone coming to faith in Christ Jesus.

Yet you insisted that in verse 18 it refutes this claim. So you bold it and make it read which I will do for your intended effect:

“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

This does not refute the plain reading of Romans 10, which is that you have to hear Christ preached and believe on him in order to be saved. If it does contradict the previous portion of Scripture then the Bible is not inerrant.

The Bible is inerrant so it cannot mean what ever you think it means, which I have yet to understand exactly what it is that you are teaching.

Bob, here is what the passages means. It is a citation of Psalms 19:4. If you are as serious a student of the Bible as I think you are then you should know that. Psalms 19:4 states:

"Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world..."

Psalms 19 starts off by clearly stating:

"19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

Bob, you may not want to admit this but you are wrong. This passage is referring to general revelation. As I have said along to you, general revelation is enough to convict someone but not enough to save them. In order to be saved someone must receive the gospel. Bob, what I am saying is very commonly accepted among professing Christians. You are not just battling my view but the view of the confessing Church throughout history.

I will now embrace myself for what is to come (warning implied humor)

 

[J.D.]

Brother Bob, if we were not focused on our doctrinal differences, we could be close friends. I mean it, I'm not just trying to play nice. I like people such as yourself. I can't stand limp-wristedness. I would rather somebody fight me over what they believe than to pretend it doesn't matter. I just don't want you to have a stroke. You said that you don't get mad, but with all the red font and stuff like that, it sure looks like you're about to blow a gasket.