"Targeting" and Soteriology

[humblethinker]

Careful; you are too close to me on this.

Does that mean inclusivism or universalism?

 

[MorseOp]

Benjamin,

I simply do not have the time to unpack your lengthy post. Please do not take that as an excuse not to deal with what you said. I am content to let my prior post be my answer. Anything I type in response will simply be a re-hash of what I wrote before.

Blessings.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Does that mean inclusivism or universalism?

I don't know why I am even replying to you, but the answer -- neither.

I know some here delight in trying to put me in a box, or mischaracterize and misstate my beliefs, so if that's how any of you get your jollies, surge ahead.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, I would be in good company :thumbs:

Why, thank you! That certainly makes up for some things said by others. You have made my day.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Why, thank you! That certainly makes up for some things said by others. You have made my day.

Blessings to you :wavey:

 

[Van]

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 not 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 on 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.

If no workable solution to a problem exists, then an appeal to mystery, rather than nullification of either text in the seeming conflict is appropriate. However, if a solution is available, it should be adopted over the "mystery" solution.

The issue of the door with a different sight on our side and God's side is such a difficulty. Simply change the sign on God's side to read, Chosen in Him, i.e. corporately when Christ was chosen as God's lamb, before the foundation of the world. Mystery solved!

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

I simply do not have the time to unpack your lengthy post. Please do not take that as an excuse not to deal with what you said. I am content to let my prior post be my answer. Anything I type in response will simply be a re-hash of what I wrote before.

Blessings.

That’s cool. I understand and sympathize with your predicament concerning the 4 issues you’ve raised above. Its not always as simple as we'd like it to be. Thanks for letting me know.

Blessings to you.

 

[Catalyst]

A thought, stat like that serves no purpose. None. If someone finds value in it, then they are intrinsically reaching for quotas, and miss the point.

Salvation isn't even the most important part of Christ's life on earth, but for some its all they see God is good for. ;(

I just read an article on a church leaders web site which talked about the value of reaching out to men. They used this stat:

"If a child comes to Christ first, there is a 6% chance the entire family will. If a wife/mother comes to Christ first, there is an 18% chance the entire family will. If the husband/father comes to Christ first, there is a 94% chance the entire family will. "​

How does your soterilogical view affect how you respond to a point like this? And if this stat is true what does that say about the doctrine of election in particular? If salvation is purely based upon God's unconditional choice prior to creation what difference would one's father coming to faith make and why would such stats show evidence of such relational influence? This stat is only one of many which present this type of question.

What say you?

 

[MorseOp]

That’s cool. I understand and sympathize with your predicament concerning the 4 issues you’ve raised above. Its not always as simple as we'd like it to be. Thanks for letting me know.

Blessings to you.

Benjamin,

Even the most basic of Christian doctrines is not "simple." Who can adequately explain the Father giving the Son (John 3:16) without it sounding trite?

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not facing a "predicament" with the issues we spoke about, it simply has to do with R.O.D. (return on discussion). Sometimes we get in the habit of repeating our words and bring no additional value to the discussion. Other times we re-structure sentences thinking that the redaction will make a difference. It rarely does. In discussion threads there is the idea that the more often a person posts the more influential they are, even if they are just saying the same thing over and over again. It is hard not to respond back. But if you truly have nothing more to add to the discussion it is perfectly acceptable not to respond in kind. Having participated in discussion threads since the early-1990's I am just now learning that lesson. Ha! You can teach an old dog new tricks.

Have a blessed Lord's day.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

Even the most basic of Christian doctrines is not "simple." Who can adequately explain the Father giving the Son (John 3:16) without it sounding trite?

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not facing a "predicament" with the issues we spoke about, it simply has to do with R.O.D. (return on discussion). Sometimes we get in the habit of repeating our words and bring no additional value to the discussion. Other times we re-structure sentences thinking that the redaction will make a difference. It rarely does. In discussion threads there is the idea that the more often a person posts the more influential they are, even if they are just saying the same thing over and over again. It is hard not to respond back. But if you truly have nothing more to add to the discussion it is perfectly acceptable not to respond in kind. Having participated in discussion threads since the early-1990's I am just now learning that lesson. Ha! You can teach an old dog new tricks.

Have a blessed Lord's day.

Morse,

Please do not discount my understanding. I know what I did and it was not re-structuring your sentences but braking down your argument using philosophical principles to show your argument was amounting to according to its values. I also understand your argument is now that you have nothing of value to add after I did so, that is also perfectly understandable because I fully recognize the dependence on truth you would need to support your argument to begin with. It seems you don't understand the process of deductive argument requires directing the focus of the argument back to the premise.

To make it even more clear: I addressed the claims you made and went through a process to exposed their values and rather than addressing the issues and claims in my argument, which have do with establishing my beginning premise centered on the need of truth in divine judgment, you have turned to trying to discount my rebuttals by calling it nothing more than repeating words or sentence re-structuring. I did far more than that, I broke your argument point by point showing what it amounted to. If you don't want to deal with that fine, don't, but know I will consider any attempts to throw in a red herring/smokescreen and resort to attacks on the character of my argument as purely fallacious rhetoric on your part.

If you would like to "take the time" and "deal" with supporting your argument then do it by addressing my rebuttal of it, other than that I have no interest in pursuing this topic which has nothing to do with the issues in focus. If you are also saying all you could do is repeat your own words, then your conclusion is correct, I have no interest in that either.

Good day to you.

 

[Amy.G]

Nevermind.

 

[Van]

Lets see, families led by believing men are more likely to be comprised of believing spouses and children. God elects folks based on bloodline to teach family values. Receptivity to the gospel is not in the slightest influenced by our family experience. Never mind all those verses that tell us to walk the talk so we will be more effective at winning the lost to Christ. That has nothing to do it. Fathers, sin with impunity, because you would not really lead your loved ones astray, because none can accept Christ unless God compels them. Don't be fooled by what the statistics show, God just elects families to demonstrate family life matters when it really does not. Calvinism 101 is absurd.

 

[MorseOp]

Benjamin,

As a courtesy to someone I consider to be genuine in his argument I will go ahead and "unpack" your post.

Now be careful, don’t hurt your argument by admitting to the divine attribute of Truth in all His dealing with man,

Thank you for your kind warning but it is quite unnecessary. I am not in fear of hurting my argument. God is truth, just as He is holy and the epitome of love.

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.

If you know anything about Reformed theology you will know that it believes that God's call to repent is freely offered to all (Acts 17:30). That man is unable to positively respond is not God's fault, nor does it nullify the free offer.

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

Just because you anticipate the truth does not mean it is not true.

On the contrary a normal understanding of “fair” would include “impartiality”

Fair can be interpreted a few different ways. I will grant you that impartiality is one possibility, but so is, "conforming with the established rules" (Websters). Fair can used as a positive or negative. In respect to salvation God is very partial to to His established rules (John 14:6).

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.

What does this have to do with Deut. 32?

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".

I am with you on God being truth. However that attribute does not exist in a vacuum. I do not believe God owes man anything. I used that phrase to make a point. God does not owe the tribal person in the bush or the busy executive on Wall St. an opportunity to hear the Gospel. God is not under compulsion by man for anything. His truth has absolutely zero bearing on who hears or does not hear the Gospel. His truth does have bearing on the content of the Gospel; that it can be trusted.

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.

No I am not. I am simply correcting your erroneous view of God by your concentrating on one of His attributes that the expense of others. God's attribute are not like a valve that has to be shut off so that another valve can be turned on. When God is love, He is also holy. God is always God in every way and at every time.

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 am suggesting that you give deference to His Word and understand there is a difference between the light of being created in the image of God and the light of the Gospel. Every person is born in the image of God, but that is not sufficient to save. Jesus Christ is the light of the world, and that is sufficient to save. But we know all will not be saved because all cannot be saved. I can take you to 1 Cor. 2:14; Rom. 3:10; Rom. 8:7. Eph. 2:1 et. al. in the hope that it will open you mind to the truth.

You, like me, are a presuppositionalist. Your presupposition begins with the belief that man is capable of making free moral choices. My presupposition begins with the belief that man is a captive to his sinful nature and is not capable of free moral choices. These presuppositions color everything we see in scripture.

I’m sorry, but it is you reading your doctrine into that clear scripture.

No need to apologize. I cannot help but see God's sovereign hand in every verse of scripture. This goes back to our presuppositions.

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.

On the contrary. You are conflating context with your own reading into scripture by injecting in Deut. 32 what is not there. The rest of your post attempts to deal with Deut. 32 from your "Truth" perspective, but I believe it to be misguided.

 

[Van]

If you know anything about Reformed theology you will know that it believes that God's call to repent is freely offered to all (Acts 17:30). That man is unable to positively respond is not God's fault, nor does it nullify the free offer.

Anytime anyone disagrees with the nonsense of Calvinism, they are said to not understand Calvinism, shifting the discuss to the qualification of others and off Calvinism.

Man is unable to respond and whatsoever comes to pass is ordained by God, but God is not responsible for ordaining that man cannot respond. As I often say, utter nonsense.

Picture a man locked in a cell, and the jailer says you are free to walk out of the cell. If you do not, it is all on you. But the jailer does not unlock the door. This is the Calvinistic free offer of salvation. As I often say, utter nonsense.

It would be difficult to accept if God's word taught such nonsense, but it does not. They must modify, rewrite and redefine word meanings to create such doctrinal support.

They simply define being unable to respond as the meaning of being spiritually dead. But dead men respond to the gospel and God's revelation throughout the bible. So anytime they do, why they were secretly regenerated so they could, never mind such regeneration is never mentioned, thus a complete argument from silence.

On and on they go, questioning others and thinking how superior they are to the thick headed, ignorant, mean spirited low lifes that ask for more.

 

[MorseOp]

If you know anything about Reformed theology you will know that it believes that God's call to repent is freely offered to all (Acts 17:30). That man is unable to positively respond is not God's fault, nor does it nullify the free offer.

Anytime anyone disagrees with the nonsense of Calvinism, they are said to not understand Calvinism, shifting the discuss to the qualification of others and off Calvinism.

I was correcting an obvious lapse of understanding. I do not have to do that with every opponent of Calvinism. Some, even on this board, do understand Calvinism. You may be one of them, but based on your posting I am not convinced of that yet.

Man is unable to respond and whatsoever comes to pass is ordained by God, but God is not responsible for ordaining that man cannot respond. As I often say, utter nonsense.

The natural man is unable to respond to the things of the Spirit of God. I do not know how you can ignore or trivialize 1 Cor. 2:14. Once again the only real nonsense is your accusation of nonsense.

Picture a man locked in a cell, and the jailer says you are free to walk out of the cell. If you do not, it is all on you. But the jailer does not unlock the door. This is the Calvinistic free offer of salvation. As I often say, utter nonsense.

Picture a man locked in cell, and God the Father, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, makes that man aware of his dire condition. Good news is proclaimed to him announcing pardon by placing his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The overwhelming joy of true freedom from bondage compels this wretched sinner to come to Christ. What nonsense indeed!

It would be difficult to accept if God's word taught such nonsense, but it does not. They must modify, rewrite and redefine word meanings to create such doctrinal support.

Van, I pray that that Lord would illumine your mind to the truth. You have a never fetish with "nonsense" and it is blinding your eyes.

They simply define being unable to respond as the meaning of being spiritually dead. But dead men respond to the gospel and God's revelation throughout the bible. So anytime they do, why they were secretly regenerated so they could, never mind such regeneration is never mentioned, thus a complete argument from silence.

Van, I pray that that Lord would illumine your mind to the truth. You have a near fetish with "nonsense" and it is blinding your eyes.

On and on they go, questioning others and thinking how superior they are to the thick headed, ignorant, mean spirited low lifes that ask for more.

Superior? Far from it. You and Winman seem incapable of civil dialog. Why is that? There are others on this board who disagree with me, and I with them; but we engage in civil debate without all this "nonsense." Perhaps your mention of "thick headed, ignorant, mean spirited low lifes" is proceeding from a guilty conscience?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Van...

You posted...

Originally Posted by Van
Picture a man locked in a cell, and the jailer says you are free to walk out of the cell. If you do not, it is all on you. But the jailer does not unlock the door. This is the Calvinistic free offer of salvation. As I often say, utter nonsense.

I gotta say, Van, you really have a way of efectively articulating the ridiculous, nonsensical absurdities and contradictions that are so prevalent in the false calvinistic theological system.

Keep up the good work, brother.

 

[Van]

Thanks AIC, sometimes I think the Calvinists actually think the nonsense they believe makes sense, so they lash out out anyone who questions what they believe.

Take the reference to 1 Corinthians 2:14, which says natural fallen men of flesh cannot understand "the things of the Spirit." They read it as saying cannot understand "ALL spiritual things" and actually cite it as demonstrating their view. But it certainly does not say that. It does not say "some spiritual things" either. It leaves it to the context to tell us the extend of the blindness. Not one Calvinist that I have met even seems to grasp this obvious truth. And they call me blind.

If you look at the context, you will see that Paul spoke to the babes in Christ as men of flesh because they were not able to understand spiritual meat. Therefore, the spiritual things of 1 Corinthians 2:14 are spiritual meat, which can only be understood with the help of our indwelt Holy Spirit.

But the very passage they cite over and over and over actually teaches the opposite of what they claim, men of flesh can understand spiritual milk, i.e. the fundamentals of the gospel. QED

 

[webdog]

Lets see, families led by believing men are more likely to be comprised of believing spouses and children. God elects folks based on bloodline to teach family values. Receptivity to the gospel is not in the slightest influenced by our family experience. Never mind all those verses that tell us to walk the talk so we will be more effective at winning the lost to Christ. That has nothing to do it. Fathers, sin with impunity, because you would not really lead your loved ones astray, because none can accept Christ unless God compels them. Don't be fooled by what the statistics show, God just elects families to demonstrate family life matters when it really does not. Calvinism 101 is absurd.

My first thought from reading this thread, too...that election is somehow passed on via the family, that must be how God designed election. So much for "unconditional" based on the facts in the OP alone.

If calvinists just let go and let God, these statistics show the true doctrines of grace and how God designed the family structure AND salvation.

 

[Catalyst]

There is an inherent dilemma when someone writes doctrine off of anthropomorphisms. Referring to GOD who existed before time, as making a choice in a linear time frame, before, during, after, are examples, is pretty silly. That is the type of person that will be disappointed when there aren't real gold streets in heaven. :|

The verses talking about GOD electing people, is merely indicating He knew before. The electing, called, etc, calvinistic teachings try to put the terms in Human perspective, when they are anthropomorphisms. Not only that they put the PERSON as the topic not the God. None of the terms describe GOD'S mind on who is called. It's the best words the authors have. They were reaching to describe it. Like talking colors with a blind man there just aren't words, so you use the best you can. Now, when you take words, used to give a rough idea of God's perspective to man, and try to make GOD fit within those words which were inadequate to begin with, you end up with a doctrine that you have to kill people to make it stick.

It's really, rather, sickening. :BangHead:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Catalyst...

The verses talking about GOD electing people, is merely indicating He knew before. The electing, called, etc, calvinistic teachings try to put the terms in Human perspective, when they are anthropomorphisms. Not only that they put the PERSON as the topic not the God. None of the terms describe GOD'S mind on who is called. It's the best words the authors have. They were reaching to describe it. Like talking colors with a blind man there just aren't words, so you use the best you can. Now, when you take words, used to give a rough idea of God's perspective to man, and try to make GOD fit within those words which were inadequate to begin with, you end up with a doctrine that you have to kill people to make it stick.

It's really, rather, sickening.

You post here is great example of why God orchestrated the....

INCARNATION

God comes in the form of a man...an ACTUAL man. 100% man, and 100% God. He walked among us, He hungered, He thirsted, he was weary, He laughed, Hs wept. etc etc

As importannt as "good" doctrine is God did not want us to be limited to cold, unfeeling doctrines.

He wanted us to know Him more intimetly then that. Much more intimetly than that.

Through prayer, contemplation, meditation ....(none of this this of course is referring to the new agey, eastern , catholic nonsense...) we come to learn of Christ in ways that bring cold doctrine to LIFE. It causes us to be able to say to unbelievers..."I not only know ABOUT Christ..I KNOW Him personally! He is not only my savior and Lord..He is my best friend. And you can know Him that way too."

And along with that, the scriptures just come alive!

Praise be to God!