Two ways to look at Romans 1:18-21 to show Paul was no Calvinist

[JesusFan]

Of course not. I'm not disputing the fact that IF indeed God did choose to make all men totally depraved as a result of the fall that He had every "right" to do so. The point is that you are attempting to make His damnation of most of mankind from birth a passive thing, when that isn't possible considering the fact that He was the one who had to decide to condemn them to that fate.

So, I could turn the question around to you. Can you stand in judgment on God and His ways if he decided not to condemn men to hopeless condemnation from birth, but instead decided to allow them to respond freely to His appeal to be reconciled? Either way, it is God's active decision and that is the only point I'm attempting to argue here. Understand?

I do understand the point that you are asking here...
falls under Justice of God...

God saw that an entire race would be in active rebellion against His law and Himself by choosing NOT to love Him, nor stop sinning...

God makes a "free offer" through the Gospel of the Cross to have men repent and believe. but knowing that we cannot in ourselves reply, he decided to "step in" and make the way to save those He had chosen to save in Christ jesus!

 

[webdog]

God makes a "free offer" through the Gospel of the Cross to have men repent and believe. but knowing that we cannot in ourselves reply, he decided to "step in" and make the way to save those He had chosen to save in Christ jesus!

...but there was no free offer for the non elect to repent, as they were not atoned for and the Gospel message was not for them.

 

[Allan]

...but there was no free offer for the non elect to repent, as they were not atoned for and the Gospel message was not for them.

Exactly.. the scripture states "repent and believe the gospel".
If the gospel or good news does not include them, it can not be offered to them FOR them. The good news in essence is that sin can no longer separate us from God as salvation has been obtained. Thus it can not be rejected as it has nothing to do either with or for them. As such their rejection OF the good news would have no bearing of the condemnation at all especially since you can only reject what is offered to you, and if offered, it has been procured.

Yet scripture states it is due to their rejection of the truth (this truth that saved or condemns) is the very reason God sends them a strong delusion to believe the lie. So that they might all be condemned/damned who did not receive the truth ... what truth? the truth that .. could save them and that if rejected, condemned them. Only the gospel message is said to do this.

It goes back to another post of mine in discussing this same topic (which he hasn't answered either)

 

[Skandelon]

Someone who has never heard the Gospel knows enough to be judged by God.

Yet, the Calvinistic dogma teaches he can't know enough to willingly respond to that revelation, thus giving them the perfect excuse for not doing so.

That's why they are without excuse.

Why? Because they clearly saw and understood something they were born unable to acknowledge or accept as truth?

The truth that is spoken of here is not the Gospel, a saving truth, but a truth manifested that should lead them to the Gospel, or a saving truth (OT)

Yet, your dogma teaches that it doesn't have the ability to do that due to the fallen totally depraved nature of man, so what is Paul's point?

But instead, they supressed it. This is what the natural man does.

How do they suppress that which they don't have the ability to accept or understand?

 

[Skandelon]

Yet, the Calvinistic dogma teaches he can't know enough to willingly respond to that revelation, thus giving them the perfect excuse for not doing so.
Why? Because they clearly saw and understood something they were born unable to acknowledge or accept as truth?

Yet, your dogma teaches that it doesn't have the ability to do that due to the fallen totally depraved nature of man, so what is Paul's point?

How do they suppress that which they don't have the ability to accept or understand?

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

[Iconoclast]

The free offer of the gospel is proclaimed to all men.Who is intended to be saved by the gospel [God's elect} is God's buisness.

To try and say that ungodly persons who remain in rebellion are some how off the hook because they were not elected, is presumption and folly.

They do not know ,and you do not know who is elected. Election is a part of revealed truth. I can tell a sinner that God has elected a multitude of sinners IN Christ.....and at a point in time ,they will come to Jesus savingly.
Then tell them if they have not savingly come as of yet, they are fully responsible to do so.
We are not told that we are to read the Lambs book of life and see who is in it first...then offer only to those we see in it.

No one would be saved unless elected by God. So you can go ahead and try and convince goats all day to believe as a sheep does with a defective message...to no avail.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners in Christ. Anyone who remains outside of the Son,is outside of God's love, reconciliation, justifcation, atonement , or anything else that comes with the Kingdom.

You can speculate all you want....but only sheep will enter in.

 

[Skandelon]

The free offer of the gospel is proclaimed to all men.Who is intended to be saved by the gospel [God's elect} is God's buisness.

Scripture never indicates the message is only intended for the elect, but clearly teaches it is intended for the whole world, "every creature." There is no good reason to presume, as you have done, that this powerful appeal sent from God Himself is somehow insufficient to lead a lost man to be reconciled.

To try and say that ungodly persons who remain in rebellion are some how off the hook because they were not elected, is presumption and folly.

I assume your term "off the hook" is equal to Paul's term "without excuse" in Romans 1, right? If so, you must look at the reason they are not "off the hook." Why are these people "without excuse."

It is because they "knew God," yet Calvinism says they can't know God.

It is because they "clearly saw," yet Calvinism says they are born blind.

It is because they "understood," yet Calvinism says they are born without the ability to understand.

Calvinism takes all the reasons these people are not "off the hook" away and as a result gives a perfect excuse for every man who is finally condemned: "I was born unable to see, understand and thus know God and wasn't elected so as to be given that ability, that is my excuse." A perfect excuse by any rational an unbiased observer.

They do not know ,and you do not know who is elected.

Sure we do. God elected to send the message of reconciliation first the Jews and then to the Gentiles. As Paul explained, he grafted in the Gentiles after the Jews were cut off. It has been God's purpose from the beginning to provide redemption for all mankind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Scripture never indicates the message is only intended for the elect, but clearly teaches it is intended for the whole world, "every creature." There is no good reason to presume, as you have done,
not at all

that this powerful appeal sent from God Himself is somehow insufficient to lead a lost man to be reconciled.

you are avoiding the real issue...

26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

or again;

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

I assume your term "off the hook" is equal to Paul's term "without excuse" in Romans 1, right? If so, you must look at the reason they are not "off the hook." Why are these people "without excuse."

It is because they "knew God," yet Calvinism says they can't know God.

It is because they "clearly saw," yet Calvinism says they are born blind.

It is because they "understood," yet Calvinism says they are born without the ability to understand.

This is the second thread that you repeat your wrong use of romans 1 trying to twist it to make it fit your mis-guided idea.


Calvinism takes all the reasons these people are not "off the hook" away and as a result gives a perfect excuse for every man who is finally condemned: "I was born unable to see, understand and thus know God and wasn't elected so as to be given that ability, that is my excuse." A perfect excuse by any rational an unbiased observer.

Not at all.....all are responsible ,and condemned as we speak unless they repent. Your caricature of calvinism is why you will not come to truth on this.

Sure we do. God elected to send the message of reconciliation first the Jews and then to the Gentiles.

This also was refuted already.....you do not believe persons before Israel had their sins accounted to them...but you are still mistaken about that.


As Paul explained, he grafted in the Gentiles after the Jews were cut off. It has been God's purpose from the beginning to provide redemption for all mankind.

That has never been God's purpose unless you understand all mankind to be the children of God scattered worldwide. The biblical God saves all He intends to save out of mankind...He never purposed to save all.

 

[convicted1]

Just curious which calvinist would believe that God actively blinds and hardens all of the unsaved from birht, that he double predestines mankind from birth?

Might be those in "real" calvinism, but my understanding from the Bible is that God does directly elects to salvation his own chosen people, calls them from eternity to be the redeemed, while those not selected are just "left to their own devices"...

Sinners who will be w/o excuse due to the fact can know about God from general revelation, but he ONLY directly hardens those who serve a purpose like pharoah and reprobate Pharisees, both already by own will hardening their hearts against God?

Sorry Brother, but God can not be active in those He chose from/before birth for salvation, and be passive in those who will die and go to hell. If He elected those for heaven, He has preordained their final destination. If He leaves the rest to their "own devices", and never sent Jesus to die for them, never reveal Himself to them, how is He not active in their final destination? So, God is not active in the choosing, and passive in the "passing over."

 

[JesusFan]

Sorry Brother, but God can not be active in those He chose from/before birth for salvation, and be passive in those who will die and go to hell. If He elected those for heaven, He has preordained their final destination. If He leaves the rest to their "own devices", and never sent Jesus to die for them, never reveal Himself to them, how is He not active in their final destination? So, God is not active in the choosing, and passive in the "passing over."

So you saying that this is impossible for God to do?

Its His call as to how ANY of us can even get saved...

never said that Jesus did not die for all, I do hold that is true, BUT

God also knows that NONE of us can even accept him by faith left to our own selves, so he intervened by providing means to save SOME.....

What verses support notion that God will indeed save All?

 

[convicted1]

So you saying that this is impossible for God to do?

Its His call as to how ANY of us can even get saved...

never said that Jesus did not die for all, I do hold that is true, BUT

God also knows that NONE of us can even accept him by faith left to our own selves, so he intervened by providing means to save SOME.....

What verses support notion that God will indeed save All?

What I mean is in regards to predestination(double). Y'all say that God chooses(elects) the elect, but leave the non-elect in their reprobation, and that He never did predestine their outcome. I just showed you the flaw(s) in this. If you hold to predestination, you have to hold to it being double.....no getting around this. If He predestines/predetermines the elect's outcome by choosing them for salvation, He predestines/predetermines the non-elect's outcome by not choosing them, bur rather, leaving them in their condemnation/reprobation.

 

[allinall]

Yet, the Calvinistic dogma teaches he can't know enough to willingly respond to that revelation, thus giving them the perfect excuse for not doing so.

Why? Because they clearly saw and understood something they were born unable to acknowledge or accept as truth?

Yet, your dogma teaches that it doesn't have the ability to do that due to the fallen totally depraved nature of man, so what is Paul's point?

How do they suppress that which they don't have the ability to accept or understand?

The depravity of man is a matter of ability, desire. Your argument doesn't apply. If every man has the Gospel manifest in them (as you are implying), why proclaim it? Paul's not speaking of the good news, rather, he's speaking of a knowledge that is "manifest in" everyone, so all are accountable and none are without excuse.

Listen to his words.

1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).

Without excuse.

Dave

 

[allinall]

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

Liberal debating tactics a so obvious.

Dave

 

[Skandelon]

The depravity of man is a matter of ability, desire. Your argument doesn't apply. If every man has the Gospel manifest in them (as you are implying), why proclaim it? Paul's not speaking of the good news, rather, he's speaking of a knowledge that is "manifest in" everyone, so all are accountable and none are without excuse.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not arguing that Paul is speaking of the gospel in this text. I'm saying that Paul is speaking of God's revelation in general. And if mankind can clearly see and understand the eternal nature and divine attributes of God through basic general revelation, how much more so could they clearly see and understand his very clear special revelation where he speaks in their very own language telling them the truth which can set them free? And if their clearly seeing and understanding is what makes them 'without excuse' then who are we to suggest they are born unable to see or understand God's revelation and thus make a perfect excuse for why people might choose to reject Christ?

 

[Skandelon]

Liberal debating tactics a so obvious.

I've been called a lot of things but never a "liberal." :laugh:

 

[allinall]

I think you misunderstood. I'm not arguing that Paul is speaking of the gospel in this text. I'm saying that Paul is speaking of God's revelation in general. And if mankind can clearly see and understand the eternal nature and divine attributes of God through basic general revelation, how much more so could they clearly see and understand his very clear special revelation where he speaks in their very own language telling them the truth which can set them free? And if their clearly seeing and understanding is what makes them 'without excuse' then who are we to suggest they are born unable to see or understand God's revelation and thus make a perfect excuse for why people might choose to reject Christ?

Again, depravity means that man cannot obey God, nor does he desire to do so. The general knowledge that Paul was speaking of is enough to make man accountable to God....so that they are without excuse. I believe to go beyond that is to go beyond the text.

Dave

2 Tim. 3:7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Skandelon]

The general knowledge that Paul was speaking of is enough to make man accountable to God....so that they are without excuse.

Agreed, but why? Why are they "without excuse?" Because they can "clearly see and understand" the revelation, something Total Depravity says the really can't do unless first regenerated (effectually called).

 

[allinall]

Agreed, but why? Why are they "without excuse?" Because they can "clearly see and understand" the revelation, something Total Depravity says the really can't do unless first regenerated (effectually called).

They are without excuse because they know enough to be without excuse. What must one know to be without excuse? You and I agree that Paul is speaking of a general knowledge manifested in all people. To go beyond that is to go beyond the text.

Dave

 

[Skandelon]

They are without excuse because they know enough to be without excuse.

Right, what does "enough" mean? They know enough to be responsible...meaning "able to respond"...Response-able.

What must one know to be without excuse? You and I agree that Paul is speaking of a general knowledge manifested in all people. To go beyond that is to go beyond the text.

I agree, but who is going beyond the text by suggesting that men are born unable to know God, understand his revelations and respond to them? You or me?