What happens to those who never hear abut Christ?

[DHK]

A little history refresher is what you need DHK. In the history of this thread :

Jordon was the first to mention Calvinism --yes the author of the OP said :"your doctrine of Calvinism" in post 14.

EW&F spoke of "legalistic Calvinists" in post 25.

Rippon, in response told the above that he was a quasi-Calvinist in post 29.

DHK spoke of "Calvinistic blinders" in post #43.


DHK spoke of "Calvinist emphasizing the elect" in post 48.

DHK yet again brought up Calvinism in post 53 "The Calvinist view is a warped view."

DHK not having his fill of mentioning what he himself brings up every chance he gets -speaks negatively of Calvinism in post 57.

As usual you put on your blinders and can't see the forest for the trees.
In post #48 I answered the OP, the title of the thread with a clear and thorough response. I made a passing reference to Calvinism. It was not part of my general response.
Why not try and respond to the post. Be honest this time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2157483&postcount=48

 

[DHK]

I just responded to the content of your post. Looks like you introduced that theme into this thread.....:thumbs::thumbs:

The blind leading the blind. I see you blindly following Rippon but I do not see any intelligent answer to my post. Where is it?
Here is the link:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2157483&postcount=48

Try again.

 

[Rippon]

In post #48 I answered the OP, the title of the thread with a clear and thorough response. I made a passing reference to Calvinism. It was not part of my general response.

You have made three posts in this thread with passing negative references to Calvinism.

Why not try and respond to the post.

Why should I respond to your late (#48 post) when you haven't even dealt with mine (#2 post)?

Be honest this time.

There has been no dishonesty in any of my posts here. But your integrity has failed you on numerous occasions --especially with regard to Church History.

 

[DHK]

You have made three posts in this thread with passing negative references to Calvinism.

I am not a Calvinist. I really don't care if your feelings are hurt. This is a debate forum. If you don't like it go to the fellowship forum and talk about the weather.

Why should I respond to your late (#48 post) when you haven't even dealt with mine (#2 post)?

I laid out a response to the OP. That is all I was interested in doing. I am not interested in yours.

There has been no dishonesty in any of my posts here. But your integrity has failed you on numerous occasions --especially with regard to Church History.

This is theology, not about church history. Your view of church history is also colored by your view of Calvin. You are not being honest there either.

 

[Rippon]

I am not a Calvinist. I really don't care if your feelings are hurt. This is a debate forum. If you don't like it go to the fellowship forum and talk about the weather.

It is about your hypocrisy DHK. You say this thread is not about Calvinism, but you had to bad mouth it numerous times.

I am not interested in yours.

I know about your double-standard. You do a drive-by post 43 denigrating my #2 post with no specifics. Then, though bothering to quote mine in full advertise your all-important number 48 post.

This is theology, not about church history. Your view of church history is also colored by your view of Calvin.

I specialize in facts --you are an expert in inventing things and borrowing things from others of like-mindedness.

You are not being honest there either.

I am completely honest.

 

[DHK]

It is about your hypocrisy DHK. You say this thread is not about Calvinism, but you had to bad mouth it numerous times.

Then ignore it; don't respond.

I know about your double-standard. You do a drive-by post 43 denigrating my #2 post with no specifics. Then, though bothering to quote mine in full advertise your all-important number 48 post.

You are wrong. I read the thread, the entire thread. Then I went back to the OP, and answered it. I don't consider you "special." Why should you consider your feelings hurt because I missed your post. I responded to the OP!

I specialize in facts --you are an expert in inventing things and borrowing things from others of like-mindedness.

I am completely honest.

My post was not invented. Again, I responded to the OP.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I started to answer your post in post 49...till I saw the profane comment about the biblical teaching of election.....I will resume now as you have requested.

God has done all that he could

If God has done all that He could as you suggest...no one else will be saved.

That would be like a heart surgeon who opens up the patient needing a heart transplant.....who then hands the scapel to the patient and says...I have done all that I can....the rest is up to you:thumbs:

and at infinite cost.

yes

He loved us so much He died for us.

If you are speaking of the justified elect in Romans 5...yes...that is the us.

What more could he have done.

Having already accomplished redemption He seeks and saves that which was lost...sending the Spirit to convict them of sin and work repentance in faith in them by giving the new heart of ezk36...so they willingly repent and believe the gospel by saving faith. In the words of Jonah...salvation is of the Lord.

He paid the ultimate price.

yes He paid in full the price for All the father gave to Him...no more, no less-

That price, that payment for salvation is sufficient for ALL men,

It paid for all it was designed to pay for.It was an exact payment.

that is ALL who will accept,

This is not biblical language at all.

In eph 1 the biblical language is...we are made accepted in the beloved;
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
That being the case- there will be nobody in hell who desired Jesus on God's terms

all, no exclusions.

God has never planned to save all...or all would be saved.He does not fail ever.

(Don't give me that election c.r.a.p.).

Now it is clear why you do not understand> I do not see Nicodemus using this language speaking to the Lord. he did not understand, but he asked a respectful question.

Salvation is for all who will receive it.

yes..praise the Lord it is. The bible has names for those who receive it...the sheep, wheat, the elect, those given by the Father to the Son, the seed of Abraham:thumbs:

We have no right to challenge God.

Correct...so it is probably not a good idea to profane revealed truth as you have done:thumbs:

In His divine wisdom He has charged those of us who know and understand this message to spread it to those who don't. They are as we were, "dead in their sins." The Bible says they are "without excuse." They (or we) cannot blame God

.

agreed...

There is a possibility that some of them, perhaps a minority of them will trust the Lord if someone goes to them.

I believe it is possible that all we speak to will believe.God has not revealed who He has chosen...so we can speak to all sinners with an expectant hope that The Spirit will quicken them:thumbs:

Remember that only about 3% of those present trusted Christ on the Day of Pentecost. And they all had a background in the OT Scriptures.

The results belong to God.....

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

He did not tell Paul who...just that he had much people in this city.

But that puts the burden on us. We who have been born again are duty bound must see that these ones receive the gospel that they have never heard. We have the keys of the gospel, the keys of eternal life. How are we using them?

agreed

The question you or I may not be able to answer is this: Why did God in his infinite mercy, allow you and I to hear the message of salvation, while others have never heard. I don't know

.

He has reasons for sure. Holy reasons. Those are the secret things.

The immediate response ought to be one of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord that he has allowed me to hear His word and opened my heart as He did Lydia's to receive His Word.

Correct!

God is both sovereign as well as just. In his justice he has condemned us ALL for our sins. There are no exceptions here. In his mercy he has provided a way of salvation. There is no other way of salvation.

yes

But since that mercy is completely undeserved no one (not you, and not any Calvinist emphasizing the elect), can question God's right to reveal that message first to whomsoever he pleases.

Yes...Cals do not question that...we believe it completely.

One cannot rejoice in that good news selfishly. If it comes to us first, then we have an obligation to pass it on to others who have never heard it before.

 

[InTheLight]

That would be like a heart surgeon who opens up the patient needing a heart transplant.....who then hands the scapel to the patient and says...I have done all that I can....the rest is up to you

Hmmm...and to carry this analogy further--Did the heart surgeon put out a general call, and then an effective call for people with defective hearts to come to him to have life saving surgery?

Or did the patient realize his dire condition and seek out a surgeon?

Interesting...

 

[Iconoclast]

Hmmm...and to carry this analogy further--Did the heart surgeon put out a general call, and then an effective call for people with defective hearts to come to him to have life saving surgery?

Or did the patient realize his dire condition and seek out a surgeon?

Interesting...

While only a human analogy....to be more accurate as you would like to press it...the patient dies on the operating table as the surgeon operates, then the surgeon hands him the scapel as tells him...he has done all he can the rest is up to him.....

 

[InTheLight]

While only a human analogy....to be more accurate as you would like to press it...the patient dies on the operating table as the surgeon operates, then the surgeon hands him the scapel as tells him...he has done all he can the rest is up to him.....

I see that your answers don't address my questions and are nonsensical. No need to continue...

 

[Iconoclast]

Rippon

It is about your hypocrisy DHK. You say this thread is not about Calvinism, but you had to bad mouth it numerous times.

Many have noticed this pattern:thumbs:

I know about your double-standard. You do a drive-by post 43 denigrating my #2 post with no specifics. Then, though bothering to quote mine in full advertise your all-important number 48 post.

:thumbs: yes

I specialize in facts --you are an expert in inventing things and borrowing things from others of like-mindedness.

this happens many times also:thumbs:

I am completely honest.

That is why he does not wish to engage as you asked him to.
I will say that he often will give extended discussions more so then most.
it is as if the others stand back and hide behind him and let him attempt to dispute the truth.
That being said..the M.O. is when he gets in deep water..he resorts to the
ad hominem or says it is off topic, or closes the thread.

 

[DHK]

DHK

I started to answer your post in post 49...till I saw the profane comment about the biblical teaching of election.....I will resume now as you have requested.

Thank you Icon, I appreciate it.

If God has done all that He could as you suggest...no one else will be saved.

That is not true. Would you suggest that God's creation was imperfect? that he created Adam and Eve with some imperfection so that they would not obey him? To suggest such is absurd. God did all that He could to create a perfect world for them so that they could live with Him in perfect harmony. But they chose to rebel instead. Why would you blame God for that?

That would be like a heart surgeon who opens up the patient needing a heart transplant.....who then hands the scapel to the patient and says...I have done all that I can....the rest is up to you:thumbs:

The patient was sick.
Adam and Eve were not sick. God did all he could for two individuals that had perfect spiritual and physical health. They didn't have to heal themselves. Yet they rebelled anyway.

If you are speaking of the justified elect in Romans 5...yes...that is the us.

This is where you tempt me to throw in: "Don't give me that Calvinist garbage in your answer."
The fact is that Christ died for the whole world (John 3:16). This truth is repeated so often throughout the Bible I can't count all the times. It is a universal truth. He didn't die for a select few--saving some and damning others. That is what I call a "heresy" in and of itself. I believe in election, but not that way.

Having already accomplished redemption He seeks and saves that which was lost...sending the Spirit to convict them of sin and work repentance in faith in them by giving the new heart of ezk36...so they willingly repent and believe the gospel by saving faith. In the words of Jonah...salvation is of the Lord.

The question I posed to you is: "What more could He have done?"
The above is your answer--a non-answer. By sending his Son and paying the ultimate cost in shedding his precious blood for ALL mankind there is nothing more that Christ could have done.
"The more that he could have done" is your Calvinistic idea that he could have sent the gift of repentance and the so-called gift of faith, spiritual gifts to dead and unregenerate lost people. But he doesn't do that. After receiving the light of the gospel they have an obligation to choose that light.
What more could he have done. The penalty was paid. The victory was won. The gift is offered. One must simply receive. Yes, salvation is of the Lord.

yes He paid in full the price for All the father gave to Him...no more, no less-

He first draws all men. "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw ALL men unto myself."

It paid for all it was designed to pay for.It was an exact payment.

And he is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. An exact payment, sufficient for all.

This is not biblical language at all.

In eph 1 the biblical language is...we are made accepted in the beloved;
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
That being the case- there will be nobody in hell who desired Jesus on God's terms

Of course it is Biblical. You just quoted one passage (written to and about believers) to the exclusion of all others.
See: John 1:12 "to as many as received him.
As well as Acts 10:43 and 16:31

God has never planned to save all...or all would be saved.He does not fail ever.

God is not willing that any should perish.
God's will is that all should be saved.

Now it is clear why you do not understand> I do not see Nicodemus using this language speaking to the Lord. he did not understand, but he asked a respectful question.

Nicodemus never spoke about Calvinism and neither Jesus nor Nicodemus discussed it and all of its fallacies.

yes..praise the Lord it is. The bible has names for those who receive it...the sheep, wheat, the elect, those given by the Father to the Son, the seed of Abraham

I said: Salvation is for all who believe it. You read into that: "Salvation is for 'the elect,'" and then pretend to agree. That is as far from what I said as one can get. It is the opposite of John 3:16, where Christ said he died for the sins of the "whole world," and not just the elect. You have a hard time with that oft quoted text unless you tear it apart, don't you?

We have no right to challenge God.

Correct...so it is probably not a good idea to profane revealed truth as you have done

Every time you interpret these scriptures in the light of the man called Calvin you are challenging God.
I call a spade a spade. Calvin is not inspired.

I believe it is possible that all we speak to will believe.God has not revealed who He has chosen...so we can speak to all sinners with an expectant hope that The Spirit will quicken them:thumbs:

After reading the rest of your answers I see we are in basic agreement. For that I am grateful.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

DHK ...not to be topped by Van...begins to construct another Monster strawman:thumbs: lets look once again

Would you suggest that God's creation was imperfect?

No...of course I would not. More importantly I have never said any such thing.
You pulled this idea out of your imagination....lets continue to see where this could possibly lead to???

that he created Adam and Eve with some imperfection so that they would not obey him?

No...I was not speaking of Adam and Eve at all! We were speaking about the cross...was it actual or potential? I see...you cannot respond so you pull this whole scenario out of your fruitful imagination...hoping you can answer questions no one is asking:laugh:

To suggest such is absurd.

I agree...so why did you do it DHK?...You can just back out and say...sorry, my theology is defective at this point and I have no valid response....it is ok, you tried. But no...instead you inflict this absurdity on us:thumbs:

God did all that He could to create a perfect world for them so that they could live with Him in perfect harmony. But they chose to rebel instead. Why would you blame God for that?

I do not blame God for anything DHK....why do you say such a thing? anyone can read and see you have invented this whole foolish scenario.

The patient was sick.
Adam and Eve were not sick. God did all he could for two individuals that had perfect spiritual and physical health. They didn't have to heal themselves. Yet they rebelled anyway.

No one is talking about Adam and Eve...are you okay?

This is where you tempt me to throw in: "Don't give me that Calvinist garbage in your answer."

Okay...now we can see what the problem is...lol....it is your anti cal agenda and hatred of the truth that is behind this imaginary scenario...

true to your M.O......you cannot answer what was actually being discussed so you resort to inventing a position that you think you can respond to{and you fail at that also,lol].

Then you resort to half verses following the error that Baptist 4 life does...

Lunch break is over...so I will answer the rest in awhile...stay tuned.

 

[DHK]

DHK

DHK ...not to be topped by Van...begins to construct another Monster strawman:thumbs: lets look once again.

It is not a strawman; it is an analogy, and a very good one. God made Adam and Eve perfect. You won't and can't disagree with that, so you won't dare to argue the point.
But somehow you suggest that God's infinite and ultimate sacrifice on the cross for all mankind was insufficient, inadequate, and imperfect displaying the qualities of an imperfect God. And that is shameful.
That is why I took you down the road of Adam and Eve. It shows how that when they sinned God didn't abandon them on the operating table. He still called out to them. And eventually they responded in faith.

In spite of their perfection, having no sin nature at all, they still sinned? How do you account for that?

No...of course I would not. More importantly I have never said any such thing.
You pulled this idea out of your imagination....lets continue to see where this could possibly lead to???

I never imagined Adam and Eve. Did you? Or have you not read the first two chapters of Genesis? God is perfect and created two perfect individuals. They sinned.

No...I was not speaking of Adam and Eve at all! We were speaking about the cross...was it actual or potential? I see...you cannot respond so you pull this whole scenario out of your fruitful imagination...hoping you can answer questions no one is asking

First. Genesis 3:15 looks to the cross.
But aside from that I am responding to your illustration. God's creation did not have to be perfect in order to sin. They didn't have a sin nature. You don't want to deal with facts. Your illustration falls short.

I agree...so why did you do it DHK?...You can just back out and say...sorry, my theology is defective at this point and I have no valid response....it is ok, you tried. But no...instead you inflict this absurdity on us.

I have well responded. You are the one that doesn't want to talk about Adam and Eve. You can't fit them into your paradigm. They won't fit. They cause your illustration to fall fat on its face.
God is a perfect God with a perfect plan both for a perfect couple (Adam and Eve), and a fallen race. To suggest anything less is to suggest that God is not perfect, and that is what you have done.

I do not blame God for anything DHK....why do you say such a thing? anyone can read and see you have invented this whole foolish scenario.

In this scenario, as per the OP, you blame God that he cannot save those that have never heard the gospel and relegate them to the unelect even though you have not that knowledge. That is no better than Gnosticism.

No one is talking about Adam and Eve...are you okay?

In case you haven't been paying attention I was.
I used them as an example to point holes in your thinking and theology. I guess they were more than holes, perhaps wide-mouthed gaping caverns.

Okay...now we can see what the problem is...lol....it is your anti cal agenda and hatred of the truth that is behind this imaginary scenario...

true to your M.O......you cannot answer what was actually being discussed so you resort to inventing a position that you think you can respond to{and you fail at that also,lol].

Read a few threads on here objectively Icon. In case you haven't noticed there are some Cals that exist on this board for the express purpose of attacking the non-Cal position and nothing more, or so it seems. Yet as soon as their position is attacked their feelings are hurt and they go crying to mommy. There are some here that need to grow up.

Yes, I state quite plainly my objections to Calvinism. I am not one and will never be one. But this is not a Calvinistic thread. And that is not my M.O. My answer was as plain as day and you could not give an adequate answer.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK
I said this;Quote:
If you are speaking of the justified elect in Romans 5...yes...that is the us

You responded with this;

This is where you tempt me to throw in: "Don't give me that Calvinist garbage in your answer."

Then you jump away from facing the truth going to Jn 3:16 trying to suggest it is all men.....it is not.
Romans 5 is speaking of the elect who are Justified by God. You hate this teaching so you respond this way.
A mature way to respond would be to agree to the clear teaching of the passage. let me show you your error once again-

5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we[/COLOR] have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Everyone else can see this very clearly...

The fact is that Christ died for the whole world (John 3:16). This truth is repeated so often throughout the Bible I can't count all the times. It is a universal truth.

The verse does not say..."He died for the whole world"...it says everyone believing....
15 that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during,
16 for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

You have claimed publically that you teach the scripture.
What are you teaching if you do not know these things?

He didn't die for a select few

Anyone familiar with the bible teaching of God's Covenant salvation knows He has come to save a multitude of believers...you seem unaquainted with these teachings once again.

--saving some and damning others. That is what I call a "heresy" in and of itself.

Not all men get saved DHK....the only heresy here is your statement.Jesus saves All the father gives to Him...NO MORE, NO LESS

I believe in election, but not that way.

You show no understanding of election...none whatsoever...I have never seen it...maybe start a thread where you teach us your understanding of election as you understand it....

The question I posed to you is: "What more could He have done?"

And i answered you-
Having already accomplished redemption He seeks and saves that which was lost...sending the Spirit to convict them of sin and work repentance in faith in them by giving the new heart of ezk36...so they willingly repent and believe the gospel by saving faith. In the words of Jonah...salvation is of the Lord.

The above is your answer--a non-answer.

The answer supplied is straight from scripture and accurate.

By sending his Son and paying the ultimate cost in shedding his precious blood for ALL mankind there is nothing more that Christ could have done.

You speak of a limited idea , a potential salvation...rather than the actual real salvation of the elect.

"The more that he could have done" is your Calvinistic idea that he could have sent the gift of repentance and the so-called gift of faith, spiritual gifts to dead and unregenerate lost people.

What you call the Calvinistic idea is the biblical teaching....God grants repentance and faith...that is how the unregenerate lost people become regenerate saved people

But he doesn't do that

.

he does it everyday all over the world.

After receiving the light of the gospel

When someone receives the gospel they are saved.

they have an obligation to choose that light

.
God grants it to His people...they will never do it unless the Spirit allows them to.

He first draws all men. "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw ALL men unto myself."

And he is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. An exact payment, sufficient for all.

God's elect are scattered worldwide....not only in Israel....Not all men ever born....Not all men living are drawn....your view makes the word to no effect.

Of course it is Biblical. You just quoted one passage (written to and about believers) to the exclusion of all others.

Your list of half verses and out of context verses do not change the truth.



See: John 1:12 "to as many as received him.

12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name,
13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten

Like Satan in LK4...you and baptist 4 life only quote half the verse to try and change the meaning...

God is not willing that any should perish.

The bible does not say that....here is what it said;
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness,
but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

All it is speaking of come to repentance..

God's will is that all should be saved

.
No...or all would be saved,God's will is done.

Nicodemus never spoke about Calvinism

Of course not...he was a fundamentalist like you are...they hate to discuss these truths.....That is why Jesus rebuked him-

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

he did not call it garbage like you do, or that profane term you used yesterday...but Jesus corrected him and you-



10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

These teachings are about heavenly things...Jesus taught all of these truths

and neither Jesus nor Nicodemus discussed it and all of its fallacies

.
Nicodemus was not prepared to learn these truths...like you..he learned some things but missed these truths.:thumbsup:

I said: Salvation is for all who believe it. You read into that: "Salvation is for 'the elect,'" and then pretend to agree.

Of course because only the elect will believe...they are the everyone believing:thumbsup:

That is as far from what I said as one can get. It is the opposite of John 3:16, where Christ said he died for the sins of the "whole world,"

it does not say that.

and not just the elect.

only the elect get saved....if you can get any non elect saved..go for it:laugh:

You have a hard time with that oft quoted text unless you tear it apart, don't you?

No..i simply understand it as it is written...I do not have to add to it as you try and do.

Every time you interpret these scriptures in the light of the man called Calvin you are challenging God.

This is a baseless claim.where do i quote from Calvin...another strawman!

I call a spade a spade. Calvin is not inspired.

No one quoted from him or said he was except you.

After reading the rest of your answers I see we are in basic agreement. For that I am grateful

we should agree more than that...leave off your agenda and read what the church has understood confessionally.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

It is not a strawman;

if you took a poll everyone would tell you it was a strawman.

it is an analogy, and a very good one

.

it had nothing to do with the topic-

God made Adam and Eve perfect.

God made everything good-..it does not say perfect-

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

You won't and can't disagree with that, so you won't dare to argue the point

.

i will state the biblical text.

But somehow you suggest that God's infinite and ultimate sacrifice on the cross for all mankind

The bible does not teach this,The bible teaches He died for His people,those given to Him by the Father. You have no concept of the Covenant nature of the atonement.

was insufficient, inadequate, and imperfect displaying the qualities of an imperfect God.

I did not say this or suggest it. You say this because you could not handle my answer.

And that is shameful.

yes,,,you should not do that.I have asked you many times to let me say what i say...you can say your error.

That is why I took you down the road of Adam and Eve. It shows how that when they sinned God didn't abandon them on the operating table. He still called out to them. And eventually they responded in faith.

We were not discussing them or your man centered theology.

In spite of their perfection,

They were not perfect...they were untested .

having no sin nature at all, they still sinned? How do you account for that?

God did not give Moses any description of the condition of their nature, pre-fall. Why do you take it upon yourself to speculate.

I never imagined Adam and Eve. Did you? Or have you not read the first two chapters of Genesis? God is perfect and created two perfect individuals. They sinned.

God is perfect.....where does it say Adam and eve were...perfect,I missed those verses.

When God spoke of JOB being perfect in his generation...the word meant complete...not sinless or absolutely perfect.

But aside from that I am responding to your illustration. Your illustration falls short.

it is accurate and you cannot answer it...so you try to hide like adam did,
with the fig leaf of the genesis account as a distraction.

I have well responded. You are the one that doesn't want to talk about Adam and Eve. You can't fit them into your paradigm. They won't fit

.

If you want to talk about them ,start a thread on it. You are derailing this thread.

They cause your illustration to fall fat on its face.

You know the illustration I gave destroys your vain boasting about what you have done...it destroys it.

God is a perfect God with a perfect plan

God is perfect with a perfect plan for His elect,eph 3:9-11

both for a perfect couple (Adam and Eve)

,
Still waiting for any verse on this supposed perfection...you have not posted those verses...because...they do not exist, except in your red herring argument.

To suggest anything less is to suggest that God is not perfect, and that is what you have done.

This is a lie,and you once again bear false witness against me...a 9th commandment violation.

In this scenario, as per the OP, you blame God

I never blame God for anything...this is another lie. Show where I have ever blamed God. can you possibly discuss any issue without this lying ,false witness that you do?

that he cannot save those that have never heard the gospel and relegate them to the unelect even though you have not that knowledge. That is no better than Gnosticism.

I have never claimed any knowledge of who God has elected or reprobated.
I know both are true however. Can you post without these false statements?

In case you haven't been paying attention I was.
I used them as an example to point holes in your thinking and theology. I guess they were more than holes, perhaps wide-mouthed gaping caverns.

perhaps in your mind....

Read a few threads on here objectively Icon. In case you haven't noticed there are some Cals that exist on this board for the express purpose of attacking the non-Cal position and nothing more, or so it seems.

what i see is that non cals attack...with no scriptural basis whatsoever....look at "in the Light", steaver, Bap4life,JK,ewf....they do drive by attacks. cals respond with scripture...they disappear in cowardly fashion.

Yet as soon as their position is attacked their feelings are hurt and they go crying to mommy. There are some here that need to grow up.

i see no one running away...i see rippon, con 1, reformed, jbh, and others destroy these false objections day by day.

Yes, I state quite plainly my objections to Calvinism.

not very plainly...you avoid scripture...or at least the full verses

I am not one and will never be one

.

That is an unbelieving statement DHK...if God allows you to see it, you will be one.

But this is not a Calvinistic thread. And that is not my M.O.

The truth can sting, like peroxide on a wound....but this is your M.O.

 

[convicted1]

DHK, this is what Brother Iconoclast did to you...

 

[convicted1]

And after he did that to you, he took you here....

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And after he did that to you, he took you here....

Willis....could you get a little more juvenile in your depictions ? You know that's called "insulting " don't you?

 

[convicted1]

Willis....could you get a little more juvenile in your depictions ? You know that's called "insulting " don't you?

Nah, not juvenile...just poking a little fun DHK's way...


He can look to that Tim LaHaye poster he has tacked on the back of his bedroom door for strength when he gets weak...