Acts 13:48 (Periphrastic Construction)

[Guest]

The sarcasm continues. But underneath the sarcasm is the plain denial that we all deserve hell for our sins, and that God is obligated to provide the means for us to escape the due punishment for them. Grace evidently can be demanded.

Friend, such reasoning only has it's strength by focusing on the wickedness of man in direct contrast to God's absolute holiness.

Is that not the starting point of the gospel? I know we have our little tracts that start off with "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", but is that where the scriptures start?

It is true that God is light, but this is only part of the picture of what God is. Let us not forget that while God is light, He is also love. One this is realized, it becomes problematic to reason along the lines of a partial picture of God to come to a final conclusion regarding man. This is why Calvinism is not biblical, for it highlights and elevates God's holiness at the expense of His love, goodness and grace.

Not at all. Rather, Calvinism holds these in proper balance. God's love and grace are seen in the accomplishment of His purpose by His mighty hand, not in the portrayal of a love that falls short and fails, leaving millions lost whom He set His love on and sent His son for.

The question is about God's heart and what He wants to do, not what man deserves and what God is obligated to do for man.

Hi Troy,

I can definitely agree with the last sentence. However, it is Douglas (and you too?) who mutes both the wickedness of man and the absolute holiness of God by putting God in the dock to judge his fairness. You "shave off the rough edges" to give us a more user-friendly gospel, suitable for our modern ears. But is that the message of the apostles?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

I can definitely agree with the last sentence. However, it is Douglas (and you too?) who mutes both the wickedness of man and the absolute holiness of God by putting God in the dock to judge his fairness. You "shave off the rough edges" to give us a more user-friendly gospel, suitable for our modern ears. But is that the message of the apostles?

That's precisely the question -- if it is indeed the message of the apostles (and Christ), then you yourself would actually be adding rough edges to make a more hostile gospel, wouldn't you? That should be just as scary to you as the fear of watering down the gospel would be for us.

We all need to maintain a level of doctrinal humility, here, as we both strive to find the true meaning of the gospel -- we can't both be right, but we might both be wrong.

[Guest]

Is that not the starting point of the gospel? I know we have our little tracts that start off with "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", but is that where the scriptures start?

What are you talking about?

Not at all. Rather, Calvinism holds these in proper balance. God's love and grace are seen in the accomplishment of His purpose by His mighty hand, not in the portrayal of a love that falls short and fails, leaving millions lost whom He set His love on and sent His son for.

Yeah right. Proper balance, meaning sovereignty and power at the forefront and love, grace, and goodness in the background? You seem to use his mighty hand (sovereignty) as a control factor on love and grace; or to say it in other words, love and grace are seen through the lens of sovereignty. You might not realize it, but while you disagree that calvinism limits God's love, grace, and goodness and try to explain what you deem Calvinism really saying, you end up proving my point. For you, love and grace are seen in the accomplishment of His purposes (saving relatively few in contrast to those finally lost) by his mighty hand while portraying His strongest love to them and leaving millions lost whom He never set His love on and sent His son for! Thanks for proving my point.

I can definitely agree with the last sentence. However, it is Douglas (and you too?) who mutes both the wickedness of man and the absolute holiness of God by putting God in the dock to judge his fairness. You "shave off the rough edges" to give us a more user-friendly gospel, suitable for our modern ears. But is that the message of the apostles?

Nonsense. I proclaim a gospel that Jesus has come in the flesh, brought the Kingdom of God to to his creatures. I proclaim this Jesus has died for their sins and through his death conquered sin, satan and the entire kindom of darkness. I proclaim such a one has been crowned King and made to be both Lord and Christ. I proclaim Jesus is Lord.

In summary, I proclaim that God has provided a way of salvation for all through the life, message, death, and resurrection of His Son. Redemption is found in Christ, and in knowing Him. Jesus gave Himself for all who will believe, that He might redeem them from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people. He is genuine in the 'great invitation' he offers to every man, woman, boy and girl to be united to God and the citizens of His Kingdom, just as He is serious in His universal command to all men everywhere to repent and believe in the gospel of the Kingdom. How can these both be? Because Jesus is the Lion and He is the Lamb. In His kindness and gentleness He reveals to a lost soul that they can have their sins forgiven and be reconciled to God. And, in His seriousness and severity, with eyes of fire, He demands to that same wicked soul that they must repent and believe in the everlasting Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

You see, while accusing non-calvinists of "shaving off the rough edges to give a more user-friendly gospel, suitable for modern ears, Calvinism actually goes to extremes on the nature of man, adding to the gospel to make mankind out to be like the vampire zombies in the movie "I am Legend." Now it's true you want to be 100% honest and blunt about the wickedness of man, which is important, it's going beyond biblical revelation to sheer imagination to argue and conclude for the calvinist version of total depravity. Darin is right on point. While some water down the gospel, others create, define, and defend a gospel that as a reaction takes certain aspects to extremes, in order to counter-act the watered down version. Sounds like Calvinism to me.

[Guest]

Calvinism actually goes to extremes on the nature of man, adding to the gospel to make mankind out to be like the vampire zombies in the movie "I am Legend." Now it's true you want to be 100% honest and blunt about the wickedness of man, which is important, it's going beyond biblical revelation to sheer imagination to argue and conclude for the calvinist version of total depravity.

Troy,
What do you think "total depravity" means from a "Calvinist" point of view?
Is this just the "highlighted" version or do you think this is precisely what a Calvinist thinks?

[Guest]

The sarcasm continues. But underneath the sarcasm is the plain denial that we all deserve hell for our sins, and that God is obligated to provide the means for us to escape the due punishment for them. Grace evidently can be demanded.

God should just overlook our sins; after all, we would certainly do the same. Such a view makes a mockery of God's holiness and of the Atonement.

Cheers,
Bob

Bob, bro.

I don't think Paidion denies that we all deserve hell for our sins, or that Paidion thinks that God has any obligation to provide a means of escape from punishment. I believe the Bible tells us that even though we all deserve death, since all have sinned, Jesus has provided a way to escape death and inherit eternal life, and that all one has to do is repent and believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins. Doesn't the Bible say that?

I would elaborate more, but Troy C did a fantastic job of describing at least how I understand God's plan of salvation for those who CHOOSE to believe in Him.

My favorite verse John 3:16 must have a different understanding I guess for the calvinist. ??

All I know, and you Calvinists don't have to agree, but I believe I have a choice to follow Jesus Christ or not to follow him, and it is my choice to follow Him.

With all brotherly love to both the Calvinist and non-calvinist,
Doug

[Guest]

I believe the Bible tells us that even though we all deserve death, since all have sinned, Jesus has provided a way to escape death and inherit eternal life, and that all one has to do is repent and believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins. Doesn't the Bible say that?

It does, and we agree. But that's a long way from where you started.

I would elaborate more, but Troy C did a fantastic job of describing at least how I understand God's plan of salvation for those who CHOOSE to believe in Him.

You'll find this unbelieveable, but I agree. He did an excellent job. But the conclusions he draws vis a vis Calvinism are gratuitous and unwarranted.

My favorite verse John 3:16 must have a different understanding I guess for the calvinist. ??

Let's discuss John 3:16. What do you understand it to be teaching?

I'll give you my exegesis: John 3:16 is a statement of purpose (ἵνα in the Greek). It tells us why or the purpose in God sending His son: so that (ἵνα) all those believing (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων) would receive eternal life. It also tells us God's motivation for doing so: God's love for the world (ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον).

What I don't see in John 3:16 is the idea that God sent His son to make all men savable, or anything to help us understand who can or cannot or will or will not believe. All we are told is that all those believing will receive eternal life.

But give me your exegesis.

All I know, and you Calvinists don't have to agree, but I believe I have a choice to follow Jesus Christ or not to follow him, and it is my choice to follow Him.

Of course you do, I agree.

But Doug, why do you believe and not your neighbor? Are you smarter? More sensitive? More spiritual? Do you have a softer heart that is more open to God's pleading?

Did God do anything for you that He didn't do for your neighbor?

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Is that not the starting point of the gospel? I know we have our little tracts that start off with "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", but is that where the scriptures start?

What are you talking about?

Hi Troy,

Sorry, I hastily assumed you would be familiar with the reference. Maybe I'm showing my age "Four Spiritual Laws" is a famous tract written by Bill Bright back in the 1960's. I used this tract extensively as a teenager. In fact, I came to Christ in the late 70's through the ministry of Campus Crusade (anyone remember the "I found it" campaign?), which is kind of ironic now...

See e.g. http://www.godlovestheworld.com/

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

What do you think "total depravity" means from a "Calvinist" point of view? Is this just the "highlighted" version or do you think this is precisely what a Calvinist thinks?

Fallen man cannot do or work any good, comprehend or apprehend the good and cannot have any desire towards the good until "injected" with resurrection grace. Total depravity from a calvinist point of view is completely extensive so that the lost cannot will to do any good. All we do is evil. All we love is ourselves. We will always suppress God, and only exalt ourselves. If God didn't intentionally restrain the wickedness of the heart (refered to as an aspect of his common grace), men would be as depraved as intensively possible.

Now assuming I am correct and this is what total depravity means from a calvinist point of view, compare this with the creatures in I am Legend. By the way, some of my calvinist friends didn't have a problem in seeing these creatures as a picture of man's hostility towards God and depravity of heart. One of them goes to southern seminary and has been a student for two years, which I'm sure your aware of. Bruce Ware was/is his systematic theology teacher.

[Guest]

Test-bump