Salvation and Unreached Tribes

[Castor Muscular]

The progression in clear in this passage, and evident from others, that the agency of man is ordained of God to carry the gospel so that the word might be made real in the hearts of men, made effective via the Holy Spirit's enablement.

The Romans passage depicts Paul's usage of one of his favorite forms of argument, rhetoric.  The point is obvious...

(1)  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
(2)  And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
(3)  And how shall they hear without a preacher?
(4)  And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

(1)

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Give me one verse that says that God gives faith to someone. I know of only one verse that even begins to say such. Even then, its misunderstood and misapplied.

I know you only asked about one but here you go:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.  (Romans 12:3 ESV)

[/quote]

This is the only verse you posted that has anything to do with faith. I'll ignore the others.

In context, the statement above references post conversion gifts given to man. Even Gill says such...

but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith: such ought to consider that what gifts, abilities, light, and knowledge they have, they have then, not of themselves, but from God; that they have not all faith, and all knowledge, or do not know the whole of the faith of the Gospel only a measure of it, which is dealt out, divided, and parted to every man, some having a greater degree of evangelical light than others; and that all have some, but none all. The Syriac version renders it, "faith in measure"; one of Stephens's copies reads, "the measure of grace"; see Eph_4:7.

Gill even mentions a variant text from Stephens that references "Grace".

[quote author=christundivided]...and from the demand of God for man to believe IT in off his own choice.

Pelagianism is still alive and well as you have proven. You might be interested to know that orthodox Christianity has rejected Pelagianism as heresy, but the Mormons are unapologetically Pelagian. [/quote]

How about Semipelagianism?

Do you enjoy saying I believe in heresy? When you know nothing about what I believe? Does it make you feel better. For your information, I am somewhere between Semipelagianism and  Total Depravity. I consider Total Depravity to be a childish invention of man to explain a complex God's choice in humanity. Some have accused me of being a Open Theist. I do not consider myself as such. My belief differ somewhat from Open Theism. Needless to say, I don't fit into your mold of what you think I am.

Jesus saves. Not knowledge about Jesus.

See. How childish. Sometimes adults are so silly. I often feel like I'm dealing with 3 yr olds when it comes to Calvinist.

Knowledge of the historical Christ can lead a man to seek God. Yes, ONLY Jesus saves. Yet, He ONLY saves those that come to Him.

 

[christundivided]

The progression in clear in this passage, and evident from others, that the agency of man is ordained of God to carry the gospel so that the word might be made real in the hearts of men, made effective via the Holy Spirit's enablement.

The Romans passage depicts Paul's usage of one of his favorite forms of argument, rhetoric.  The point is obvious...

(1)  How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?
(2)  And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
(3)  And how shall they hear without a preacher?
(4)  And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

(1)

 

[christundivided]

So much for "Total Depravity" before accepting the Gospel of Christ.

Question for you.

Is "sun light" a thing of God?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So much for "Total Depravity" before accepting the Gospel of Christ.

Question for you.

Is "sun light" a thing of God?

Are you asking if God created sunlight? I believe He created the sun and the display of light is simply its function as God intended.

And yes, the heavens do declare God's glory and the skies display His handiwork.

 

[Castor Muscular]

If God gives everything to man.... What does it have to be "MIXED" with?

This question makes no sense.  I can give you both gin and vermouth.  If I mix them, you'll get a Martini.  But you still got everything from me.  (I'm pretty sure that's what goes into a Martini, anyway.)

 

[christundivided]

So much for "Total Depravity" before accepting the Gospel of Christ.

Question for you.

Is "sun light" a thing of God?

Are you asking if God created sunlight? I believe He created the sun and the display of light is simply its function as God intended.

And yes, the heavens do declare God's glory and the skies display His handiwork.

Did God create "Calvary?" Was it visible to mankind in much the same way the "sun light" "declares His glory"?

I'll give you my view.... God's divine action in bringing about Calvary was the "heavenly" meeting the earthly. Its where God divinely declared Himself to all of mankind in offering His Son. It wasn't "done in a corner" or ordained in obscurity. This "heavenly things" or "thing of God" was done for all of mankind to consider.

The Calvinist ignores this fact, when he talks of "Total Depravity". He would rather declares such things as "foolishness" to the carnal mind. I would ask that Calvinist, is "sun light" foolishness to the carnal mind? Is someone "dying" for another... "foolishness" to the carnal mind? We praise the virtue of those men and women who die to save others.

Calvinist have turned "Calvary" into something NO ONE but the "Elect" can even consider. Such is nonsense.

Such teachings are in direct contradiction to verses like....

Act 17:22  Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23  For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25  Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28  For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Give me one verse that says that God gives faith to someone. I know of only one verse that even begins to say such. Even then, its misunderstood and misapplied.

I know you only asked about one but here you go:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.  (Romans 12:3 ESV)

This is the only verse you posted that has anything to do with faith. I'll ignore the others. [/quote]

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets,

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]The Calvinist ignores this fact, when he talks of "Total Depravity". He would rather declares such things as "foolishness" to the carnal mind. I would ask that Calvinist, is "sun light" foolishness to the carnal mind? Is someone "dying" for another... "foolishness" to the carnal mind? We praise the virtue of those men and women who die to save others.

Calvinist have turned "Calvary" into something NO ONE but the "Elect" can even consider. Such is nonsense. [/quote]

It would help if you actually understood what Calvinists believe. Calvinists (and others) would say that Calvary is something that only the Elect can accept, not something that only the Elect can consider. (It's the "T" in TULIP.)

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So much for "Total Depravity" before accepting the Gospel of Christ.

Question for you.

Is "sun light" a thing of God?

Are you asking if God created sunlight? I believe He created the sun and the display of light is simply its function as God intended.

And yes, the heavens do declare God's glory and the skies display His handiwork.

Did God create "Calvary?" Was it visible to mankind in much the same way the "sun light" "declares His glory"?

I'll give you my view.... God's divine action in bringing about Calvary was the "heavenly" meeting the earthly. Its where God divinely declared Himself to all of mankind in offering His Son. It wasn't "done in a corner" or ordained in obscurity. This "heavenly things" or "thing of God" was done for all of mankind to consider.

The Calvinist ignores this fact, when he talks of "Total Depravity". He would rather declares such things as "foolishness" to the carnal mind. I would ask that Calvinist, is "sun light" foolishness to the carnal mind? Is someone "dying" for another... "foolishness" to the carnal mind? We praise the virtue of those men and women who die to save others.

Calvinist have turned "Calvary" into something NO ONE but the "Elect" can even consider. Such is nonsense.

Such teachings are in direct contradiction to verses like....

Act 17:22  Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23  For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24  God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25  Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28  For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29  Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

I no longer consider myself a Calvinist.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]The Calvinist ignores this fact, when he talks of "Total Depravity". He would rather declares such things as "foolishness" to the carnal mind. I would ask that Calvinist, is "sun light" foolishness to the carnal mind? Is someone "dying" for another... "foolishness" to the carnal mind? We praise the virtue of those men and women who die to save others.

Calvinist have turned "Calvary" into something NO ONE but the "Elect" can even consider. Such is nonsense.

It would help if you actually understood what Calvinists believe. Calvinists (and others) would say that Calvary is something that only the Elect can accept, not something that only the Elect can consider. (It's the "T" in TULIP.)
[/quote]

You love word games don't you.

A Calvinist would never say that ANY  PERSON could consider Calvary. Since  you understand Calvinism so well..... then by all means, post a quote for well known Calvinist that says such. A Calvinist would say you don't "consider" foolishness other than to consider, IT, foolishness.

Since you're so good at English defintions. Here is one for you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consider

to think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]You love word games don't you. [/quote]

I love accuracy and correctness.

[quote author=christundivided]A Calvinist would never say that ANY  PERSON could consider Calvary. Since  you understand Calvinism so well..... then by all means, post a quote for well known Calvinist that says such. A Calvinist would say you don't "consider" foolishness other than to consider, IT, foolishness. [/quote]

The text expressly asserts, that sinners have not the love of God in them. It would be easy to show, that this same doctrine is every where recognized in the Bible. But as I am to deal with those whom I affirm to be totally depraved, I do not expect that a thus saith the Lord will settle the question with you, and put it beyond debate.--You are unbelievers, and however you assent to the truth of the Bible in general, yet I know, that you have no hearty confidence in its doctrines in their detail. - Chuck Finney

I assume Chuck Finney is prominent enough for you.

[quote author=christundivided]Since you're so good at English defintions. Here is one for you

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consider

to think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision[/quote]

Exactly.

"Yes" is a decision. "No" is a decision.

 

[christundivided]

If God gives everything to man.... What does it have to be "MIXED" with?

This question makes no sense.  I can give you both gin and vermouth.  If I mix them, you'll get a Martini.  But you still got everything from me.  (I'm pretty sure that's what goes into a Martini, anyway.)

I hope you talking about a "London Dry" and not "Gin Rummy".

I was really talking about the verse mentioned earlier.

Heb 4:2  For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

In context, there is something "in them" that needs to "mix" with the Gospel. I thought faith comes by hearing? There is a intricate process that takes place in regeneration. The answer is not simply to say that God gives some faith and not others.

Either way, you have the mix. One is not without the other once "mixed". To some degree you have tried to make the point that the "word preached" is not necessary. Yet, it is part of the "mix".

 

[christundivided]

The text expressly asserts, that sinners have not the love of God in them. It would be easy to show, that this same doctrine is every where recognized in the Bible. But as I am to deal with those whom I affirm to be totally depraved, I do not expect that a thus saith the Lord will settle the question with you, and put it beyond debate.--You are unbelievers, and however you assent to the truth of the Bible in general, yet I know, that you have no hearty confidence in its doctrines in their detail. - Chuck Finney

I assume Chuck Finney is prominent enough for you.

Nope. Finney wasn't a Calvinist.

http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/images/CharlesGrandisonFinney.html

Finney was criticized because he emphasized the will of man in the process of regeneration

Do you just use the first Google reference you came across?

Exactly.

"Yes" is a decision. "No" is a decision

Both Yes and No have to be part of "consideration". To a Calvinist, "Yes" is never a possibly for anyone but the Elect.

See, you do love word games.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Nope. Finney wasn't a Calvinist. [/quote]

Chuck Finney was a Presbyterian minister.

If you'd like, I can provide quotes from his book on systematic theology.

IX. In regeneration the subject is both passive and active.

1. That he is active is plain from what has been said, and from the very nature of the change.

2. That he is, at the same time, passive, is plain from the fact that he acts only when and as he is acted upon. That is, he is passive in the perception of the truth presented by the Holy Spirit. I know that this perception is no part of regeneration. But it is simultaneous with regeneration. It induces regeneration. It is the condition and the occasion of regeneration. Therefore the subject of regeneration must be a passive recipient or percipient of the truth presented by the Holy Spirit, at the moment, and during the act of regeneration. The Spirit acts upon him through or by the truth: thus far he is passive.

Would you like me to cite all the relevant petals of the TULIP from his book?

[quote author=christundivided]Finney was criticized because he emphasized the will of man in the process of regeneration[/quote]

Finney was criticized for a number of things. I'm critical of a number of things he did.

I think the will of man is a vital aspect of regeneration (yet you label me a Calvinist). Very few people who grant God the initiative in regeneration say that man has no input. The question isn't really one about who contributes but the order in which said contribution happens. As I stated previously: God initiates, man responds.

[quote author=christundivided]Do you just use the first Google reference you came across?[/quote]

Close to it...why do you care? You said no prominent Calvinist would assert what I did. I showed you otherwise.

[quote author=christundivided]

Exactly.

"Yes" is a decision. "No" is a decision

Both Yes and No have to be part of "consideration". To a Calvinist, "Yes" is never a possibly for anyone but the Elect.[/quote]

No..."yes" is very much a possibility, just one that the person will reject. The lack of acceptance does not remove the possibility itself.

[quote author=christundivided]See, you do love word games.[/quote]

You still haven't managed to get the basics right yet. Once you understand the basics, we can start discussing the nuances.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I was really talking about the verse mentioned earlier.

Heb 4:2  For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

In context, there is something "in them" that needs to "mix" with the Gospel. I thought faith comes by hearing? There is a intricate process that takes place in regeneration. The answer is not simply to say that God gives some faith and not others.

Either way, you have the mix. One is not without the other once "mixed". To some degree you have tried to make the point that the "word preached" is not necessary. Yet, it is part of the "mix".

You're reading too much into "in them".  You're assuming "in them" means it originated "in them".  But this verse says nothing of the sort.  It doesn't specify where it came from. 

And, actually, yes, the answer is simply that God gives some faith and not others.  He gives it by giving them ears to hear, eyes to see, and a mind to understand.  (Deut)

 

[christundivided]

You still haven't managed to get the basics right yet. Once you understand the basics, we can start discussing the nuances.

Slow down there big boy. I've been debating Calvinists for more than 20 years. I  know TULIP and PILUT. Sorry if  you don't understand what you believe.

Chuck Finney was a Presbyterian minister.

You're making a common mistake. A mistake that novices to Systematic Theology make. Just because Finney was a Presbyterian.... .doesn't mean he was a Calvinist. Just because Calvin is considered to be the father of the Presbyterian church.... doesn't mean everyone claiming to be Presbyterian believe like he believed. Much in the same manner that just because Spurgeon was Baptist doesn't mean he wasn't a Calvinist. Maybe you've heard of Reformed Baptist before?

Finney's words speak for themselves and the fact that he was criticized by OTHER CALVINIST for his beliefs on man's role in regeneration says otherwise. Just because you keep repeating it... doesn't make it so.

I think the will of man is a vital aspect of regeneration (yet you label me a Calvinist). Very few people who grant God the initiative in regeneration say that man has no input. The question isn't really one about who contributes but the order in which said contribution happens. As I stated previously: God initiates, man responds.

Spoken like a true Calvinist who really doesn't like to be called one.

and by the way..... there are MANY people that believe that God initiates regeneration without any say from man.

Close to it...why do you care? You said no prominent Calvinist would assert what I did. I showed you otherwise.

How about using your memory???? Like having actually STUDIED it before. I KNEW Finney wasn't considered a Calvinist by many people.

Since you are so informed and we can't agree on Finney, provide someone else. How about Calvin himself? Have at it.

 

[christundivided]

I was really talking about the verse mentioned earlier.

Heb 4:2  For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

In context, there is something "in them" that needs to "mix" with the Gospel. I thought faith comes by hearing? There is a intricate process that takes place in regeneration. The answer is not simply to say that God gives some faith and not others.

Either way, you have the mix. One is not without the other once "mixed". To some degree you have tried to make the point that the "word preached" is not necessary. Yet, it is part of the "mix".

You're reading too much into "in them".  You're assuming "in them" means it originated "in them".  But this verse says nothing of the sort.  It doesn't specify where it came from. 

And, actually, yes, the answer is simply that God gives some faith and not others.  He gives it by giving them ears to hear, eyes to see, and a mind to understand.  (Deut)

 

[Castor Muscular]

God granted Satan's self action in sin. God DIDN'T initiate it or have a direct influence in bringing to pass.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

You have yet to show that God gives faith to some and not to others. You base such entirely on "ears to hear" and "eyes to see". Yes, God INCREASES faith. Yet, you can not ignore the Scriptures that teach that man can seek God and find him of his own self will. I've posted verses from Acts 17 several times and you haven't dealt with them yet. Acts 17 is just as much the Scriptures as "granted to him by My Father".

29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 having the same conflict which you saw in me and now hear is in me.

[speaking to those already saved] 3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

But it should be self-evident that saving faith comes from God and that he gives it to some but not others, because Romans 9 makes it clear that God makes some people for glory and others for destruction. 

Now, your turn.  Show us scripture that says God only gives us increases in faith, but faith comes from within us.

 

[rsc2a]

You still haven't managed to get the basics right yet. Once you understand the basics, we can start discussing the nuances.

Slow down there big boy. I've been debating Calvinists for more than 20 years. I  know TULIP and PILUT. Sorry if  you don't understand what you believe.

Then stop making dumb statements about total depravity.

[quote author=christundivided]

Chuck Finney was a Presbyterian minister.

You're making a common mistake. A mistake that novices to Systematic Theology make. Just because Finney was a Presbyterian.... .doesn't mean he was a Calvinist. Just because Calvin is considered to be the father of the Presbyterian church.... doesn't mean everyone claiming to be Presbyterian believe like he believed.[/quote]

He was an ordained Presbyterian minister. One of the requirements for ordination is a stated belief in the Westminster Confession. Would you rather I cite the CoF or the BCO to show why you are mistaken?

[quote author=christundivided]Much in the same manner that just because Spurgeon was Baptist doesn't mean he wasn't a Calvinist. Maybe you've heard of Reformed Baptist before?[/quote]

Yes....it's actually the historical Baptist view. What's your point?

[quote author=christundivided]Finney's words speak for themselves and the fact that he was criticized by OTHER CALVINIST for his beliefs on man's role in regeneration says otherwise. Just because you keep repeating it... doesn't make it so.[/quote]

He was criticized by people because they disagreed with him? What's your point?

Better yet...I provided original sources showing where Finney adhered to (at least one of) the petals of TULIP. I can provide citations for the other four. Provide original sources showing where he didn't. (In case you are curious, that would mean stuff he wrote.)

[quote author=christundivided]

I think the will of man is a vital aspect of regeneration (yet you label me a Calvinist). Very few people who grant God the initiative in regeneration say that man has no input. The question isn't really one about who contributes but the order in which said contribution happens. As I stated previously: God initiates, man responds.

Spoken like a true Calvinist who really doesn't like to be called one. [/quote]

Or a Thomist...or a Lutheran...or an Augustinist....or a....

[quote author=christundivided]How about using your memory???? Like having actually STUDIED it before. I KNEW Finney wasn't considered a Calvinist by many people. [/quote]

That last sentence isn't relevant to the argument. It's also not the claim you originally made. Yet again, the goalposts are "adjusted".

[quote author=christundivided]Since you are so informed and we can't agree on Finney, provide someone else. How about Calvin himself? Have at it.[/quote]

Not interested. You said "no one". I provided an example. Another example won't make you any less wrong than you were already.