Big Picture

[Guest]

Perhaps you are saying that Paul's reply carried the implication that the jailer could choose or not choose to respond? But why would that be significant in the context of the passage itself. The man already desired salvation; now he wanted to know how to obtain it. Paul's answer was the means by which faith was received. (Rom. 10:17).

Bob, no, I'm not saying that at all. What I am speaking of is the obvious, whether some don't get the obvious is rather insignificant, the jailer asked how to be saved. This is what all of us believers should have as an impact upon others - our lives should create the desire in another to want what we have. This is a standing offer to all. Now calvinists seem to think that the offer is exclusive but how could it possibly be? If it were exclusive then it is not an offer at all but an obligation. If an obligation then it would be unattractive and with no desire for it. If no desire for it then we become transgressors of the obligation. When we become transgressors of the obligation then we should expect judgement. If judgement then how can we be saved?

[Guest]

What I am speaking of is the obvious, whether some don't get the obvious is rather insignificant, the jailer asked how to be saved. This is what all of us believers should have as an impact upon others - our lives should create the desire in another to want what we have. This is a standing offer to all.

Certainly.

Now calvinists seem to think that the offer is exclusive but how could it possibly be?

No, that's Hyper-Calvinism.

If it were exclusive then it is not an offer at all but an obligation. If an obligation then it would be unattractive and with no desire for it. If no desire for it then we become transgressors of the obligation. When we become transgressors of the obligation then we should expect judgement. If judgement then how can we be saved?

Well I'm afraid you lost me there. The gospel is not an obligation? How are we transgressors if we obey?

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

Well I'm afraid you lost me there. The gospel is not an obligation? How are we transgressors if we obey?

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Exactly, Bob, the Gospel is not an obligation. It is offered up to those with free choice. Free choice has been placed from the beginning into the make-up of every created individual. So being not an obligation it is a free choice. I thought you were a Calvinist. Sorry I misunderstood you.

[Guest]

Is not the Trinity a paradox? I think we have terminology confusion here -- my understanding of paradox implies "apparent contradiction."

Yes we have terminology confusion. I would say the Trinity is not a paradox (I wouldn't say it's an apparent contradiction either).

But perhaps we should use the word contradiction, since we agree on that.

Here is a contradiction:

• a) God is (exactly) one person
  b) God is three persons

So we might look over the scriptures and find apparent support for both (a) and (b). Should we just "embrace" both (a) and (b) then? No, because in that case all basis for understanding anything is undermined and we need to just give up.

Instead, we need to apply the faculties God has given us in order to develop a better formulation. That's what the doctrine of the Trinity does.

Cheers,
Bob

Whether or not the Trinity or Incarnation or other biblical concepts are in fact a paradox is a issue of formal logic which has been vigorously debated within Theologocial circles for a very long time, as is the precise definition of paradox. My only point in raising it as a commonly used example of a paradox (maybe inprecisely so) was to suggest that paradox most commonly is understood to mean "apparent" contradiction and not actual contradiction.

A paradox (by my definition) actually can be and should be attempted to be resolved. An actual contradiction (unresolvable paradox, perhaps?) shouldn't be found in the bible without explanation by way of textual variance or the like.

[Guest]

Well I'm afraid you lost me there. The gospel is not an obligation? How are we transgressors if we obey?

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Exactly, Bob, the Gospel is not an obligation. It is offered up to those with free choice. Free choice has been placed from the beginning into the make-up of every created individual. So being not an obligation it is a free choice. I thought you were a Calvinist. Sorry I misunderstood you.

The gospel is an obligation, as Acts 17:30 shows. Some will obey and others won't. But all are commanded to repent.

I am a Calvinist, thanks.

Cheers,
Bob

[Guest]

The gospel is an obligation, as Acts 17:30 shows. Some will obey and others won't. But all are commanded to repent.

I am a Calvinist, thanks.

I would agree with that first part, but not the second

We are called to believe - it's an act of obedience in my mind -- most acts of obedience require a willful decision on the part of the subject, don't they? Obedience has no real meaning if it's compelled -- it would be just a reaction and not an action in that case, wouldn't it?

[Guest]

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Well, we can all agree on this. But the Calvinist insists the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent. He has predetermined they will not and are to be eternally damned. And this brings Him glory.

Hmm. Seems like a paradox to me.

[Guest]

Homer,

In the end, you are currect. In Calvinism, only the elect do repent, and repentance necessarily follows regeneration, which is said to occur solely by God's choice without any conditions or requirements given or taken in consideration by God. Since God has determined that there will always be a portion of the human race on earth (until the final consummation) who He has not chosen for life, then the nonelect will never believe. There is no if ands or buts to this. Since I've read many of your posts on the subject and know that you understand Calvinism correct in this regard, please be more careful in your choices of words, because the Calvinist is likely to dismiss you because they would say that you are either misrepresenting it, or that you do not understand it correctly. Thanks Homer.

[Guest]

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30, NKJV)

Well, we can all agree on this. But the Calvinist insists the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent. He has predetermined they will not and are to be eternally damned. And this brings Him glory.

Hmm. Seems like a paradox to me.

I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position. Perhaps you’ve heard the term, “but there for the grace of God go I”? The Reformed position postulates that man in his fallen state is an enemy of the one true God and will not chose God, his will is “enslaved” a term I herd Gregg confirm, to sin. Reformers don’t think Ro 3 is hyperbole. Therefore when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God. The Reformed view states that God allows men to go to Hell while enabling some to recognize their condition which then leads to repentance. The above representation, as far as I know or understand is a red herring because it is not that God will not allow men to repent, men don’t want to repent due to their bias that is the result of their sin nature.

PaulT

[Guest]

I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position

Isn't that what Calvin believed? I know all today don't believe in double predestination, but it's a classical Reformed position, I think, isn't it?