BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale VI - PilgrimAgain vs. 1013

[AsLan]

Romans 1:20 - Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

Excuse of what? Their actions? Would that mean there is punishment? This rule seems like it's for everyone. Something to do with conscience.

It would seem Paul thinks that all are going to be judged regardless of hearing of Christ, under whom there is no other name given that we can be saved.

www.seanwood.com

 

[Knightro]

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away; the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come he will reprove the world (anthropos) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement." John 16:7, 8

So, the Holy Spirit Convicts the conscience of Anthropos (all men).

Why?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

And when those who have not heard obey their conscience, the Holy Spirit...

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law(the righteousness of the Law, Rom 2:26; 8:24), these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Romans 2:14

So,when the "unevangelized" obey the Holy Spirit(who is testing them), they fulfill the righteousness of the law the same way we who believe when we obey that same Spirit, though in knowledge of it.

What if they die then, before having a chance to meet or hear an evangelist, say in the deserts of Africa or the forests of South America 1500 years ago?

Who is the better evangelist, men or the Holy Spirit, the things made or the show put on by the evangelists? I think God will bring more men into the Kingdom by His own hand than all the world's evangelists combined to the nth power.

 

[Yxboom]

Great point Knightro and welcome to TOL!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Pilgrim's first post was good. I disagree with it... but it was a good post. Although a bit to friendly (just kidding)!

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Wow I just posted it and you're already reading. That is fast!

By the way, we got DSL in the office today! Yippee!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
Wow I just posted it and you're already reading. That is fast!

By the way, we got DSL in the office today! Yippee!

Good job Pilgrim! Short, sweet, understandable and well thought out!

 

[chance]

FOMBL!

FOMBL!

PA said

Hmm, it seems like good news doesn't it. But it sure makes the work of the cross seem pointless.

LOL! The sort of thinking behind this criticism speaks volumes.

PA must think that there is only ONE good reason to make Christ's name known throughout the world - so that people can hear of Christ and be assured of Heaven. Of course there has always been more than one good reason to evangelize, but PAs reducing evangelization to one good reason alone, ignoring the other reasons for evangelizing that have been historically held tells me that his case against inclusivism is a poor one.

I eagerly anticipate PAs explanation of what happened to those Old Testament saints that heard nothing of God dying for them on a cross and placing no trust in the name of Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever form of the name they would have UNDERSTOOD to be refering to Jesus) before they died.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Well, I do have a very good explination. The fact that you can't anticipate the answer shows that you hold little regard for the Hebrew Scripture and the relationship of the Hebrew (preChrist) to his or her God. It tells me that you only understand the promises of God from a very narrow place defined by western Christianity. But I don't want to give away the answer here. You'll have to read it at BR VI. By the way, the idea that inclusivism undermines evangelism is not the only argument I'm bringing to the table. But if you read my opening statement you know that.



Pilgrim

 

[chance]

not helpful

not helpful

Starting off your argument with a quote from Calvin, who I have little respect for because of his insistence that God could not tell us what He is really like in the pages of the Bible, BUT THAT HE DID IN FACT KNOW WHAT GOD WAS LIKE AND WAS CAPABLE OF TELLING US IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, is not persuasive at all PA.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

If it was an appeal to authority you might have a point. However, it was not. It was quoted mostly for the sake of the "vile stupidity" remark which I felt was in keeping with the general tenor of BR's. But it also demonstrated the scriptural point from which the restrictivist side typically argues. On those merits the quote succeeds.

At any rate, your respect for a given person has little bearing on whether or not that person might have been correct on any given point. That sort of thinking would be akin to "poisoning the well."

But I'm still not sure exactly what your objection to Calvin is? The sentence was a bit run on. Did yo mean to say that in fact God can reveal himself to us in scripture? or did you mean that Calvin is the one who can explain in plain langauge?

If you meant the prior then you and Calvin are in agreement because what Calvin argues is not that God can not be known plainly in scripture, but that an eternal being can not be known in it's completeness by finite beings. Note that there is a difference between not knowing anything at all, and not knowing everything.

If you meant the latter, well then, you have some source for the assertion I assume?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

And I suppose some sort of understanding of the noetic effects of sin would be in order as well. Like most orthodox folk, Calvin would argue that with out the Holy Spirit, the written word of God is not effecacious (sp?) because at the fall, all of our faculties were effected including our ability to reason.

Speaking of reason, I think it's time to change my signiture line now that Christmastide is over.

 

[Yxboom]

I applaud PA's opening post. He did an extraordinary job at being concise to the point and very well worded and laid out. Good job :thumb:

 

[chance]

Calvin claims that God lisps to us like a mother to her baby in Scripture. On the other hand, Calvin claims that he can tell us in plain language what God is like. He claims to tell us what he says the bible doesn't. Where does he get this knowledge if not from the bible? That is why I dislike his thinking primarily.

Yes I do have a reference and could find it in a few minutes.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

That's good enough for me. That is, if you say you have the reference I'll take your word on it. I would like to know the context and wording before defending it further.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Hey now! How can 1013 have a vote on me already? He hasn't even spoken yet! Was I that bad?

And how come I can't vote in this poll?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Oh, and thanks for the kudos Boom and Knight.

 

[Yxboom]

All votes pre-yesterday were erased. Did you by chance vote prior to yesterday?

 

[Yxboom]

Sanders does a fairly extensive job on Calvin regarding his teaching that God "lisps" so that mankind can know Him.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I'll need to get back to that then though I am nor sure how cogent it would be to the argument for or against inclusivism/restrictivism.

Might it possibly be a tangent as well as an attempt to poison the well?

 

[1013]

Hey now! How can 1013 have a vote on me already? He hasn't even spoken yet! Was I that bad?

No, I'm just that good!