Defending God's Honor

[Jefferson]

Defending God's Honor

This is the show from Thursday September 19th, 2013

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

To say that a man who has never heard of Jesus Christ can be saved is absolute blasphemy in a Calvinist world. But to say it in the real world is to defend God.

Summary:

For the Defense: God's righteous character is slandered by many unbelievers. Sadly, God's honor even needs to be defended against the attacks of some Christians.

 

[Lon]

Ya' know, I cannot help but 'feel' like I'm being purposefully misrepresented, scapegoated, and despised as an Open Theology punching bag, simply because you need one to punch? Sorry, but I've been unfairly and unrighteously misrepresented as a Calvinist, today.

To say that a man who has never heard of Jesus Christ can be saved is absolute blasphemy in a Calvinist world. But to say it in the real world is to defend God.

"Intimidated by Calvinism?" :nono: I'd never felt intimidated prior to becoming a Calvinist.

I know we are the bane of Open Theism...but unfoundable statements simply make Bob look reactionary. I guess saying he feels intimidated by us explains a lot.

Saying God 'schedules' attrocity is incorrect.

So, is Bob cutting Ephesians 1:3-6 from his bible? Why does he say God 'must be henious' if any christian loves and keeps the word of God? Is God despicable for allowing Ephesians 1:3-6 in our Bibles? Yes or No? Romans 8:28?

Bob, sorry, but you are painting a picture of a God who is not even omnicompetent. You are 'trying' to get God 'off the hook" by making Him incompetent and unnattached to His creation. Suddenly, the OV paradigm of a 'relational' God has Him incredibly unrelational, unaware, and unconcerned.

Bottom line: Bob, as graciously as I can state: You are trying to make rape/murder/death worse than the condition of sin and distance God from these rather than us needing distance from sin.


Impassibility does not mean 'no emotion.' Passion, rather, is a human 'reaction.' C.S. Lewis was trying to tell you (and me) that God's righteous actions and nature, cannot be reactionary concerning man's imperfections. Another way of saying this: God cannot change who He perfectly is, based on our imperfections, without ceasing to be a righteoous Holy God. Specifically, C.S. Lewis, in Miracles, was saying God cannot be affected by passion, rather than His own perfection.

Example: you as a father, are not swayed by your children's wrongful pleas (or really any kind of pleas- more on this). Rather, you have, in mind already, a way you will respond to your children's reactions (passions) based on what is best for them. Such means, you are not 'compromising.' Thus, we are saying an impassible God does not 'compromise' with sin. Such is lovingly impassionate toward their good (at least in and of as much as we are good parents, we aren't God so sometimes must change to better love).

You, Bob, should be more careful, intelligent, (and I think: sensitive), than this. I think you would have 'liked' to have made Calvinists look like fools, but no. You did not accomplish this, imho.

What does it matter what a Calvinist says about a man in India who dies before hearing the gospel? Incidentally, Bob joined with the Pope's sentiments expressed in Knight's recent Daily Topic!

You went to the same verse I do, for answering the question.... as a Calvinist.

Unfortunately, Bob is making some indictments against Calvinism, up. See here this article, for instance, on the plight of infants:
"...Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved."

If you come to understand us, however, I think we stop being the OV whipping post, so I'm fairly sure OV doesn't want to know what we really believe but prefer the mischaraterization? I know we have to be enemies but shouldn't 'truth' be paramount? If I'm going to take lashes, I'll man up, but I want to take them for something I actually believe.


Ya' know, I cannot help but 'feel' like I'm being purposefully misrepresented, scapegoated, and despised as an Open Theology punching bag, simply because you need one to punch? Sorry, but I've been unfairly and unrighteously misrepresented as a Calvinist, today.

 

[Nick M]

God's honor even needs to be defended against the attacks of some Christians.

Calvinists are not Christians. They ad to and subtract from the gospel. Paul says they are outside the faith and should be cut off and tossed in the fire (accursed).

 

[Lon]

Calvinists are not Christians. They ad to and subtract from the gospel. Paul says they are outside the faith and should be cut off and tossed in the fire (accursed).

Is that what you got out of Bob's message? :nono:
Such is ignorant banter. Talk to Knight or GR or somebody before speaking out in public again, would be my suggestion.

 

[Nick M]

Is that what you got out of Bob's message?

That has nothing to do with his show. I just wanted to point out the error of suggesting that somebody who views themselves as a cosmic lottery winner, and others as created for destruction does not believe the gospel. They reject it, and subsequently pervert it.

 

[beloved57]

To say that a man who has never heard of Jesus Christ can be saved is absolute blasphemy in a Calvinist world. But to say it in the real world is to defend God.

Wonder if a Person Christ died for never heard the Gospel, would they still be saved from the penalty of their sins ?

 

[Lon]

That has nothing to do with his show. I just wanted to point out the error of suggesting that somebody who views themselves as a cosmic lottery winner, and others as created for destruction does not believe the gospel. They reject it, and subsequently pervert it.

The only thing you are doing here, is trying to switch the responsibility for your salvation, from God, to your own hands. This is not, for me, the magical cure-all. It is rife with problems. Synergism makes you at least somewhat responsible for your own salvation and christianity.

I have no verse that says "Lon was saved by grace and partially by Lon not being a sin-loving-mule-ish-stubborn-head." <-- You are simply saying He chooses only those who aren't sinning stubborn-heads and cannot save sinning stubborn-heads. As such, John 3:16 goes out the window by your reactionary statement just as easily as you think it does for a Calvinist. The Calvinist doesn't know, so I suppose you can say I'm into some sort of Lottery as far as man is concerned, because I don't know why I'm saved and other men are not. It isn't because I'm 'special' or did anything special. Such would be just as selective if not more so. Your view eliminates 'world' from John 3:16, in that you are saying God only died for a specific 'kind' of person who willingly and is able to willingly respond to the gospel. Such is still and yet, not the whole world.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Wonder if a Person Christ died for never heard the Gospel, would they still be saved from the penalty of their sins ?

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

 

[Lon]

Wonder if a Person Christ died for never heard the Gospel, would they still be saved from the penalty of their sins ?

It wasn't true anyway. It is an erroneaus blanket statement. Again, I feel perjured without having said a word in my defense but I don't think an Arian nation is going to rise and start making us wear lottery tickets on our arms or ship us off in trains, though (I'm glad Canada is close from where I live).

 

[Angel4Truth]

It wasn't true anyway. It is an erroneaus blanket statement. Again, I feel perjured without having said a word in my defense but I don't think an Arian nation is going to rise and start making us wear lottery tickets on our arms or ship us off in trains, though (I'm glad Canada is close from where I live).

Do you believe that there are some that will be saved if they have never heard of Christ and had no access to hear of Him?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Calvinists are not Christians. They ad to and subtract from the gospel. Paul says they are outside the faith and should be cut off and tossed in the fire (accursed).

You and Bob Enyart are not Christians because you reject Salvation by grace through FAITH and created a false gospel in which man can be saved without having faith. Galatians 1:8 says you are both going to Hell unless you repent and believe the gospel.

@Lon- The infant salvation question is actually somewhat complex from scripture. On the one hand, you have 2 Samuel 12:23, where David seems to express confidence that he'll see his child in heaven. Although some would say he's talking about going to his child in the grave, and even if he did mean seeing his child in heaven, he could theoretically have been wrong. You also have something in one of Paul's epistles (1 Corinthians?) that talks about children being sanctified by having a believing spouse, but I think its also fairly easy to interpret that as having nothing to do with Salvation. On the other hand, there's nothing conclusive to say that infants are an exception to the rule that all saved people believe the gospel, so its possible to argue that infants who die in infancy are condemned. And, as per Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23, if that's God's decision, it would not be unjust. On the other hand, since belief in the gospel is entirely brought about by God, and not by human means, is it really impossible that an infant could in fact believe the gospel? I think we could argue that John the Baptist did before he was even born, although that may well be the only case of an unborn child believing.

Ultimately, we don't know for sure.

Wonder if a Person Christ died for never heard the Gospel, would they still be saved from the penalty of their sins ?

This is pretty much the bottom line here. They'll still go to Hell for their sins. As will those who profess a false gospel of them being saved.

Do you believe that there are some that will be saved if they have never heard of Christ and had no access to hear of Him?

I hope not, because that would show that he believes in a false gospel. That would also be an absolutely ridiculous position for any Calvinist to take.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think its interesting that Nick thinks that Paul (Romans 8:28-34, Romans 9:6-30, Ephesians 1:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31) and Jesus Christ (John 6:37-44, John 10:27-29) are going to burn in Hell for all eternity.

As for Bob Enyart, I seriously doubt he could actually defend his position that those who have never heard will be saved. Its an unbiblical false gospel.

 

[Lon]

Do you believe that there are some that will be saved if they have never heard of Christ and had no access to hear of Him?

Not sure. I know God is just and that no man comes to the Father but by Christ who is the only way, truth, and life.

I can give you "workable scenarios" but God is hardly bound by them. One Bob Enyart mentioned on his radio show is that God will ensure one hears the gospel, if they are to be saved, but he then carried the 'working theory/scenario' too far to suggest that this is the only way God can save them from a Calvinist viewpoint (which is why he said the other would have to be blasphemy to us, incorrectly). God's much more amazing than my imaginings or theories. He can save whom He desires but they will come to Him through Christ. There is no other way. Jesus said 'rocks would cry out' if we aren't there. I don't remember any story of someone who heard the gospel from a rock, as yet, and was saved, but there are some really engaging missionary stories I've heard that are incredible stories of simply amazing grace.

 

[Nang]

Calvinists are not Christians. They ad to and subtract from the gospel. Paul says they are outside the faith and should be cut off and tossed in the fire (accursed).

There were no "Calvinists" in Paul's day, for him to speak against.

 

[Nang]

I think its interesting that Nick thinks that Paul (Romans 8:28-34, Romans 9:6-30, Ephesians 1:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31) and Jesus Christ (John 6:37-44, John 10:27-29) are going to burn in Hell for all eternity.

As for Bob Enyart, I seriously doubt he could actually defend his position that those who have never heard will be saved. Its an unbiblical false gospel.

Bob Enyart is only a radio show host, who boosts his ratings with sensationalisms . . . not sound doctrines.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Not sure. I know God is just and that no man comes to the Father but by Christ who is the only way, truth, and life.

I can give you "workable scenarios" but God is hardly bound by them. One Bob Enyart mentioned on his radio show is that God will ensure one hears the gospel, if they are to be saved, but he then carried the 'working theory/scenario' too far to suggest that this is the only way God can save them from a Calvinist viewpoint (which is why he said the other would have to be blasphemy to us, incorrectly). God's much more amazing than my imaginings or theories. He can save whom He desires but they will come to Him through Christ. There is no other way. Jesus said 'rocks would cry out' if we aren't there. I don't remember any story of someone who heard the gospel from a rock, as yet, and was saved, but there are some really engaging missionary stories I've heard that are incredible stories of simply amazing grace.

God himself could cause them to believe in Him. He could, as you say, make the rocks cry out. He could send them a dream. Whatever. He's not bound to the human missionary, although that is the primary means that the gospel is spread.

What I absolutely reject is that any regenerate person could EVER not believe the gospel. That's the Primitive Baptist/hypercalvinist heresy, and its completely unbiblical. Nobody comes to the Father but through Christ. All who do not believe in Christ are unregerate. To reject that is pure emotionalism, and it is ESPECIALLY emotional nonsense to say that God is somehow unjust if he does not allow anyone who does not believe in Christ to come into his presence. Its a failure to understand the seriousness of sin.

There were no "Calvinists" in Paul's day, for him to speak against.

Something tells me there weren't any "Arminians" to speak peace to either

Bob Enyart is only a radio show host, who boosts his ratings with sensationalisms . . . not sound doctrines.

Its not surprising to me that someone with the doctrines he has would also hold to the statist political views that he holds to. The roots of free will theology are fundamentally anti-Christian and pro-State.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Bob Enyart, Nick M- Repent and believe the gospel, lest you too perish.

 

[Nick M]

There were no "Calvinists" in Paul's day, for him to speak against.

How could there be? What a stupid statement from a stupid nag. But there were those like you that twist the gospel.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

The apostle Paul says that salvation is offered to all men. You deny this over and over.

 

[Lon]

The apostle Paul says that salvation is offered to all men. You deny this over and over.

It's an OV assumption that 'makes you feel better.' It is definitely emotionalism because an ankle-deep logical wade will tell you plainly what you don't want to hear from your own brain. Shutting off your own mind's clear thinking and/or scripture illumination, is decidedly not the answer.

Your veneer is thin, Nick. You simply must think more deeply.

 

[Christian Liberty]

How could there be? What a stupid statement from a stupid nag. But there were those like you that twist the gospel.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

The apostle Paul says that salvation is offered to all men. You deny this over and over.

A few hypercalvinists deny the offer of the gospel to all, including the people at 5Solas, OutsidetheCamp.org, the Protestant Reformed Churches, and possibly a few others. The vast, vast majority of Calvinists do not deny that the gospel is offered to everyone.

I wonder if Bob Enyart actually understands the Calvinistic position, or if he has simply confused it for hypercalvinism like you have.