Is Paul more loving than God?

Of course "further revelation" could refer to the gospel as was the case with these too examples, but I, the author of this article, or others who hold to this view don't believe the gospel MUST necessarily and effectually be sent to all who positively respond to the light of God. Now, you can put your fingers in your ears and pretend we believe that even though we don't in order to make your "backfire" argument actually applicable, but I'm telling you that is NOT what I believe.

Thus, you have created straw man argument here brother. That's ok, I understand why you went down that road, but now that it has been properly explained to you there is no shame in going back.

 

1. It may have backfired on a straw-man you created, but not on my actual views.


2. "God is no respecter of persons" is a scripture passage the last time I checked. And the OP was directly related to Paul's expression of love in Romans 9, which is also scriptural, so I don't see any basis for this accusation.

 

Because those are two biblical examples of the where the revelation did increase, just because we don't have a narrative of others who never do actually hear the gospel doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The article was in response to the question "What about those who never hear the gospel?" Do you really think the author was saying that everyone who has any positive response does hear it? Of course not, which is why he spoke of those in the OT who never had heard it. Read the whole thing again and I think you'll see his point.

I think that is what Paul teaches. "How will they believe unless they hear?" There a several passage about blood on the hands of unfaithful messengers (I can look them up later, don't have time now, but I think you know the ones I'm meaning)

Again, even in those times those people are without excuse with regard to the level of revelation they have received and will be judge according to that level of revelation. God is gracious and I trust him to be just in these instances.

 

Let's get something straight, Calvinists here do as much disparaging of our beliefs as we do of theirs, which is why I asked you to drop such rebukes. They are meaningless on a baptist debate forum because it presumes there is nothing in which we should be debating because it would "disparage" someone else's belief. Understand?

This was a practical question regarding the view that God is no respecter of persons. Clearly God does have a reason (though I know you don't claim to know what it is) for choosing to save more of one type of person than another. This seems to contradict that verse.

If the president said I am no respecter of persons and then elected to his cabinet a relatively few number of a certain highly populated race of people then there would be questions about his claims.

I'm not suggesting Calvinists believe God to be racial motivated in his election of people to salvation. I'm simply stating that this verse better supports the concept of God appealing equally for all races to come to be reconciled, rather than his electing more of one race than another for some unknown reason.

 

In light of the verse which claims that God is no respecter of person's, I contend it does, which is why I made the case.

Ez 3:16 And at the end of seven days, the word of the LORD came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,'and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul

Seems like God holds his watchman accountable to me? Why if not for the reasons this passage clearly suggest?

Rom 10:13 For "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not everyone welcomes the Good News...

Why would the feet be so beautiful if they weren't coming to rescue the perishing?

2 Thess 2:12 Then they will be condemned for not believing the truth and for enjoying the evil they do.

Sounds like a "lack of response" to me.

 

It doesn't, but if God really isn't a respecter of persons and he is choosing to save more anglos, then one can certainly speculate as to why that might be.

I didn't suggest that our sin of neglect wasn't covered by Grace along with all the rest, just that our laziness and disobedience does have real effect.

We both agree that the means God uses to save people is through the proclamation and spreading of His Word. No quibble here.

What? I've never claimed that some people groups are more saturated with Christians because they are wiser.

 

True, but our answer (the gospel wasn't spread in that region of the world as much because the church didn't take it there, and that Asians false religions and strict governments may have hardened them more from accepting the gospel) doesn't bring into question God's reasoning for saving less Asians than anglos. From our perspective, it's man's fault alone for the lack of conversions among Asians, not God's lack of desire to save them.

I know that is what you were doing, which is why I reminded you that the law of OT was fulfilled by Christ and now Grace covers our failures of the Law (which I know you understand). However, that doesn't negate the law in that we are still supposed to avoid lies, murder, adultery, covetousness etc...in other words, if I lie I still reap the results of that lie because the lie is MY FAULT. It hurts others, it may even cause someone to be killed. In the same way, my sin of not being the watchman can still hurt others...breaking God's law usually does.

I guess, the difference it that I'm backing up my speculations with actual scripture.

 

Well, he does express frustration for those who refused to tell others, so in that regard yes; but I'm not claiming God wants to save an equal percentage of people from each group, I'm only claiming he doesn't prefer any group over the other and I've already answer your question as to why more might be saved from one group than another. As I said, from our perspective, it's man's fault alone for the lack of conversions among Asians, not God's lack of desire to save them.

Depends on how you define frustrated. There is much talk of God's anger, patience and other such emotions that seems difficult for us to fully understand with regard to his divine nature.