T – I though Sproul changing this from total depravity to radical corruption makes sense. Men are not as sinful as they could possible be. Men are corrupt.
Yes, "Total Depravity" was that. Dordt says as much. Sproul was trained among the Dutch Reformed, fwiw.
U – unconditional election is available to all men. Jesus’s sacrifice was for all men. (See below)
It being God's choosing, and "many are called, but few are chosen ..."?
L – Limited atonement is not Biblical.
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. Jn 15:13-14
Does “the many” that were made sinners mean that not all men were made sinners?
No --
it doesn't comment on the pervasiveness of sin (which you've already agreed is supported on other grounds). Remember, a verse can confirm an assertion, deny an assertion, or not address it. Romans 5 doesn't address it.
It would have to be so that only “the many” could be elected and saved by Jesus. Sproul has already addressed this and the Bible confirms that through Adam, all were made sinners. So “the many” referred to in this verse must be all men. Therefore, “the many” that Christ died for must be the same all men that became sinners in Adam.
Um, that conclusion is definitely unsupported by what Paul says. Paul isn't making every "all" the same. I'll demonstrate it through a similarly constructed passage in 1 Corinthians 15:22: "
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Under the reasoning you're advocating for Romans 5, this verse would directly conclude universalism. However, "All" is an adjective in Greek. It's not a comprehensive noun (in most cases). It has to go seeking a noun to qualify its meaning. You're demanding the noun be the same for both uses of "all" in the second half of Romans 5. But many interpreters would point out, there's another option for the "grace" nouns.
That alternative grace noun is pervasive in the first half of Romans 5.
It's us.
I – Irresistable grace is redefined by Sproul to be effectual grace.
It's not a redefinition. Again, both terms describe the early presentation of the doctrine.
He defines God’s effectual grace as saving grace as bringing about God’s desired effect. I would agree though I disagree with Sprouls assumption of what God’s desired effect is. Sproul is quite clear that God’s effectual grace is reserved strictly for the elect.
Um, I'm unclear on what you see as problematic. The effectual call is a particular grace reserved strictly for those God chooses to favor with it.
I think Romans 5 shows that God’s grace is available to all though not all accept it. Again, the story of the rich man comes to mind.
God's grace is available for all; but none accepts it on their own. Without a particular kind of grace -- God's effectual call -- no one would accept any/all of the graces that're available. So ... where's the gap? No one accepts it -- so the call must be some kind of overriding or irresistible call. It always justifies everyone who is called.
He resisted the grace of God and went away sad. This is a matter if interpretation. The Calvinist will say that God did not exercise irresistible or effectual grace for the rich man. Indeed, the next several verses make the case that God might not care for rich men very much at all. Open theists will see it as God exercising his grace but allowing mans free will to resist.
But really isn't the question what God says it is? If God says, "those He called, He justified," (in Rom 8:29-31 or so) isn't the call effectual -- that is, no resistance will prevent it from having its effect?
What would Scripture mean by "call" here if this call could be successfully prevented from having its effect in justification?
P- Perseverance of the saints. Jesus promised us that we would face persecution in His name. We must persevere and spread the Gospel. We must live the great commission and a life of service to each other.
Then we're all dead, for none of us has done so in a way God could not judge against.
All things considered, I might consider myself a about a 1.5 to 2 point Calvinist. I agree with some (sometimes most) of what Sproul says but I still do not see a convincing case for God playing favorites. I fully and freely admit that I may well be wrong and that is exactly what God does. As of yet, I don’t see it.
I've shifted the term "grace" to "favor" -- that's what it more closely resembles in Koine Greek. The word "grace" doesn't mean anything to me. So backing out what you're saying, when you say "God playing favorites", do you really mean "God giving favor to some"? Or what do you mean by that? I'd like to get the terminology straight before I try to address what you're saying. Let's get "grace" and "favor" aligned, and then try to deal with the questions that result -- thinking of them as different is bound to make divides that don't exist in Scripture.
I did as you asked. I never saw Calvinism the way the Presbyterian did. I see Calvinism as saying you go to heaven based on whether God likes you are not.
Then I have to say, you don't see Calvinism saying what it explicitly says. You don't go to heaven based on whether God likes you.
Nor are you going to heaven based on whether God has to let you in, seeing that you have faith.
God's grace is both a favor and it's unmerited. It's not whether God likes you, as if there's something
about you in particular that He likes. There isn't any such merit. Nor is it anything less than favor: God isn't forced to let you in because you've managed to scrape up enough force of will to believe within yourself.
And frankly what's the superiority over the Reformed "God chooses you" of, "God likes you because of your force of will to believe"? To me the latter is where the
real "God likes you" is found.
