Search results

This is standard Calvinism. The term is Compatibilism .

Good. Then we're agreed. That's Calvinism by the way. Yes, exactly. There are two ways this can happen: 1) The individual who starts using the word will explain using words which are already common to both parties. 2) An individual will use the word and the party who doesn't know it...

But what did he do that qualifies him to be savior especially of the believer? In which case you admit that being the savior implies that people are saved. That directly contradicts "especially of belivers." You have Christ being the savior of the whole world, "equally" with believers...

You do not see superiority, but you do see: The problem remains: how is Christ especially the savior of the believer? It won't do to say that Christ is the savior of everyone but only believers realize that salvation. You have divorced saviorhood and salvation so radically that you can't now...

Which may all be well and good, but you're overlooking the fact that Paul is qualifying Christ's saviorhood of the unsaved to be inferior to the saviorhood of the saved. Christ cannot be the savior of all men because of his work on the cross, and not be the special savior of some men because of...

This is also too over-the-top to let go. The I Timothy passage is clearly not Paul teaching that Christ is the savior of the world, full stop. If it were, there would, you know, maybe actually be a full stop after "Christ is the savior of the world."

And you would need likewise to read it as "Christ is the savior of the world, especially of the world." It's a curious text indeed, but it's neither side's prooftext, and you've done enough ignoring of those last three words, which I have asked you three times now to explain, that I feel there's...

You have neatly sidestepped and have left unanswered the thrust of what I wrote, choosing to nitpick ancillary matters of phrasing instead of interacting with my rejoinder to your arguments. Since I asked you to tell me what points you would like me to interact with, and I obliged, this can't be...

"Abstract stuff" is perfectly appropriate. Salvation is a verbal noun. You can't typically acquire verbal nouns it like you can have bushels of corn or gallons of water stowed away. It is neither material or concrete, hence it's abstract. But in non-particular theories of atonement, Christ...

You get too altogether much milage out of the "receive a gift" language. The point of that language in scripture is that grace is a gift as opposed to being the wages of work, not that grace is a rejectable gift instead of being something which one must receive. Imagine I have a cordial of...

Then: Now:

Any scripture which I quote will be immediately reinterpreted through your redefinition of words, as evidenced by the fact that this has happened with every verse so far quoted. This isn't an exegetical debate anymore; this is a problem with your treatment of English. If "redemption," "ransom,"...

Using your hermeneutic, I suppose it cannot. You have demolished the basis for communication, namely, a common understanding of what words mean. If "redemption," "ransom," "savior," "healer," "redeemer," or "bringer of peace," to name just a few, can be made to mean "oh, but that doesn't mean...

Because it effectively takes all of our rich language of soteriology, all of redemptive history, and the cross itself, and reduces them to a backdrop for the main show of salvation, namely, man making the decision. The conversion experience is indeed important, and it is phenomenally when we...

Which adds little if anything to any discussion about atonement. Atonement, again, is properly understood as a Levitical concept finding ultimate fulfillment in Christ which needs to be understood through what the NT authors have to say about things like historical redemption and covenant...

Quote so much as a single translation that says "everyone can believe." "Whosoever" and every synonym any translator has ever used for it all imply that all believers are saved, and does not have in view why one is or is not a believer. That's syntax scrabble.

Someday after we are done with this syntax argument I will turn your attention to the terrifying large list of things "for" can mean. There are no reformed that I know who would deny that Christ "died for" everyone within some scope of the word "for." At issue is whether that particular...

Again, incorrect. That is not in view of John 3:16. As I said, and as you ignored, the "no matter what"ness of the all+relative pronoun construction relates the subject with the predicate. "Everyone, no matter who, without exception," links "those who believe" with "will not perish." As in...

Acceptance didn't figure into the event. I received an e-mail telling me I had been reassigned. Thirty seconds later facilities sent me another telling me that my cubicle had been moved. The reassignment was a fait accompli. If I had rejected it, I wouldn't have been not reassigned prior to...

This week my boss secured a promotion for me. It meant I was promoted. Words frequently seem not to mean themselves within your soteriological framework.