How can the grace of God be resisted by some yet received by others?

[OzSpen]

The context is concerning who he is writing to. Skala has done a fine job explaining it. Better than I could.

But you fail to give the link and number to what Skala wrote. Why can't you be courteous in telling us where it is located? You have a bad habit of only partially identifying a location. I'm not going searching for Skala when you fail to tell us where it is found.

 

[OzSpen]

They have real problems with the simplicity of God using "ALL", "ANY" and "EVERY". Seeming to think God does not know what He is saying.

Redefining what 'all', 'any' and 'every' mean in contemporary linguistics is called postmodern deconstruction. It is alive and well in this thread with the Calvinistic deconstruction of 'all', making it mean 'all types' or 'all of different groups' when not a word of such content is written in the text.

 

[Hammster]

But you fail to give the link and number to what Skala wrote. Why can't you be courteous in telling us where it is located? You have a bad habit of only partially identifying a location. I'm not going searching for Skala when you fail to tell us where it is found.

You found my post. You can find his. It came after.

 

[Hammster]

Redefining what 'all', 'any' and 'every' mean in contemporary linguistics is called postmodern deconstruction. It is alive and well in this thread with the Calvinistic deconstruction of 'all', making it mean 'all types' or 'all of different groups' when not a word of such content is written in the text.

You mean not having one definition for a word is post modern deconstruction? Now that's funny.

 

[EmSw]

Why not? Why am I not good with it?

If you knew the wonders and marvelous beauties of heaven, you would not be okay with you to be sent to the horrible damnations of the lost.

 

[Hammster]

If you knew the wonders and marvelous beauties of heaven, you would not be okay with you to be sent to the horrible damnations of the lost.

So you're saying I shouldn't be satisfied with God's sovereign choice?

 

[OzSpen]

Since you play the 'predestination' lottery, I'm sure you hope He randomly chose your number to be elect. Since you have no say if you're elected or not, you have to play the waiting game to find out if He chose you or not.

Even if you're elected, I've shown He can change His predestination for everyone. His final predestination for you may be eternal damnation, but has temporarily chosen you to life. I hope that's okay with you, for will the pot talk back to the Potter?

One of the more serious charges against Calvinism is that it cannot preach John 3:16 (ESV) with honesty: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

A Calvinistic evangelist cannot preach to every audience of unbelievers that:

• 'God so loved the world' of all people because he didn't because he only loved the elect and died for the elect.
• 'whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'. WHOEVER cannot believe in him as only the elect can believe in him as they are unconditionally elected and irresistible drawn and Jesus died only for them.
  
• An honest Calvinistic evangelist would have to preach John 3:16 as: 'For God loved only certain people and I don't know who you are. He gave his only Son to die as a sacrifice for sin only for the elect and I don't know who you are. I'm wasting my time telling you that all of you have the possibility of believing because only those who are elected by God's unconditional decree can experience eternal life. The rest of you are damned eternally and can never, ever receive God's salvation. That is the horrible news I offer you'.

Oz

 

[ToBeLoved]

Then what are people in hell suffering for? It's obviously not sin, if your understanding is correct.

Not at all. That is your adding your own thoughts to the verse.

The Bible is clear that it is 'by faith' we are saved. Sin is allocated for, what is missing in the non-believers/not saved is 'by faith'. They do not have faith.

 

[OzSpen]

It's been explained. You've rejected the explanation and have ignored the context. Not much more can be said.

That's not an explanation. You are a whiz at giving 1, 2 or 3 lines that explain nothing. Therefore, 77,395 messages is a misnomer of what 'messsage' means.

 

[OzSpen]

You found my post. You can find his. It came after.

Please answer what I wrote.

 

[ToBeLoved]

One of the more serious charges against Calvinism is that it cannot preach John 3:16 (ESV) with honesty: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

A Calvinistic evangelist cannot preach to every audience of unbelievers that:

• 'God so loved the world' of all people because he didn't because he only loved the elect and died for the elect.
• 'whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'. WHOEVER cannot believe in him as only the elect can believe in him as they are unconditionally elected and irresistible drawn and Jesus died only for them.
  
• An honest Calvinistic evangelist would have to preach John 3:16 as: 'For God loved only certain people and I don't know who you are. He gave his only Son to die as a sacrifice for sin only for the elect and I don't know who you are. I'm wasting my time telling you that all of you have the possibility of believing because only those who are elected by God's unconditional decree can experience eternal life. The rest of you are damned eternally and can never, ever receive God's salvation. That is the horrible news I offer you'.

Oz

Like does not seem to be working, but I REALLY LIKE this truth. Theologically, they cannot even speak Truth in truth.

 

[EmSw]

So you're saying I shouldn't be satisfied with God's sovereign choice?

If that's all God is to you, that is, sends men to hell without recourse, then NO, you shouldn't be satisfied with this God.

You make Him out to be much like Hitler, who decided who lived and who died.

 

[OzSpen]

You mean not having one definition for a word is post modern deconstruction? Now that's funny.

Here you go with your regurgitation again. Deal with what I wrote about postmodern deconstruction.

 

[Hammster]

One of the more serious charges against Calvinism is that it cannot preach John 3:16 (ESV) with honesty: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

A Calvinistic evangelist cannot preach to every audience of unbelievers that:

• 'God so loved the world' of all people because he didn't because he only loved the elect and died for the elect.
• 'whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'. WHOEVER cannot believe in him as only the elect can believe in him as they are unconditionally elected and irresistible drawn and Jesus died only for them.
  
• An honest Calvinistic evangelist would have to preach John 3:16 as: 'For God loved only certain people and I don't know who you are. He gave his only Son to die as a sacrifice for sin only for the elect and I don't know who you are. I'm wasting my time telling you that all of you have the possibility of believing because only those who are elected by God's unconditional decree can experience eternal life. The rest of you are damned eternally and can never, ever receive God's salvation. That is the horrible news I offer you'.

Oz

I can preach the passage with honesty. And I can link to multiple Reformed preachers doing so. So please retract your false statement.

 

[OzSpen]

Like does not seem to be working, but I REALLY LIKE this truth. Theologically, they cannot even speak Truth in truth.

I need you to explain that further. What is the 'Truth in truth' to which you refer?

Distorting the biblical text is the stock in trade for some of these Calvinists.

 

[Hammster]

Not at all. That is your adding your own thoughts to the verse.

The Bible is clear that it is 'by faith' we are saved. Sin is allocated for, what is missing in the non-believers/not saved is 'by faith'. They do not have faith.

I didn't add anything. I asked a question about your statement. What are people in hell suffering for if not for sin?

 

[Hammster]

That's not an explanation. You are a whiz at giving 1, 2 or 3 lines that explain nothing. Therefore, 77,395 messages is a misnomer of what 'messsage' means.

I didn't say that I explained it. And the vast majority of my posts are staff related. I hope that helps.

 

[EmSw]

I didn't add anything. I asked a question about your statement. What are people in hell suffering for if not for sin?

Foreordination of God, per the WCF.

 

[OzSpen]

I can preach the passage with honesty. And I can link to multiple Reformed preachers doing so. So please retract your false statement.

That's only if you preach it as I wrote it. I made no false statement. Calvinistic understanding of the key doctrines of their faith causes John 3;16 to be rewritten. I gave one version of how it could be written to honestly conform with Calvinistic Reformed theology.

 

[MennoSota]

That's a false charge. You claim I fail to grasp the context but you give not one example of how that happened.

Please answer what I wrote instead of giving a link to a Calvinistic buddy.

Two Calvinists demonstrate that I did not 'miss the boat', but was spot on, in my assessment of your imposing Calvinism on a text that refutes Calvinistic limited atonement.

Ron Rhodes (a 4-point Calvinist who does not support limited atonement), wrote: '1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement' (The Extent of the Atonement).

Professor Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist, wrote concerning 1 John 2:2:

When John says that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, author’s translation), he may simply be understood to mean that Christ is the atoning sacrifice that the gospel now makes available for the sins of everyone in the world. The preposition “for” (Gk. peri, plus genitive) is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation “for” the sins of the world. Peri simply means “concerning” or “with respect to” but is not specific enough to define the exact way in which Christ is the sacrifice with respect to the sins of the world. It would be entirely consistent with the language of the verse to think that John is simply saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of anyone in the world. Likewise, when Paul says that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6), we are to understand this to mean a ransom available for all people, without exception (Grudem 1994:598).​

Oz

Works consulted

Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England / Grand Rapids, Michigan.: Inter-Varsity Press / Zondervan Publishing House.

LOL, what is a 4 point Calvinist?

Oz, I spent a good chunk of my life in Arminian works Christianity. I cannot go back to the law now that grace abounds.

If Calvin were the only person to understand God's work of choosing, you would have an argument, but the Bible is full of God's sovereign choice. (Did you read 1 Peter 1:1?) The Apostles all share God's choice. The early church father's preach God's choice. Augustine showed that Pelagian was a heretic. The long, long, long line of Christian leaders recognizing God's choice is quite impressive. But, if you wish to live under the law and be saved by the law, I won't stop you. Go along and live in chains.