SALVATION

[AbbaLove]

You apparently don't know what the term means so find that out first. And if you want to find out how tbe saved go back and read my posts. But, again, I can point you to the foundations of true Catholic doctrine-if truth matters. Otherwise this is a waste of our time.

So, it's your own belief that "true [Roman] Catholic doctrine" ensures one's SALVATION moreso than say true Protestant doctrine? You didn't write "true catholic doctrine" so we can only assume that by "true Catholic doctrine" that it's synonymous with "true [Roman] Catholic doctrine?

So then you'd have to believe that it's possible for a ""true Catholic priest" to sprinkle an infant with holy water signifying a "born again action" of SALVATION ... OR ... is that belief no longer "true Catholic doctrine" ... realize you can't really answer SO WHY then was it necessary to bring up "true Catholic doctrine" ... unless it was your way of bringing your SALVATION thread (true Catholic doctrine) to its summation.

 

[fhansen]

So, it's your own belief that "true [Roman] Catholic doctrine" ensures one's SALVATION moreso than say true Protestant doctrine?

It's my belief that the better we understand God's will for man the better we're able to do it. So whether we are speaking of Catholic doctrine or Protestant doctrine (which can also vary between denominations and individuals) or yours or mine, the more correct, the better, of course. I happen, after many years of seeking and spending time in more than one denomination and reading Scripture and studying the historical faith, etc, etc, and coming to know something of God IMO, that the EO and CC have the fullest and truest understanding.

 

[AbbaLove]

fhansen said:

But, again, I can point you to the foundations of true Catholic doctrine-if truth matters. Otherwise this is a waste of our time.​

Would appreciate answering my question being that you felt it essential to include the above (in bold). So according to the SOJ (Jesuits) an infant sprinkled with holy water by a true priest will inherit Salvation. Is that still "true Catholic doctrine" according to your understanding?

Really doubt you could ever really explain "true Catholic doctrine" other than being your theology opinion. So why did you think it necessary when you are unable to even answer my question ...

So according to the SOJ (Jesuits) an infant sprinkled with holy water by a true priest will inherit Salvation. Is that still true Catholic doctrine?​

Or maybe you don't consider the current Pope (formerly SOJ) to represent "true Catholic doctrine"?

 

[Clare73]

There is no such Scripture about spiritually believing. Rather we believe, so that we may have life. That is what the Scriptures repeatedly teach.

Contraire. . .

In Jn 3:3-5, no one can even see (know what it means) the kingdom of God until he is born again (Jn 3:3-8) . .into eternal life.
The sovereign (Jn 3:6-8) new birth of the Holy Spirit (as unaccountable as the wind) comes before everything spiritual, for man is spiritually dead until he is born again into eternal life, which is God's life.

 

[Clare73]

Neither of which negates Mark 2:17 or Luke 19:10. It's metaphor. The point being that man cannot raise himself, or heal himself, or find himself, none of which means he cannot refuse to be raised, refuse to be healed, refuse to be be found.

It does if he is spiritually dead, for spiritually dead men can do nothing spiritual, or they wouldn't be spiritually dead.
They must first be raised from spiritual death into eternal life (Jn 3:3-5) by the sovereign new birth of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:6-8) to even see the kingdom of God, much less enter it.

 

[ladodgers6]

You apparently don't know what the term means so find that out first. And if you want to find out how to be saved go back and read my posts. But, again, I can point you to the foundations of true Catholic doctrine-if truth matters. Otherwise this is a waste of our time.

I exactly knows what that means. It's a man-made religion and a lofty view of man, where fallen man can boast about something.

 

[setst777]

Contraire. . .

In Jn 3:3-5, no one can even see (know what it means) the kingdom of God until he is born again (Jn 3:3-8) . .into eternal life.
The sovereign (Jn 3:6-8)new birth of the Holy Spirit (as unaccountable as the wind) comes before everything spiritual, for man is spiritually dead until he is born again into eternal life, which is God's life.

You believe that the New Birth is Eternal Life, and into Eternal Life, by the indwelling Spirit; yet, we receive Eternal Life by faith, not so we can believe. And we receive the Spirit by Faith to give us spiritual life.

Clare73 said: eternal life itself is born in regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

Clare73 said: Eternal life is God's life in one's spirit by the rebirth.

Clare73 said:
Rebirth of/by the Holy Spirit is into eternal life. . .therefore rebirth of/by the Spirit is eternal life.
When do we receive the Paraclete?

Clare73 said:
You've got the cart before the horse, the rebirth is into eternal life of the Spirit, which eternal life is his indwelling us. Eternal life is by the Holy Spirit living in us. It comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit, the indwelling Holy Spirit is not the result of our faith, he is the cause of it.
Faith is a gift (Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1; Acts 13:48, 18:27; Romans 12:3).

Clare73 said:
Faith/justification/salvation/eternal life are the simultaneous effects of the new birth, which is only by sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:7-8)

Clare73 said: We are spiritually dead until the new birth into eternal life.

John 3:36 (NIV) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

John 7:37-38 (WEB) 37 Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out [to the crowds that formed on the Greatest Day], “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 38 He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But he said this about the Spirit, which those believing in him were to receive.

 

[Valletta]

fhansen said:

But, again, I can point you to the foundations of true Catholic doctrine-if truth matters. Otherwise this is a waste of our time.​

Would appreciate answering my question being that you felt it essential to include the above (in bold). So according to the SOJ (Jesuits) an infant sprinkled with holy water by a true priest will inherit Salvation. Is that still "true Catholic doctrine" according to your understanding?

Really doubt you could ever really explain "true Catholic doctrine" other than being your theology opinion. So why did you think it necessary when you are unable to even answer my question ...

So according to the SOJ (Jesuits) an infant sprinkled with holy water by a true priest will inherit Salvation. Is that still true Catholic doctrine?​

Or maybe you don't consider the current Pope (formerly SOJ) to represent "true Catholic doctrine"?

Sprinkling of water does nothing. When we receive the SACRAMENT of Baptism we are are received into the Body of Christ. A priest does NOT have to be present. Water is the normal sign of that sacrament.

 

[AbbaLove]

I happen, after many years of seeking and spending time in more than one denomination and reading Scripture and studying the historical faith, etc, etc, and coming to know something of God IMO, that the EO and CC have the fullest and truest understanding.

You mean like the Apostle Peter is the 1st Pope of the RCC, and the sprinkling of holy water at infant baptism for salvation is an example of the "fullest and truest understanding." Even in the 21st century there is still corruption in the Vatican. That is supposedly one reason why Pope Francis didn't want his residence to be in the Vatican.

If as you say that the RCC has the "fullest and truest understanding" then why was it necessary for Luther to prepare a 95 page thesis outlining the manmade corruption (sin) within the RCC. And don't give us some flimsy excuse that Luther was deranged.

IMO it's all to obvious that its the impressive manmade pretense of religious decorum and wealth of the worldwide RCC that favorably impressed you more than the not so stellar history of the RCC ...

On Oct. 31, 1517, an obscure German professor of theology named Martin Luther launched an attack on the Roman Catholic Church by nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church — a story that has been repeated for hundreds of years.​

​

In 1961, Erwin Iserloh, a Catholic Luther researcher, argued that there was no evidence that Luther actually nailed his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door. Indeed, at the 1617 celebration of the Reformation, Luther was depicted as writing the 95 Theses on the church door with a quill pen.​

​

What’s not in dispute: Luther mailed his attack on the Catholic sale of indulgences to the archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, Albert of Brandenburg, on Oct. 31, 1517. The indulgences were meant to assure their buyer that their sins would be forgiven — a form of corruption in Luther's eyes. Luther remained a Catholic never becoming a Lutheran as some believe. However, some Lutherans still have infant (sprinkling) baptisms. One Lutheran pastor made the comment that he didn't see anything wrong with using grape flavored Kool Aid as a sacrament.​

​

Afterall the LDS uses only water. One reason given was so if a man happens to spill (dribble) the sacrement it won't stain his white shirt; whereas grape juice will. At one time they made grape juice (wine) from their own vineyards, but as the church membership grew they couldn't keep up with the demand. Also it was during prohibition when alcohol was illegal. Thomas Bramwell Welch was a dentist and Methodist minister so the 12 ruling apostiles of the LDS decided they couldn't use Welch's (patented) Grape Juice for their sacrament.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh, it's not me doing the bulldozing; it's them. I simply accept the verse as stated, which, BTW , "happens" to be consistent with the nature of God. "God so loves the world...", etc.

Ugh. OK, here we go: 2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

You say, "as stated". The verse "as stated" is about the elect. He is not willing for any of the Elect to perish. Notice it says YOU, to his audience —he is patient with YOU, not wanting anyone perish, (which is what would happen if he brings his day before some of the elect are saved). It does not say that he is not willing for any of THEM (the scoffers mentioned earlier, nor any others BUT those to whom he is writing) to perish.

That is what the verse states.

But what do you think is his intention in mentioning "promise"? Something hopeful or pleasant for those who will remain at enmity with God?

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you don't yet understand that that love, in order to even be love, is necessarily a choice, then this conversation has no where to go. It's primarily that love, both a gift and a choice, that marks the transformation into His image and that defines the holiness we must have to realize eternal life, to see Him. God is all about drawing us deeper and deeper into His love., and that does not and cannot happen by simply flipping a switch and changing me into a wholly different person,. It's no longer even you if you have no choice in the matter. Someone else is being saved.

Do you think a baby snuggling into his mother's bosom chooses to love her? He already does. Do you think a mother chooses to love her newborn? She already does.

We are not talking about the transformation into his image. That is progressive and lifelong —what is generally referred to in theological circles as Sanctification. We are talking about the change from death to life. Salvation, Justification, Regeneration. Have you never heard witness to the phenomenon of someone finding out that they do love God —quite independent of any decision? Shucks, I know of several people who get real affectionate just by becoming drunk! They decided to drink. They didn't decide to become affectionate!

You are laying a bunch of humanistic philosophy on me here. It won't wash.

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. ADMIT your spiritual need. “I am a sinner.”

2. REPENT - a change of mind and purpose that leads to firm decision to turn from serving sin to serving God.

3. BELIEVE that Jesus Christ died for you on the cross and rose again the 3rd day.

4. RECEIVE, through prayer, Jesus Christ into your heart and life as your only Lord whom you confess and commit to follow into a sanctified life for righteousness and love, with the help of His Holy Spirit

Are those not works of righteousness?

 

[setst777]

Are those not works of righteousness?

No, these are not works of righteousness; rather, this is the sinner's plea to be saved by the Righteous One.

 

[Valletta]

You mean like the Apostle Peter is the 1st Pope of the RCC, and the sprinkling of holy water at infant baptism for salvation is an example of the "fullest and truest understanding." Even in the 21st century there is still corruption in the Vatican. That is supposedly one reason why Pope Francis didn't want his residence to be in the Vatican.

If as you say that the RCC has the "fullest and truest understanding" then why was it necessary for Luther to prepare a 95 page thesis outlining the manmade corruption (sin) within the RCC. And don't give us some flimsy excuse that Luther was deranged.

IMO it's all to obvious that its the impressive manmade pretense of religious decorum and wealth of the worldwide RCC that favorably impressed you more than the not so stellar history of the RCC ...

On Oct. 31, 1517, an obscure German professor of theology named Martin Luther launched an attack on the Roman Catholic Church by nailing his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church — a story that has been repeated for hundreds of years.​

​

In 1961, Erwin Iserloh, a Catholic Luther researcher, argued that there was no evidence that Luther actually nailed his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door. Indeed, at the 1617 celebration of the Reformation, Luther was depicted as writing the 95 Theses on the church door with a quill pen.​

​

What’s not in dispute: Luther mailed his attack on the Catholic sale of indulgences to the archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, Albert of Brandenburg, on Oct. 31, 1517. The indulgences were meant to assure their buyer that their sins would be forgiven — a form of corruption in Luther's eyes. Luther remained a Catholic never becoming a Lutheran as some believe. However, some Lutherans still have infant (sprinkling) baptisms. One Lutheran pastor made the comment that he didn't see anything wrong with using grape flavored Kool Aid as a sacrament.​

​

Afterall the LDS uses only water. One reason given was so if a man happens to spill (dribble) the sacrement it won't stain his white shirt; whereas grape juice will. At one time they made grape juice (wine) from their own vineyards, but as the church membership grew they couldn't keep up with the demand. Also it was during prohibition when alcohol was illegal. Thomas Bramwell Welch was a dentist and Methodist minister so the 12 ruling apostiles of the LDS decided they couldn't use Welch's (patented) Grape Juice for their sacrament.​

I already said that one must receive the SACRAMENT of Baptism in order to be accepted into the Body of Christ. The Bible clearly states that we are saved through Baptism, so yes that is the "fullest and truest understanding" of the Word of God:

1 Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

As to sin and corruption, that's going to exist within the Catholic Church on earth and the rest of the world until the end of time, as Jesus told us:

Matthew 13:24-30 24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” RSVCE

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm going to shorten this considerably, because you are making a category error, in your many words and your use of those many quotes from scripture. (And thank you for taking the time to do that, and for your many quotes from my posts, but it would take just one to representative the rest as to the force of your argument.)

Mark Quayle said: You have it backwards, concerning faith. Faith does not invoke the Spirit's indwelling. Faith is the direct result of the Spirit's indwelling. This is no man-ginned-up force of will. This is the work of God. Only God has this power in himself.

Mark Quayle said: God takes the dead, and makes them alive, without consulting them or asking their permission.

All the Passages I quoted show that God gives a sinner spiritual life, and the Spirit indwells us, because he does believe.

A believer is indeed saved by faith. And that faith is at best simultaneous with the moment of the indwelling of the Spirit of God, but by cause-effect sequence, the faith is a result of the Spirit, a work of the Spirit and a gift of God. By definition of "unregenerate", the dead in sin (Eph 2) are at enmity with God (Romans 8) and unable to have faith. They must be born again. (THAT "born again" is what I mean by regeneration). We have no desire, nor are we able, apart from being born again, to obey God, nor to please him. (Romans 8)

We do get temporal feelings, no doubt, and we do good things, without question, but at the core we do not do them out of love for God. I don't say that for the purposes of anyone to judge themselves, but just to present fact. Apart from him, we can do nothing.

And the Scriptures say the Spirit indwells us to give spiritual life by faith (John 7:37-39).

With that I agree completely. (Lol, "Where have I said differently?"). I have always said that by grace we are saved through faith. But that faith is no ordinary human contrived work of the will. Salvific Faith is given us, and so we decide!

Have you never wondered what your decisions really are worth?

 

[setst777]

Mark Quayle said: You have it backwards, concerning faith. Faith does not invoke the Spirit's indwelling. Faith is the direct result of the Spirit's indwelling. This is no man-ginned-up force of will. This is the work of God. Only God has this power in himself.

Mark Quayle said: God takes the dead, and makes them alive, without consulting them or asking their permission.

All the Passages I quoted show that God gives a sinner spiritual life, and the Spirit indwells us, because he does believe.

A believer is indeed saved by faith. And that faith is at best simultaneous with the moment of the indwelling of the Spirit of God, but by cause-effect sequence, the faith is a result of the Spirit, a work of the Spirit and a gift of God.

"The Promise" to be given spiritual life is "by faith."

Galatians 3:21-22 (WEB) 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could Make Alive, most certainly righteousness would have been of the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned all things under sin, so that The Promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

John 20:30-31 (WEB) 30 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

By definition of "unregenerate", the dead in sin (Eph 2) are at enmity with God (Romans 8) and unable to have faith.

"Ephesians 2" and "Romans 8" do not state anywhere that the unregenerate, being at enmity with God, are unable to have faith.

Rather the enemy of God is reconciled to God by faith.

James 2:23 (WEB) 23 So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness,” [Genesis 15:6] and he was called the friend of God [reconciliation].

The unregenerate become regenerate by faith.

John 5:24 (WEB) Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, {{{but}}} has passed out of death into life. [Regeneration is by faith]

1. Hearing the word.
2. Believing.
3. Has Eternal Life
4. and does not come into judgment
5. "but rather"
6. "has passing out of death into life."

They must be born again. (THAT "born again" is what I mean by regeneration). We have no desire, nor are we able, apart from being born again, to obey God, nor to please him. (Romans 8)

Show me any Passage that states that "born again" occurs before a person can believe.

Lord Jesus explained to Nicodemus what "born again" meant, when Nicodemus asked:

John 3:9 (WEB) 9 Nicodemus answered him, “How can these things be?”

After Lord Jesus chastises Nicodemus for his ignorance of these things, Lord Jesus then describes being "born again" as possessing "eternal life," and is only by faith in him

John 3:14-16 (ESV)
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Spiritual life (regeneration) is being born again, and is only by the Spirit indwelling a person (Romans 8:9-10).
And the Spirit only indwells to give "spiritual life" (regeneration) to those who "come," "drink," and "believe."

John 7:37-38 (WEB) 37 Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out [to the crowds that formed on the Greatest Day], “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 38 He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But he said this about the Spirit, which those believing in him were to receive.

Revelation 22:13 (WEB) 17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” He who hears, let him say, “Come!” He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely.

setst777 said:
And the Scriptures say the Spirit indwells us to give spiritual life by faith (John 7:37-39).

With that I agree completely. (Lol, "Where have I said differently?").

Mark Quayle said: You have it backwards, concerning faith. Faith does not invoke the Spirit's indwelling. Faith is the direct result of the Spirit's indwelling. This is no man-ginned-up force of will. This is the work of God. Only God has this power in himself.

I have always said that by grace we are saved through faith. But that faith is no ordinary human contrived work of the will. Salvific Faith is given us, and so we decide!

Romans 5:1-2 (WEB) 1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith {{{we}}} have peace [reconciliation] with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have {{{our access}}} by the faith into this grace in which we now stand.

Galatians 2:16 (WEB) even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.

Have you never wondered what your decisions really are worth?

Our decision whether to believe in Lord Jesus, or to reject him, has eternal worth and significance!

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

 

[fhansen]

Where does Scripture say, "He values the gift of freedom He's given us so much that He's willing to allow the abuse of that freedom even as it results in evil, for a time, for His purpose." ?

It says it when He gave Adam (man) just that freedom-and man abused it. Sin would be impossible, in fact, without free will because sin opposes God's will by its nature. Scripture says it by existing; there would be no reason to inform man by revelation if God's just going to do it all anyway. Instead, we do need to know His will, so we can choose. It says it by showing us His love on the cross so that we might be drawn to that love, and so love in return.
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”" John 12:32

It says it every time He bids us to do the right thing:
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matt 11:30
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev 3:20-21

Or anytime He makes our status contingent:
"If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:5:6

It says it in one way or another in almost every verse.
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

That last directive hasn't changed one bit under the new covenant, BTW. The human construction surfaced in theologies such as your own, based on private interpretations arising some 5 centuries ago. Mine is based on Scripture, wisdom gained and recorded down through the Christian ages, the teachings of the early church confirmed by the early fathers, the experience one gains if they don't isolate themselves in a cave from the world or just live in their minds so they can believe whatever they prefer.

Define what you mean by sanctification in that statement. I do believe in what I call sanctification, the continual (and continuous) work of God in us —sometimes agonizing to us— where we grow in Christ, and become ever more like him. That will continue till the day we finally see him as he is, and are become complete.

Sanctification is to be made holy. And yet you posed the challenge:

Now if you can present for me that the command to be without sin implies the ability to obey that command, have at it.

Do you have a point with those passages, or are they just some that you like?

I presented verses that show that sin can and must be overcome. John seems to imply that we must be completely sinless while the church in any case came to reject such an extreme rigorist view- as pertaining to a possibility in this life, anyway. Perfection must nonetheless be the goal, however; that's the journey we must be on. And so why would you ask nonsensical questions if you know that sanctification is necessary in order to gain eternal life? You're too intelligent not to get the point even if you disagree with it. But I'm not even sure that you do.

 

[fhansen]

Do you think a baby snuggling into his mother's bosom chooses to love her? He already does. Do you think a mother chooses to love her newborn? She already does.

Do you really think the greatest commandments are speaking about what even unbelievers do, that they're not challenging us to something much higher?

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:43-48


And why should Jesus even bother to instruct anyone in this way if He's just going to do it all for them, changing them without their assent, their cooperation, anyway? Instead He's instructing and challenging us to want and to aspire to this righteousness.

You are laying a bunch of humanistic philosophy on me here. It won't wash.

Um, no, that's what you did. And justification and sanctification are aspects of the same thing. Justification is the seed planted; sanctification is the seed nourished and cultivated and blossoming. The seed can, instead, be neglected, undernourished, and die.

 

[fhansen]

You say, "as stated". The verse "as stated" is about the elect. He is not willing for any of the Elect to perish. Notice it says YOU, to his audience —he is patient with YOU, not wanting anyone perish, (which is what would happen if he brings his day before some of the elect are saved). It does not say that he is not willing for any of THEM (the scoffers mentioned earlier, nor any others BUT those to whom he is writing) to perish.

That is what the verse states.

But what do you think is his intention in mentioning "promise"? Something hopeful or pleasant for those who will remain at enmity with God?

UGH. You inserted the word "elect" to suit an erroneous limited atonement viewpoint. God didn't put that word there, however. He loves the world, He loves man, lavishly, whom He created good, in His own image, He knows our potential and He seeks to have us fulfill it. Some will, some won't; that's what we know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
Where does Scripture say, "He values the gift of freedom He's given us so much that He's willing to allow the abuse of that freedom even as it results in evil, for a time, for His purpose." ?

It says it when He gave Adam (man) just that freedom-and man abused it. Sin would be impossible, in fact, without free will because sin opposes God's will by its nature. Scripture says it by existing; there would be no reason to inform man by revelation if God's just going to do it all anyway. Instead, we do need to know His will, so we can choose. It says it by showing us His love on the cross so that we might be drawn to that love, and so love in return.
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”" John 12:32

Are you not familiar with the different ways the term, "God's will", and the like, are used in Scripture? I know of at least two easily distinct uses: 1. God's command (and exhortations and such); 2. God's plans, or as the Reformed like to say, his decree.

It says it every time He bids us to do the right thing:
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matt 11:30
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev 3:20-21

Where is this mentioning more than simple choice? I don't deny choice.

Or anytime He makes our status contingent:
"If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:5:6

How does that show free will?

It says it in one way or another in almost every verse.
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

How does that, or in almost every, verse, say that "He values the gift of freedom He's given us..." It doesn't mention the gift of freedom, nor does it assume it. All you are showing is choice —not free will.

That last directive hasn't changed one bit under the new covenant, BTW. The human construction surfaced in theologies such as your own, based on private interpretations arising some 5 centuries ago. Mine is based on Scripture, wisdom gained and recorded down through the Christian ages, the teachings of the early church confirmed by the early fathers, the experience one gains if they don't isolate themselves in a cave from the world or just live in their minds so they can believe whatever they prefer

Irrelevant