You get too altogether much milage out of the "receive a gift" language.
Kinda sad that Scriptural language would be offensive or put-offish to a believer.
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.
Actually, grace isn't a gift. The Bible never defines grace as a gift. What IS described as a gift is eternal life in Rom 6:23, justification in Rom 5:16,17 and salvation (not grace) in Eph 2:8.
Grace is the basis for God's dealings with mankind. It is never called a gift. But eternal life, salvation and justification ARE called gifts. Along with the various spiritual gifts given by the Holy Spirit.
Imagine I have a cordial of liquid that cures any wound. I come across a wounded and unconscious man in battle and use my cordial expecting nothing in return. That is a gift, but it is not rejectable. You will thus need more explicit language than "gift" to establish your point.
This very limited example doesn't align with Scripture. First, the gift was the actual liquid, which is comparable to eternal life, or salvation. But then, your example deals with someone who is unconscious and therefore doesn't even know what's going on. That is totally unlike Scripture, where the gospel is given so the unsaved person can first understand it and then believe it.
Rom 10:14,15 - 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!
There is no way your example parallels Scripture. One must HEAR the gospel and they cannot believe until they hear what it is to believe. So your example fails.
And that's the problem with Calvinism. It views mankind from the wrong view that God unilaterally chooses who will believe by it's wrong understanding of election. God chooses to save believers. 1 Cor 1:21 is quite clear. If there is disagreement, please clarify as to how my understanding of that verse is in error.
I said this:
"1 Tim 4:10 - For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the
Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Please explain the bolded phrase."
If you will explain the last three words.
This seems to be a cop out, for that is what I was hoping you'd do. The verse tells us quite directly that Jesus Christ is the Savior of everyone (all men). Then, Paul adds "especially of believers". There is an obvious distinction between "all men" and "believers". If by "all men" Paul only meant the elect, and we know that believers are called the elect, then Paul would have been saying that Jesus is the Savior of the elect, especially the elect.
Which makes absolutely no sense at all. There's no way to get around this verse; Jesus Christ IS the Savior of everyone even though not all will be saved. Those who receive His gift will be saved. Those who don't refused their Savior.
I do not reject vague statements of the hypothetical universality of salvation and therefore do not object to the statement "Christ is the savior of everyone" in contexts. But unqualified use of that expression is problematic. Verbal nouns, like savior, when used as the predicate of a stative verb, are just one periphrastic way of expressing the standard transitive, with a little stative aspect for flavor. In other words, "A is the Xer of B" is only true when A Xes B. Examples:
1) I am the ruler of Europe means I rule Europe, and is not true if I do not rule Europe
2)I am the eater of this pie means I eat the pie, and is not true if I do not eat the pie.
3) I am a lover of wine means I love wine, and is not true if I do not love wine.
But by Christ's death on the cross and payment for sin for everyone, He actually purchased salvation/eternal life for everyone.
This is why Paul, sensing how dangerously close he's getting to implying that every human in the world is saved, pulls back and says, "especially of believers." This addendum demands that we believe that Christ is not the unqualified savior of the believer and the unbeliever alike.
I don't agree. He HAS died for everyone, as Scripture plainly says. And by that death, He purchased eternal life for everyone. That alone qualifies Him to be called the Savior of the world. He is still Savior to those who reject the gift that He purchased for them.
This poses a problem for you, since you espouse Christ being the savior of all men equally by virtue of securing them a salvation that does not require anyone to accept it for Him still to be his savior.
I don't understand the phrase "does not require anyone to accept it for Him still to be his savior". For a person to be saved, they MUST accept the gift. Those who aren't saved have no excuse, because the gift was readily available.
Calvinsim unintentionally creates an excuse for the so-called non-elect. Because in that view, Christ didn't die for them, they cannot go to heaven. They would be able to say they are in hell because Christ didn't die for them. They would be aware that those who did go to heaven are still sinners like them, but that Christ did die for them. So Calvinism creates a phony excuse for why they are in hell. "I didn't get chosen", or something like that.
But we know that no one has any excuse for not recognizing that God exists, and being thankful to Him, which would lead to seeking Him (Acts 17:26,27, Heb 11:6).
Paul clearly views saviorhood as being more effective than you do, since he won't drop the period after "world" for fear of what he understands that would imply.
Nonsense. My view of Christ's work on the cross is WAY MORE effective than your view because in my view Christ actually purchased salvation for everyone, unlike your view.
It's a curious verse, but it's curious for both sides. It's not a fluid statement. In a few places in the epistles the Apostles seem to stop a sentence mid-statement. These statements thereby are not exactly complete thoughts.
Referring to an elipsis, I assume.
As such, no one should really be relying on them as prooftexts, since we have to (to a degree) reconstruct what the Apostle was saying from other context.
1 Tim 4:10 isn't an elipsis. Paul clearly distinguishes between "all men" and "believers", and calls Christ Savior of both.
If you want to see forgiveness of sins being the substance of atonement, read Leviticus. The Bible's dissertation on atonement states again and again and again, "The priest shall make atonement for your sins, and they shall be forgiven." And we have such a great High Priest who once for all made an atonement for us. The entire system of atoning sacrifices was designed to prefigure Christ. And we know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. If no Levitical sin offering has ever forgiven one sin, how is it not a tremendous lie to say "The priest shall make atonement and sins shall be forgiven?" Clearly, it is because what the spirit had in mind when inspiring the Law was for these passages to prefigure the passion, the only true sacrifice of substitution performed by the only true priest of God, who truly accomplished what the Law only dimly reflected.
However, Acts 10:43 is clear enough: we are forgiven on the basis of faith, not the atonement.
The word "atonement" doesn't occur in the NT except twice in the NIV. In Heb 2:17 the word is:
hilaskomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to render ones self, to appease, conciliate to ones self
1a) to become propitious, be placated or appeased
1b) to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful
2) to expiate, make propitiation for
In the KJV, the word is translated "reconciliation", and 2 Cor 5:19 says that God was reconciling the WORLD in Christ.
A closely related word is used in 21 Jn 2:2 translated propitation, which is applied to the WHOLE WORLD.
And again, in Leviticus 16:22, the scapegoat shall bear the sins of the people to a solitary land. Does Christ the great scapegoat bear away all the sins of all the people to a solitary land? Or does He only make an end of his people's iniquities?
He paid for every last sin of every last person. Clear enough?
Why does Calvinism think that peope go to hell for their sins when Rev 20:11-15 is clear enough that those cast into the lake of fire are cast there for NOT having eternal life. iow, they never received the gift that was theirs for the taking.
This isn't about sin because Christ paid for all sins. It's about having or not having eternal life.
Would you agree that having eternal life would qualify us to live with God forever? Yes or no.
