Predestination/"Free Will"

4th April 2003 at 02:33 PM FineLinen said this in Post #195

You need to be careful not to add your own words to scripture to bend them to your prefered meaning you posted quote:


FineLinen

My friend, what part is my words?

Are you famliar with the James Moffatt translation of the Holy Scriptures? And how about The New Testament translation by Monsignor Ronald Knox?

"The Father loves the Son and has given Him control over everything. He who believes in the Son has eternal life but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life--God's anger broods over him." James Moffatt

"....God's displeasure hangs over him continually." Monsig. Knox

My question to you was what all's you want to replace with "some" and gave you a number of Scriptures. This should be simple chore, identify the all's that are not all inclusive. There are more to come but let's handle the ones presented first. I believe I understand what a metonymy and a synecdoche is. What do you think the chances are that our Lord speaks of all in the same verse of Scripture and the one is a metonymy/synecdoche and the other is all inclusive?

Click to expand...

It is a bible used by the JW's and considered by some a paraphrase more than a translation . Note he added his words to the text


Moffatt, James: Greek into English but one man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Regarding James Moffatt, he was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, one of the most radical liberal institutions.

His attitude toward miracles and the supernatural is illustrated by the following quotation from his book "Introduction To The Literature Of The New Testament": "A similar consideration bears upon Luke's treatment of the supernatural. On the one hand, the presence of miraculous anecdotes ... is no proof that they are unprimitive

. A comparison, e.g., of the historical traditions gathering around figures like St. Patrick or even Thomas a Becket will show that it is the most natural thing in the world for such stories to spring up within a man's lifetime, and the mushroom of legend appeared under certain conditions as rapidly in the East an in the West. This applies in some degree to the miracles in Acts as well as in the gospels." (page 302). Clearly, Moffatt regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth and His raising of the dead, as mere myth or legend. Moffatt claimed that the traditions of national unity and supernatural guidance "are at the heart of the tales and traditions within the first five books of the Bible." He believed portions of the Bible were badly edited and arranged, so he tried to improve on them. He rearranged entire chapters to suit himself.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-translations.htm

4th April 2003 at 01:43 PM Ragman said this in Post #196



Woody:

Isn't it interesting that if someone disagrees with you that you then say they have a "private" interpretation?  This assumes that you don't consider your own interpretation a "private" interpretation. 

Again, I am not a universalist but I do believe in the deity of Christ which is denied by the practical application of your theology.

As for it being ungrateful to say that I did not deserve to be created.  I am only saying that the fact that I or you are on the planet is simply by the grace of the Triune God who lives in a passionate life of excitement, love, self-giving and acceptance.  And in that life and love have decided to share their life with mankind.  And this they have done in the incarnation of the Son of God. 

Click to expand...

Ragman, these are your words:  As for having a governmental view of the atonement.  I do not have a governmental view.  I have a personal view.

My interpretation is not private.  I have a host of people who share this identical intepretation of scripture.  I have been freely sharing this on this very thread.

Now, please address this directly.  You have yet to directly address this which completely shreds the idea that Christ's reconciliation of the world means all died with Him as all died with Adam:

• Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.

Your friendly neighborhhod Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Woody,

When I say that I have a personal view, I am not saying that the view is mine personally, but that my view of the atonement is based on the "person" of Christ. Thus a "personal" view.

Now you are asserting that this verse is saying that not all died in Christ in His death as stated in 2 Cor 5:14 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:"

Here are some possibilities for your verse:

1. It could be speaking of "identifying" with the death of Christ. Certainly as a good Calvinist you will not say that one's act of baptism "makes" them dead in Christ.
2. It could be speaking of "participating" in the baptism and death of Christ that has taken place objectively in the person of Christ.
3. It could be speaking of an outward show of what has already taken place in the life of the person.

Now what would completely shred the idea that the whole world was reconciled in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ would be for God to say "Oops, I didn't mean the whole world when I said that I was reconciling the world" or if He said, "Oops, I didn't mean "all things" when I said And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

But, I don't see that happening.

As for a host of folks who share one's interpretation ..... Athanasius, Ireneaus, Gregory of Nanziansus to name a few are not bad company to share a view of God with.

But the real issue here is not my view of scripture or your view of scripture, but who is God and what is He like, and how does He feel about people. And the God that limited atonement projects is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; the friend of sinners, the good shepherd who searches for the lost sheep. The one who prostitutes, tax collectors and all variety of "sinners" loved to be around, while the religious folks got the hebejebies because of His great love for people without reservation. Woody, God is not as you say. For you would make yourself better than God. Because I'm willing to bet that you would not think of fathering children for the sole purpose of tormenting them in hell for the result to be other folks saying, "Wow, glory to Woody, he fried his own children. What wonderful justice!" And Woody, you are no better than God. If you can't find glory in doing that to your own children, how can you tell anyone else that God finds glory in it?

Woody!! How amazing to find you here on a thread about Predestination!! Will be anxious to see what you have to say! (As if I didn't know already.)

4th April 2003 at 02:49 PM FineLinen said this in Post #197



FineLinen

No, Rnmomof7, I indeed do not believe the whole world went after Him. The primary meaning of all, is indeed just that all/whole/complete. Let's take a look at Vine's for a moment....

http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000085

The adjective all radically means all! That is the primary meaning of the word. As far as the hilasmos of the holos. Well, my friend, look closely at it for a nano-second.

"And He is the propitiation/expiation/atoning sacrifice for our sins:

AND

not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Holos= at all/ utterly

So then you believe that all men without exception ARE saved? (universalism?)

Click to expand...

What I believe is not what we are discussing my friend. I assume that you are referring to "the times of the restitution of all (some) things of which God has spoken from the earliest ages through the lips of His holy prophets." Is that what you mean by universalism? But let's get back to the original questions presented to you and begging an answer..... Can you tell us what Scriptures in the earlier post mean some and not all? Which ones are a synedoche/metonymy?

It is a bible used by the JW's and considered by some a paraphrase more than a translation . Note he added his words to the text


Moffatt, James: Greek into English but one man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Regarding James Moffatt, he was a professor at Union Theological Seminary, one of the most radical liberal institutions.

Click to expand...

I truly hope that the J.W's are using the James Moffatt translation of the Holy Scriptures, it will be a wonderful enhancement to the N.W.T. This is the deal. I have the James Moffatt translation sitting in front of me with 25 or so other excellent translations. After....(AFTER) you declare which words are a syndedoche I will be happy to present any (ANY) Scripture from the James Moffatt translation (Old Covenant or New) with a minimum of 20 other translations for comparison. Have you ever read the translation and compared? I have!

4th April 2003 at 09:05 AM rnmomof7 said this in Post #192




Do you believe that God demands "double jeopardy"? God forgave all the sins on the cross but men have to pay for them again? Is God a liar or an Indian giver?

Click to expand...

LOL, not even close to what I said.  My point was that one cannot divide God's attributes or character.  Jesus paid the penalty for everyone, period. 

I would like to know why calvinists insist that those who believe that Jesus died for the sins for the WHOLE world, as the Bible very clearly states btw, are universalists? Jesus dying for the sins of the world doesn't mean that the whole world will be saved, what it means is that Jesus' death was sufficient to save everyone, because He literally carried the sins of the world on the cross. It is clear that while salvation is the work of God, yet, we also must choose to turn to Christ.

4th April 2003 at 04:00 PM Mandy said this in Post #208

Jesus dying for the sins of the world doesn't mean that the whole world will be saved, what it means is that Jesus' death was sufficient to save everyone, because He literally carried the sins of the world on the cross. It is clear that while salvation is the work of God, yet, we also must choose to turn to Christ.

Click to expand...

This is the way I see it too. Hi Mandy

Even Calvinists will be saved. j/k guys and mom

4th April 2003 at 06:00 PM Mandy said this in Post #208

I would like to know why calvinists insist that those who believe that Jesus died for the sins for the WHOLE world, as the Bible very clearly states btw, are universalists? Jesus dying for the sins of the world doesn't mean that the whole world will be saved, what it means is that Jesus' death was sufficient to save everyone, because He literally carried the sins of the world on the cross. It is clear that while salvation is the work of God, yet, we also must choose to turn to Christ.

Click to expand...

Mandy:

There are all kinds of reasons why Calvinists feel that way, among these reasons is their concept of the sovereignty of God.  According to their concept God's sovereignty does not allow for persons to not choose to be saved, or for God's grace, such as the work of Christ on the cross, to be performed without the intended result being accomplished.  For example, if Christ died for all and all are not saved then Christ's work on the cross was of no value for those who are not saved.  Therefore, if Christ died for all then God intended for all to be saved and will be saved and that would be universalism according to their logic.  Also, their concept of irresistible grace.  That is, the salvation of a person is entirely accomplished by the grace of God, and by God's sovereign election.  Therefore, in accordance with God's election, if God grants the person saving faith and grace, they would be unable to resist that grace and would be saved.

Forgive my crude explanations, for I am not a Calvinist.  But you asked the question and I did not see any Calvinists answering.

Other than Pharoah in Romans, what other references in the NT speak of INDIVIDUALS being predestined, i.e, in contrast to the corporate predestination of a body referred to in Ephesians 1?

4th April 2003 at 06:11 PM FineLinen said this in Post #205



What I believe is not what we are discussing my friend. I assume that you are referring to "the times of the restitution of all (some) things of which God has spoken from the earliest ages through the lips of His holy prophets." Is that what you mean by universalism? But let's get back to the original questions presented to you and begging an answer..... Can you tell us what Scriptures in the earlier post mean some and not all? Which ones are a synedoche/metonymy?

Click to expand...

Well if the Greek word PAS always means all without exception then all men then all must be saved..

thus the universalism

4th April 2003 at 06:49 PM Mandy said this in Post #207




LOL, not even close to what I said.  My point was that one cannot divide God's attributes or character.  Jesus paid the penalty for everyone, period. 

Click to expand...

But that is what you said Mandy, you just have never really thought about it before.

If Jesus paid the price for ALL men , then their sin debt is paid and for God to send them to hell is to demand that they pay again for what Jesus already paid. or "double jeopardy.
Was the blood of Christ sufficent or not? He said "It is finished" So why then are some that were saved by His blood punished again?

5th April 2003 at 12:34 AM Ragman said this in Post #210




Mandy:

There are all kinds of reasons why Calvinists feel that way, among these reasons is their concept of the sovereignty of God.  According to their concept God's sovereignty does not allow for persons to not choose to be saved, or for God's grace, such as the work of Christ on the cross, to be performed without the intended result being accomplished.  For example, if Christ died for all and all are not saved then Christ's work on the cross was of no value for those who are not saved.  Therefore, if Christ died for all then God intended for all to be saved and will be saved and that would be universalism according to their logic.  Also, their concept of irresistible grace.  That is, the salvation of a person is entirely accomplished by the grace of God, and by God's sovereign election.  Therefore, in accordance with God's election, if God grants the person saving faith and grace, they would be unable to resist that grace and would be saved.

Forgive my crude explanations, for I am not a Calvinist.  But you asked the question and I did not see any Calvinists answering.

Click to expand...

If man has the choice who is sovereign?

5th April 2003 at 01:31 PM decenso said this in Post #211

Other than Pharoah in Romans, what other references in the NT speak of INDIVIDUALS being predestined, i.e, in contrast to the corporate predestination of a body referred to in Ephesians 1?

Click to expand...

LOL Ephesians a 'corporate predestination'.. Paul carefully lines out INDIVIDUAL predestination in Ephesians as do all the writers in the NT. The US is the invisible church..made up us individuals The invisible church is predestined.

Act 2:47__ Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


Act 13:48__ And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.


Act 22:14__ And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

The church is a corporate boy made up of individuals each of which were ordained to believe before the foundation of the earth ..so their election may stand as Gods will not mans works

The disciples understood that and so stated when they wrote their Epistles

_ 1Th 1:4__ Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
__
_ 1Th 1:5__ For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

Jam 1:18__ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1Pe 1:1__ Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
__
_ 1Pe 1:2__ Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

_ Jud 1:4__ For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5th April 2003 at 01:31 PM decenso said this in Post #211

Other than Pharoah in Romans, what other references in the NT speak of INDIVIDUALS being predestined, i.e, in contrast to the corporate predestination of a body referred to in Ephesians 1?

Click to expand...

How about Jacob and Esau?

4th April 2003 at 11:23 AM CCWoody said this in Post #184




You are reading into that verse your belief that the Lord desires to save all men.  The problem you have is that 1 Ti 2:1-4 simply doesn't get you where you want to be.

The following is PART 1 of a 2 part answer:

In the FIRST place, it is an important point to remember here: The Bible was not written in English. It was written in Greek. As, of course, was this passage:

• oJ;ß pavntaß ajnqrwvpouß qevlei swqh'nai kai; eijß ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeivaß ejlqei'n.

As Strong's Interlinear commentary explains,

Original Word paß Transliterated Word Pas
Definition:

• 
  [*]individually -- each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
  [*]collectively -- some of all types
  
  ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go afterChrist? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

Click to expand...

 I have seen this text used many times to try and disprove 'all'. It is apparent to the reader what this all means because a single negative is needed only to prove its uselessness.  However, in the things of God, we are talking about something different. 'All' necessarily carries a different weight, and therefore its use is to be considered far more true. It's all very well to follow that passage up with an assertion that one believes the bible to be entirely true and inspired and perfect, but even the bible doesn't point to the written word or letter as infallible etc... but the Spirit. So as far as using 'all' in that phrase goes, it doesn't advance or retreat either cause one whit.

I maintain that the Bible is Infallible. By that, I mean that no passage of Scripture is contradictory to, or inconsistent with, any other passage.

Therefore, I hold with Strong, that the sense of the Greek pavntaß used here is used in the sense of the collective -- some of all types, the common and general sense in which this term is used, and not the rarer "each and every individual" sense.

As Custance has observed,

• We are, therefore, exhorted to pray for all men. And yet we know from John 17:9 that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself deliberately refrained from praying for all men, "I pray for them [the chosen few]: I pray not for the world but for them You have given Me." It is of course perfectly true that the Lord Jesus knew who were to be the sheep of his flock even before they became part of his inner circle of disciples, and He also knew the spiritual battle which lay ahead for them all. It might therefore be argued that He prayed for them specifically, and not for the world, for this very reason. But are we being called upon to engage our prayer life on behalf of all men indiscriminately? Would this not so dilute our prayers as to be meaningless and ineffective? To pray for everyone is really to pray for nobody.

It seems more likely that the phrase "for all men" should be translated more selectively to read "for all sorts of men." Such a translation is perfectly consonant with the original Greek, for the word all frequently has the less inclusive meaning of "all kinds of," or "all manner of." The simple form pas is translated "all manner of" in the following places, all of which provide a more precise definition of its meaning:

• 
  Matthew 4:23 --"all manner of disease"
  Matthew 5:11 --"all manner of evil"
  Matthew 10:1 --"all manner of sickness"
  Luke 11:42 --"all manner of herbs"
  Acts 10:12 --"all manner of four-footed beasts"
  Romans 7:8 --"all manner of concupiscence"
  1 Peter 1:15 --"all manner of conversation"

Click to expand...

• 
  
   Which begs the question why it wasn't translated 'all manner of' in all (truly ALL) instances.
  
   And as much as I appreciate Arthur Custance's works (and I do), we are instructed to do good to all. I don't see how prayer is any different. We are instructed to live at peace with all men (as far as it is possible with us). Are these 'all's to be limited as well?
  
   
  

  Revelation 21:19 --"all manner of precious stone"

  Click to expand...

And as a vastly better Greek scholar than you or I (Bishop Saint Augustine of Hippo) has observed:

• THE LIMITS OF GOD'S PLAN FOR HUMAN SALVATION -- Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished.

Click to expand...

• 
  
   That bolded passage, as written, simply asserts that we should then pray to have God's will that WE be saved. If every man could pray that, then for another to pray it on someone's (everyone's) behalf is simply the same thing. Praying to affect the will of God. According to Calvinism, the elect are predestined, so trying to add to that number is ineffectual. In the end, what is proposed here is simply trying to change God's will (or make sure that God doesn't forget to include us in it). It is still the will of man moving the will of God. There is no need to pray it if it is already either so or not. Why waste the breath?
  
  

  And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expression in the Gospel: "The true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world:" not that there is no man who is not enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him.

  Click to expand...

  
  Personally, I see this as referring to the fact that there is no one without excuse. The light has come. That light is Jesus Christ.
  
  

   Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;" not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances, -- kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb." For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth," as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.

  Click to expand...

Now, I say that this verse best agrees with Scripture if the Greek word pavntaß is here read (as is the most common and regular usage in Scripture), "all manner of sorts, without distinction".

Click to expand...

 In other words, Christ did not die for every man, not every man ever had a chance at salvation, and the 'free gift' was not offered to all.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
 2 Peter 3:9

 So let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! Or, on the other hand, if we are the elect, it won't matter anyway.

 If we read 2 Peter 3:9 with Calvinist filters in place, we must conclude that God doesn't want some to repent. He wills that some won't repent - and it will be by His own hand that they will be prevented from doing so.

4th April 2003 at 12:10 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #187


If it is God's desire that all men be saved they would be..
All that He desires to save He will.

Click to expand...

 On this we fully agree.

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

Click to expand...

  So what of 2 Peter 3:9 ?

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

 2 Peter 3:9

 Now it is shown that in Timothy there is a positive sense of God's will (He DOES will that all men come to a knowledge of the truth), and in 2 Peter, a negative sense of His will (He does NOT WILL that ANY perish) in regards to the salvation of men.Why not use the word many? It has been used many times in the NT Greek and without ambiguity (i.e. not meaning a few, and not meaning all).

 

Yesterday at 12:46 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #213

If Jesus paid the price for ALL men , then their sin debt is paid and for God to send them to hell is to demand that they pay again for what Jesus already paid. or "double jeopardy.
Was the blood of Christ sufficent or not? He said "It is finished" So why then are some that were saved by His blood punished again?

Click to expand...

Who did Jesus pay off for sin?  God?  The devil?  Who are you suggesting that Jesus "paid" when He "paid" for sin? 

One of the problems of western christianity is our insistence to make the incarnation and cross and legal matter when it is not.  It is an organic/personal problem not a legal problem.  To be sure we are sinners, but God's rationale is not "How do I get them off the hook" but "how do we heal them so they can enjoy the life that I have in myself, that is shared between the Father, Son and Spirit?"  The grid through which we westerners see the gospel has been so influenced with that of Augustine and Tertullian, not to mention Plato, that we have such a hard time seeing it any other way.  We actually think that "holy" means that God cannot look at sin.  That God can't have anything to do with us because we are sinners.  That until Jesus comes and "takes a whipping" from the Father on our behalf, God won't like us.  We have created this pyscho/schitzophrenic God who is mad as h*ll at us until Jesus comes along, yet somehow He's loving, then He gets nice and gracious, but only because Jesus came and bore all of His wrath which God intended for us.  Yet He still will send (because He created them for this purpose) the majority of the human race to be tormented in hell for eternity with no chance of getting out, and this somehow gives Him pleasure.

Is it any wonder why the world is not listening to us.  This legal view is as crazy as any horror movie that has ever been made.  Yet we westerners are soaking it up.

Yesterday at 10:55 PM nikolai_42 said this in Post #217





Personally, I see this as referring to the fact that there is no one without excuse. The light has come. That light is Jesus Christ.




 In other words, Christ did not die for every man, not every man ever had a chance at salvation, and the 'free gift' was not offered to all.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
 2 Peter 3:9

 So let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! Or, on the other hand, if we are the elect, it won't matter anyway.

 If we read 2 Peter 3:9 with Calvinist filters in place, we must conclude that God doesn't want some to repent. He wills that some won't repent - and it will be by His own hand that they will be prevented from doing so.

Click to expand...

What of those that never hear the gospel? What of the Muslims today or the Bush man in the 1700"s?