Arminianism is inconsistent

[royal priest]

Hi Oz.
I have a question. I tried finding the answer on the Evangelical Arminian website you mentioned, but could not find a clear answer, so I ask you if you wouldn't mind.
I struggled with how ask it so as to get to the point.
We both agree that the believer must exercise his will in a persevering faith that is evidenced by good works.
How much influence does God's enabling grace have upon the believer after his initial deliverance from enslavement to sin?
If you wouldn't mind, I might have follow up questions to help me further understand your position.
Thanks!

 

[OzSpen]

I addressed it in the fact that I explained the two types of slaves described in scripture. That nullifies your evidence. Therefore it needs not be discussed.

What I dealt with in #97, you did not deal with in #98. Therefore your response was a red herring fallacy.

We can't have a logical discussion when you do this as logical fallacies use fallacious reasoning.

Bye.

 

[royal priest]

Hi Oz.
I have a question about the grace of God and the believer's perseverance. I looked on the Evangelical Arminian website you mentioned, but could not find the answer I was looking for.
Does God give enabling power beyond initial deliverance from bondage to sin? If so, to what extent?

 

[John Robie]

What I dealt with in #97, you did not deal with in #98. Therefore your response was a red herring fallacy.

We can't have a logical discussion when you do this as logical fallacies use fallacious reasoning.

Bye.

I explained why. The argument you made (well, not you since for some reason you won't put things in your own words) didn't address the issue of slavery. It danced around it. So I cleared up the issue. It seems from your unwillingness to deal with my comment on slavery (which is really just spelling out what the bible says) that you see the dilemma, and instead of addressing it, you've pulled out the "Red Herring Card". We cannot have a discussion when you do that. I believe we've discussed this before. It is a diversionary tactic. Especially since your argument is a red herring because it tries to ignore that there are only two types of slavery mentioned in scripture.

Until you admit that, or somehow explain how your cut and paste post explains that, you are correct that we cannot continue with this line of discussion.

(I don't know why you keep saying "bye" when it never actually means an end to a discussion.)

 

[John Robie]

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. - Titus 2:11-14

Here's another example of the inconsistency of Arminians. It's often that they quite v 11, but not the following. It's all important that "all" in v. 11 means every single person in Arminian theology. But that never seems to mean all in the following verses. Paul is clear that this salvation does something. And to them, that seems to stop at verse 11.

Somehow choice and free will sneaks into the passage in the blank space between verses 11 and 12. And that is wildly inconsistent.

 

[Bluelion]

Oz it is funny you brought up Adam and Eve and their choice because the way is see that is what we have again. Just as Adam and Eve could choice between Good and evil, we can choose upon hearing God's word between good and evil once again.

 

[John Robie]

Oz it is funny you brought up Adam and Eve and their choice because the way is see that is what we have again. Just as Adam and Eve could choice between Good and evil, we can choose upon hearing God's word between good and evil once again.

Do you believe that unbelievers are slaves to sin?

 

[now faith]

I disagree. It isn't an Arminian argument concerning faith but a Scriptural one that faith is the conduit of grace and salvation. The Scriptures are pretty clear that there is no salvation apart from faith. Faith being the gift of God is absolutely true but to think that infants can have faith and believe apart from knowledge of Christ is Hyper-Calvinism. It is no different than saying God's elect are saved by their election with or without faith.

The example of John the Baptist moving in his mother's womb is not a valid example of faith apart from knowledge but one of the Spirit moving in a special way. John the Baptist was ordained to be the forerunner of Christ and it was shown to be so by the Spirit moving in Luke 1:41.

The fact is that the secret things belong unto God, Duet. 29:29, and the things revealed belong unto us. The destiny of babies is secret as far as the Scriptures are concerned. Therefore we ought not speculate or try to make the Scriptures say what they do not say. I am content to be assured that whatever the Lord does is right and good.

Would you think that faith alone would validate the Arminian position?

John the Baptist was moved by the Holy Ghost in the Womb ,not by infant cognitive thoughts.

Infants are no different than anyone else who is not capable of understanding good from evil.

We simply have to look a Deuteronomy to reveal free will by Faith:

Deuteronomy: 30. 15. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16. In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18. I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The key here is choose life.
It tells a lot about God's nature,God set before them a choice,yet he commands choose life.
By faith a choice is made,to be blessed or die.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz.
I have a question about the grace of God and the believer's perseverance. I looked on the Evangelical Arminian website you mentioned, but could not find the answer I was looking for.
Does God give enabling power beyond initial deliverance from bondage to sin? If so, to what extent?

royal priest,

On the website of the Society of Evangelical Arminians, I found a number of articles with a simple search of 'Perseverance of the saints'. These included:

John Wesley, “Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints”

The Contradiction Between “Perseverance of the Saints” and the Scriptural Warnings Against Apostasy

Arminian Answers to Logical Arguments for Perseverance of the Saints

Friday Files: Davis – The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine

Arminian Responses to Key Scriptures Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints

There are many more links on that page.

Have you read Stephen M. Ashby, "Reformed Arminianism," Four Views on Eternal Security, 163–166 (Zondervan 2002), and his understanding of a Reformed Arminian view of perseverance of the saints?

If you want to get it straight from Arminius himself, take a read of his writing, 'The perseverance of the saints' (Works of Arminius, vol 1, p.254). Arminius' view stated here was:

'My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies -- yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ....

Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect'.

That may open some further avenues for discussion.

Oz

 

[twin1954]

Would you think that faith alone would validate the Arminian position?

There is nothing that would validate the Arminian position. The Scriptures are extremely clear that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and that it is all the gift of God apart from man doing anything. Man is the recipient of the grace of God. We receive God's grace in Christ Jesus the Lord just like a glass receives water, passively. We take no part in it except to be filled. We then receive Christ as a man does when he takes that water and drinks for himself. We cannot receive the water until the glass has been filled. That is what God given faith does. Just like the Lord's Supper we who have been born of God take the bread and wine and make it a part of us. It is a picture of faith.

John the Baptist was moved by the Holy Ghost in the Womb ,not by infant cognitive thoughts.

Infants are no different than anyone else who is not capable of understanding good from evil.

That is exactly what I said. The Scriptures are just not clear on the destiny of infants and those who cannot understand. What is clear is that there is no such thing as an age of accountability. All the race of Adam are born sinners and under the penalty of sin and death. There are no innocent infants.

We simply have to look a Deuteronomy to reveal free will by Faith:

Deuteronomy: 30. 15. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16. In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18. I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The key here is choose life.
It tells a lot about God's nature,God set before them a choice,yet he commands choose life.
By faith a choice is made,to be blessed or die.

This passage is a proof-text for Aminianism to be sure but it in no way establishes free will as the foundation of saving faith. It is a command from God who rules and sits on the throne of dominion over all of His creation. When the King gives a command we ignore it to our peril. What the passage does establish is that unbelief is insanity.

Man's natural depravity, darkness and hatred of God will always make us choose sin over following God. It is not until God gives us life and faith that we are enabled to make the choice to trust and rest in the finished work of Christ. While we do choose life it isn't until we have already been given life that we can do so.

 

[mikedsjr]

Adam and Eve's choice to eat was prior to Adam's sin. So they had the free will to choose.

The question would be did Cain have the ability, in his sinful state, have the choice to choose God's ways? He certainly had the choice not to kill. But Cain's choice not to kill is about controlling how evil he could be.

 

[OzSpen]

Adam and Eve's choice to eat was prior to Adam's sin. So they had the free will to choose.

The question would be did Cain have the ability, in his sinful state, have the choice to choose God's ways? He certainly had the choice not to kill. But Cain's choice not to kill is about controlling how evil he could be.

Mike,

Since God has not provided us with information about Cain's ability to choose God's ways, I'm not going to speculate.

We find two dimensions to the initiation of salvation in John 1:12-13 (ESV): 'But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God'.

• Human beings receive Jesus and believe in Him.
• To become children of God, these human beings have to be born of God. No 'come to Jesus' human response will do it. The supernatural work of God is compulsory.

What Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31, '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' must be accompanied by what Jesus said in John 6:44 (ESV), 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him'.

The human mind finds this difficult to comprehend, but these are biblical truths: Human beings receive and believe; however, they cannot come to Jesus without being drawn by God the Father.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz it is funny you brought up Adam and Eve and their choice because the way is see that is what we have again. Just as Adam and Eve could choice between Good and evil, we can choose upon hearing God's word between good and evil once again.

Blue,

See my response at #112.

However, it is true that Adam and Eve, in the beginning, were created with the ability to choose right from wrong, good from evil. It is also true that that was before the Fall into sin. You and I today have the ability to choose evil or good.

My conclusion (see #112) is that there are 2 dimensions to any encounter with God or salvation. Human beings believe but God the Father draws them. Throughout Christian history we have not been able to resolve this issue. However,

• If salvation is only a sovereign act of God, what's the point in evangelism (except to be obedient to Matt 28:18-20)? As one of my evangelical Presbyterian pastors puts it, 'God will bring them in', and that church does no overt evangelism. It has the added problem that it doesn't deal with the 2 biblical dimensions I've mentioned in #112.
• If human beings must take the initiative to receive salvation, then it seems to me to be an anaemic, human-centred 'gospel' of works. It also is contrary to the double emphasis I've provided in #112.

We don't like living with this challenge that salvation involves both the sovereign work of God the Father (through Christ) and the need for a human response. I can't see the Bible resolving this issue. Leaving it as a mystery of God encourages us to continue the task of evangelism in an anti-Christian and even hostile environment.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. - Titus 2:11-14

Here's another example of the inconsistency of Arminians. It's often that they quite v 11, but not the following. It's all important that "all" in v. 11 means every single person in Arminian theology. But that never seems to mean all in the following verses. Paul is clear that this salvation does something. And to them, that seems to stop at verse 11.

Somehow choice and free will sneaks into the passage in the blank space between verses 11 and 12. And that is wildly inconsistent.

John,

This is what happens when you don't take the complete context of Titus 2 into consideration. This chapter deals with Paul's instruction to Titus: 'But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1 ESV).

When we get to Titus 2:11, it begins with the Greek gar (for, because), an explanatory conjunction, that closely links vv 11-14 with what precedes, vv 2-10. Thus, vv. 11-14 tell why Christians should live according to the exhortations of vv 2-10. Why are they to live this way? 'That the word of God may not be reviled' (Titus 2:5:ESV). Instead, the need is that 'in everything they [the people of God] may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior' (Titus 2:10 ESV).

In my understanding of NT Greek (I read and teach Greek), vv 11-14 seem to form a single sentence in which 'the grace of God' (v. 11) is the subject - grammatically speaking. In contrast to the KJV and the NIV, my understanding is that Paul is not saying the 'grace of God appeared to all men' but as most other translations put it, 'the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people'. This understanding is supported by the word order in the Greek text (Lit: appeared for the grace of God saving to all men). Similar word usage is found in 1 Tim 2:3-6.

What has 'appeared'? It is God's grace that offers 'salvation to all' people. Paul doesn't give us an indicator here of when this appearance made its entrance. However, Christ's saving event that brought redemption (Titus 2:14) is probably what he had in view. There is another possibility that it could refer to Paul and Titus's preaching of the Gospel in Crete (see Titus 1:3; 3:3-4).

Titus 2:11-14 deals with Christian behaviour that flows from 'sound doctrine' (2:1) and that sound doctrine includes a correct exegesis of Titus 2:11 (ESV).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with inconsistency of Arminians or sneaking in free will. I call on you to be accurate in your exegesis instead of making these unfounded accusations against a theological position you do not support.

Oz

 

[twin1954]

Mike,

Since God has not provided us with information about Cain's ability to choose God's ways, I'm not going to speculate.

We find two dimensions to the initiation of salvation in John 1:12-13 (ESV): 'But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God'.

• Human beings receive Jesus and believe in Him.
• To become children of God, these human beings have to be born of God. No 'come to Jesus' human response will do it. The supernatural work of God is compulsory.

What Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31, '(You) believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household' must be accompanied by what Jesus said in John 6:44 (ESV), 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him'.

The human mind finds this difficult to comprehend, but these are biblical truths: Human beings receive and believe; however, they cannot come to Jesus without being drawn by God the Father.

Oz

You act as though Calvinism kills evangelism while ignoring the fact that the most well known evangelists during the past three or four hundred years have been Calvinists. George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, Adroniram Judson, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon just to name a few.

If you can ignore this fact while claiming that Calvinism kills evangelism you are not being honest.

 

[John Robie]

John,

This is what happens when you don't take the complete context of Titus 2 into consideration. This chapter deals with Paul's instruction to Titus: 'But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1 ESV).

When we get to Titus 2:11, it begins with the Greek gar (for, because), an explanatory conjunction, that closely links vv 11-14 with what precedes, vv 2-10. Thus, vv. 11-14 tell why Christians should live according to the exhortations of vv 2-10. Why are they to live this way? 'That the word of God may not be reviled' (Titus 2:5:ESV). Instead, the need is that 'in everything they [the people of God] may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior' (Titus 2:10 ESV).

In my understanding of NT Greek (I read and teach Greek), vv 11-14 seem to form a single sentence in which 'the grace of God' (v. 11) is the subject - grammatically speaking. In contrast to the KJV and the NIV, my understanding is that Paul is not saying the 'grace of God appeared to all men' but as most other translations put it, 'the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people'. This understanding is supported by the word order in the Greek text (Lit: appeared for the grace of God saving to all men). Similar word usage is found in 1 Tim 2:3-6.

What has 'appeared'? It is God's grace that offers 'salvation to all' people. Paul doesn't give us an indicator here of when this appearance made its entrance. However, Christ's saving event that brought redemption (Titus 2:14) is probably what he had in view. There is another possibility that it could refer to Paul and Titus's preaching of the Gospel in Crete (see Titus 1:3; 3:3-4).

Titus 2:11-14 deals with Christian behaviour that flows from 'sound doctrine' (2:1) and that sound doctrine includes a correct exegesis of Titus 2:11 (ESV).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with inconsistency of Arminians or sneaking in free will. I call on you to be accurate in your exegesis instead of making these unfounded accusations against a theological position you do not support.

Oz

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

First off, while I didn't post everything about the chapter, I certainly didn't ignore it. I would argue that it's you who is ignoring the context.

The first 10 verses list a variety of people. Men, women, young women, young men, slave owners, servants. That pretty much covers everyone. So when Paul immediately uses "all people" in the next verse, that's the context he's using.

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. - Titus 2:11-14

There's nothing in verse 11 that hints of an offer, nor is there anything that that hints that one must receive the offer in order to be trained, or live in self-control, or await the return of Christ. For you to come to the conclusion that there's an offer is nothing but eisegesis.

So it was not an unfounded accusation. In fact, your "exegesis" confirmed what I said. You snuck an offer and acceptance in where none exist.

 

[twin1954]

John,

This is what happens when you don't take the complete context of Titus 2 into consideration. This chapter deals with Paul's instruction to Titus: 'But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1 ESV).

When we get to Titus 2:11, it begins with the Greek gar (for, because), an explanatory conjunction, that closely links vv 11-14 with what precedes, vv 2-10. Thus, vv. 11-14 tell why Christians should live according to the exhortations of vv 2-10. Why are they to live this way? 'That the word of God may not be reviled' (Titus 2:5:ESV). Instead, the need is that 'in everything they [the people of God] may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior' (Titus 2:10 ESV).

In my understanding of NT Greek (I read and teach Greek), vv 11-14 seem to form a single sentence in which 'the grace of God' (v. 11) is the subject - grammatically speaking. In contrast to the KJV and the NIV, my understanding is that Paul is not saying the 'grace of God appeared to all men' but as most other translations put it, 'the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people'. This understanding is supported by the word order in the Greek text (Lit: appeared for the grace of God saving to all men). Similar word usage is found in 1 Tim 2:3-6.

What has 'appeared'? It is God's grace that offers 'salvation to all' people. Paul doesn't give us an indicator here of when this appearance made its entrance. However, Christ's saving event that brought redemption (Titus 2:14) is probably what he had in view. There is another possibility that it could refer to Paul and Titus's preaching of the Gospel in Crete (see Titus 1:3; 3:3-4).

Titus 2:11-14 deals with Christian behaviour that flows from 'sound doctrine' (2:1) and that sound doctrine includes a correct exegesis of Titus 2:11 (ESV).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with inconsistency of Arminians or sneaking in free will. I call on you to be accurate in your exegesis instead of making these unfounded accusations against a theological position you do not support.

Oz

Your interpretation of the passage would certainly teach universalism. You must add in your theological bent to get around that fact. The word order in the Greek means little to nothing by the way.

The only way to actually make sense of the passage is to understand that the grace of God that has appeared to all men is the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus the Lord. The Gospel of Christ is how the grace of God has appeared to all men period. The preaching of the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. You twist the passage by making it teach an offer that is nowhere in the passage or even the New Testament.

 

[Bluelion]

Blue,

See my response at #112.

However, it is true that Adam and Eve, in the beginning, were created with the ability to choose right from wrong, good from evil. It is also true that that was before the Fall into sin. You and I today have the ability to choose evil or good.

My conclusion (see #112) is that there are 2 dimensions to any encounter with God or salvation. Human beings believe but God the Father draws them. Throughout Christian history we have not been able to resolve this issue. However,

• If salvation is only a sovereign act of God, what's the point in evangelism (except to be obedient to Matt 28:18-20)? As one of my evangelical Presbyterian pastors puts it, 'God will bring them in', and that church does no overt evangelism. It has the added problem that it doesn't deal with the 2 biblical dimensions I've mentioned in #112.
• If human beings must take the initiative to receive salvation, then it seems to me to be an anaemic, human-centred 'gospel' of works. It also is contrary to the double emphasis I've provided in #112.

We don't like living with this challenge that salvation involves both the sovereign work of God the Father (through Christ) and the need for a human response. I can't see the Bible resolving this issue. Leaving it as a mystery of God encourages us to continue the task of evangelism in an anti-Christian and even hostile environment.

Oz

I think it is upon hearing God's Word we understand right from wrong in that moment we can say i accept God or reject Him. I do not see it as humans works to say yes or no. Heb 6 says if a person taste the fruit of Heaven and turns away they can never be brought back. Taste seems to suggest sample but not take in, such as judas did. If a person samples have and rejects God seem like they made a choice to me. Heb 6 4 For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit,5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come—6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

It certainly sounds like a choice to reject God, while this passage is argued for a person to lose salvation, as Paul said this is for mature believers, and the people Paul speaks of never had salvation but like judas were in the presents of God. In the passage is show they fully understand God, they know He is good, and the way to Heaven yet turn away any way. I ask you is this not what judas did? If we say a person has no choice then we would have to accept the heresy that judas did just what God wanted him to do ad was following Jesus's will. If we say that we can not say he betrayed God, but God said he did, so he did not do what God hoped for him.

I think we are pretty much in a agreement Oz, just fun to kick back ideas with you. There are few people I can say that about.

 

[Bluelion]

Would you think that faith alone would validate the Arminian position?

John the Baptist was moved by the Holy Ghost in the Womb ,not by infant cognitive thoughts.

Infants are no different than anyone else who is not capable of understanding good from evil.

We simply have to look a Deuteronomy to reveal free will by Faith:

Deuteronomy: 30. 15. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16. In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 17. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18. I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. 19. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

The key here is choose life.
It tells a lot about God's nature,God set before them a choice,yet he commands choose life.
By faith a choice is made,to be blessed or die.

Hi now faith,

I think it is clear throughout the Bible we find everyone is given choices to make. Take Abraham the first time God called he did not go, but the second time he obeyed. No one can show me one case where a person did not have a choice. God came as a man and he to had free will to make a choice. He chose to lay down His life. He chose to do the Fathers will, one prayer Jesus gave Father if possible let this cup pass from me. Jesus did not want to go through all that, but He wanted to do the Fathers will, and wanted to save us. I think that prayer shows Just how human Jesus was. and it was about choice.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

First off, while I didn't post everything about the chapter, I certainly didn't ignore it. I would argue that it's you who is ignoring the context.

The first 10 verses list a variety of people. Men, women, young women, young men, slave owners, servants. That pretty much covers everyone. So when Paul immediately uses "all people" in the next verse, that's the context he's using.

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. - Titus 2:11-14

There's nothing in verse 11 that hints of an offer, nor is there anything that that hints that one must receive the offer in order to be trained, or live in self-control, or await the return of Christ. For you to come to the conclusion that there's an offer is nothing but eisegesis.

So it was not an unfounded accusation. In fact, your "exegesis" confirmed what I said. You snuck an offer and acceptance in where none exist.

You did not deal with what I wrote in #114. If this is your approach, I'll respond to others.