No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.Don't you realise you are promoting two different gospels?
Is this what your theology forces you to do?
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.
The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.
The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.
Certainly not as Moses described the problem, as you call it.Unconditional election isn't a problem for the non-elect then?
Are you serious?
So you're saying Paul is preaching it to Jewish people, when Paul has been saying for decades (cf Galatians 2) that he's sent to the Gentiles. Got it.'the word of faith, which we preach' - that is present tense and we know Paul preached where Christ was not known (Romans 15:20). Paul has just described his heart's desire for the salvation of kinsmen and v.9 is the remedy. You think he is just going to leave it there and not actual go out and proclaim it?
It doesn't even have the word "all" in it. But thank you for playing "add a word to Scripture". It does make it easier to distinguish what's actually said when you add words.So, this is what we preach...v.9...but when you go out and preach the gospel make sure it's not this one...tweak it a bit 'cos this one proves Christ died for all...
Yeah. So don't add words, and you'll end up with one gospel.Two gospels? I don't think so.
The message is within hearing and its writing is within reach.It's not there.
I think it would be consistent with what he said. I don't think it would be the same.Correct - he does not speak to them directly. If Paul met an unsaved Israelite - what do you think he would do? I say he would say pretty much the same as he does in Rom 10.
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.I don't perceive an argument here. What is it?
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.No idea what this means.
Cite where I deny unconditional election. Or retract.It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
Well, by you, he won't regenerate anyone. He needs them to pick.So he won't regenerate wicked men then - He would not want to participate with the wicked.
You want Revelation 3:20 talking TO A CHURCH, to mean universal atonement? Isn't it false on its face?Revelation 3:20, John 12:32 weren't dealt with.
Certainly not as Moses described the problem, as you call it.
But I point out, Paul is already talking to people looking for a way of righteousness. You're trying to assert that's the unelect.
Prove it.
So you're saying Paul is preaching it to Jewish people, when Paul has been saying for decades (cf Galatians 2) that he's sent to the Gentiles. Got it.
I hear people preaching all the time. But haven't you noticed, not everything they preach is some kind of demand. Paul is saying this is how righteousness works -- and not by the law.
I'm finding it less than credible that you're claiming they're unelect when Paul claims the opposite, btw. Rom 11:28 dumps cold water on this assumption as well.
Y'know, it's becoming apparent that there's almost nothing that can be said in favor of your view that Paul doesn't say differently from you, later.
Yeah. So don't add words, and you'll end up with one gospel.
The message is within hearing and its writing is within reach.
I think it would be consistent with what he said. I don't think it would be the same.
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.
That God takes no joy in the death of the wicked, contradicts that Jesus went to the Cross for the joy set before Him.
Cite where I deny unconditional election. Or retract.
You want Revelation 3:20 talking TO A CHURCH, to mean universal atonement? Isn't it false on its face?
John 12:32 doesn't teach salvation, but it does teach Lordship. How about Pp 2:10 for ya? Everyone's knee will bow. But then there's Matt 25, not everyone will be saved.
=snort!= Paul said it. Nothing to prove.Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.
I have proven it.
The term is "custom", not "want"It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.
Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "clean your room!" and "you'll find things if you clean your room"?Sorry, not following this.
Let's get a few things straight.Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.
That's not true at all, jan.Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.
Did you know Paul never used the same words to describe the gospel in any record of his preaching. Sorry for your view: the words change.Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.
For whom did Christ die? He died in order to accomplish the joy set before Him. It's what Scripture says. That was Jesus' intent.I'm not following you.
A critical piece of my view? My view is to follow where Scripture leads.This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
You still did not tell the truth. And yet you don't retract. Unconditional election isn't the critical component of my view. It is simply the conclusion of thinking about what God has said.I did not say what you want me to retract.
Why would you say that? The right to sit on a throne implies people aren't saved in your view. Demonstrate that this right is nothing else. In fact, demonstrate that every saved person must gain the right to be on Jesus' throne.v.21 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.
It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.
Then why choose John 12:32? You're talking about a universal atonement. I point out that atonements atone.Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.
I have proven it.
Want=desire. Wont=custom. Learn English. Please.It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.
Can you prove that the ones who believed him and joined him did so solely by their own choice, or was the Holy spirit involved?Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah, he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
He's basically saying that your view is self-contradictorySorry, not following this.
No he did not agree to that. You're jumping to conclusions, grasping at straws.Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.
Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.
Every time you preach the gospel, you can't help but tweak it a little. That is, unless you have a canned script that you never deviate from with even one word. Tweaking does not mean changing it such that it is no longer the same.Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.
He pointing out the problems with one-verse doctrine-building. Doctrines are built on ALL of scripture, not just little snippets, like you're doing.I'm not following you.
He is saying that you accused him of denying UE, when he has not. He is saying either show where he did, or retract your false accusation. I would advise you to retract it.This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
I did not say what you want me to retract.
An assumption on your part, really. It doesn't say that.v.21 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.
It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.
He did, you just don't want to admit it. You dare people to refute what you have said, and when they do, you refuse to accept it, and then claim no one has refuted your point. How convenient.Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
It's WHY you say that they won't be saved that is the point of contention.I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
The unbeliever wants to know why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection?
=snort!= Paul said it. Nothing to prove.
The term is "custom", not "want"
You don't seem to understand the difference between "clean your room!" and "you'll find things if you clean your room"?
One is not the other.
Let's get a few things straight.
Paul did not preach v. 9 to unbelievers. Paul specifically directed it to the Roman saints.
Did Paul preach something like v. 9? I'm sure he did.
Did Paul mean it the exact same way he meant it when he said it to the Romans? That's unlikely. He's talking to those he is already in the fellowship of faith with. Even for Paul, that changes things dramatically. 2 Cor 9 describes this fellowship as his whole reason for preaching.
That's not true at all, jan.
In point of fact unconditional election says the word of faith which we preach is close at hand to elect and unelect alike.
A retraction is becoming quite necessary of you, to keep some integrity.
Did you know Paul never used the same words to describe the gospel in any record of his preaching. Sorry for your view: the words change.
For whom did Christ die? He died in order to accomplish the joy set before Him. It's what Scripture says. That was Jesus' intent.
Yet you can deliver no joy of Christ for the unelect receiving, and rejecting, the gospel.
So that was not Jesus' intent.
A critical piece of my view? My view is to follow where Scripture leads.
It seems the sine qua non of your view of salvation is the ineffectiveness of God without human choice. Why not try looking at it from other people's points of view?
You still did not tell the truth. And yet you don't retract. Unconditional election isn't the critical component of my view. It is simply the conclusion of thinking about what God has said.
Why would you say that? The right to sit on a throne implies people aren't saved in your view. Demonstrate that this right is nothing else. In fact, demonstrate that every saved person must gain the right to be on Jesus' throne.
Then why choose John 12:32? You're talking about a universal atonement. I point out that atonements atone.
No, you haven't. and just saying that you have is not proof that you have.
Want=desire. Wont=custom. Learn English. Please.
Can you prove that the ones who believed him and joined him did so solely by their own choice, or was the Holy spirit involved?
No he did not agree to that. You're jumping to conclusions, grasping at straws.
Nope. Failure to understand his point.
Every time you preach the gospel, you can't help but tweak it a little. That is, unless you have a canned script that you never deviate from with even one word. Tweaking does not mean changing it such that it is no longer the same.
He pointing out the problems with one-verse doctrine-building. Doctrines are built on ALL of scripture, not just little snippets, like you're doing.
He is saying that you accused him of denying UE, when he has not. He is saying either show where he did, or retract your false accusation. I would advise you to retract it.
An assumption on your part, really. It doesn't say that.
He did, you just don't want to admit it. You dare people to refute what you have said, and when they do, you refuse to accept it, and then claim no one has refuted your point. How convenient.
It's WHY you say that they won't be saved that is the point of contention.
Unbelievers don't want to know anything of the sort! That is a concoction of your own making.
My mother just asked me - she's not a believer. No concoction.
No, I'm not promoting two different gospels. The same conditions apply to all.
The difference is that human beings need help. God gives help. People change due to God, not to people.
To anyone reading this: If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."Okay, let's see this then - please would you repost the following (assume unsaved people will read your post):
Because it is true.The unbeliever wants to know why, if Christ did not die for all, Paul enjoins all to believe in the resurrection? Calvinists cite Romans 4:25 when defending limited atonement (just google it to see that it is so):
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."
I believe if you were to take a look at James' qualification you would see the dismal consequences of simply affirming facts. "Why, even demons believe that ... and shudder."
Although ai do believe that someone who relies on Jesus as Lord and knows he has been raised from the dead, he will be saved. But ... you know that demons know Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus was raised.
Because it is true.
What, you want apostles to spread a lie? Sorry, that just isn't right.
Once again, you realize all people shall find this to be true. The Apostles knew that early recognition was a sign that someone was elect.
"All those believing in Jesus should not perish but have eternal life."
I believe if you were to take a look at James' qualification you would see the dismal consequences of simply affirming facts. "Why, even demons believe that ... and shudder."
Although ai do believe that someone who relies on Jesus as Lord and knows he has been raised from the dead, he will be saved. But ... you know that demons know Jesus is Lord, and that Jesus was raised.
You read the reason why. Pauls is a listing of the facts, he already knows they rely on Christ.Can I ask why you didn't/won't preach v.9 to unbelievers? It is the gospel that Paul preached. You said that there is only one gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?