How is it possible for a man to be responsible under Calvinism?

[shturt678]

the "everyone" mentioned is the people in the following verses, just like the "Everyone" in a classroom, when a teacher says "everyone sit down", doesn't mean the entire human race, but everyone that I'm talking about.

As much as I'm the only refutable Christian on this site (IITim.3:16), unable to bend on this one, ie,

The weight of Heb.2:9 lies in the purpose clause which, however, does not modify the participle "crowned," but the phrase, the reference to Jesus' death. The construction is just good ol' Koine ad sensum: made lower than angels so as to suffer and to die ahd the purpose for Jesus that thereby He not only achieved crowning with glory and honor for himself, but also the purpose "that by God's grace he should taste death (genitive after a verb of tasting) for everyone."

The fact that this includes universality as well as substitution is rather plain although neither idea is in the foreground, this being the idea of benefiting everyone by opening up to him the avenue to eternal glory and honor.

The entire human race including those that didn't even hear the gospel, to those in hell, to wretches like myself and more?

Just ol' old correctible Jack

 

[Charis kai Dunamis]

I don't interact with eisegesis, which is what you have provided.

The clear point is that there are "My sheep" and "the sheep". To equate them if false. No basis.

Thanks for the extensive treatment of the text as well as my post. Oh wait. You did neither. Nevermind.

 

[shturt678]

Thanks for the extensive treatment of the text as well as my post. Oh wait. You did neither. Nevermind.

FG2 receives an "A" You folks mobbed him, and he lived through it.

Just ol' old Jack's Bell Curve

btw did and do appreciate your words and you also, but your paper looks like Christmas already here, LOL with you my friend.

 

[Skala]

As much as I'm the only refutable Christian on this site (IITim.3:16), unable to bend on this one, ie,

The weight of Heb.2:9 lies in the purpose clause which, however, does not modify the participle "crowned," but the phrase, the reference to Jesus' death. The construction is just good ol' Koine ad sensum: made lower than angels so as to suffer and to die ahd the purpose for Jesus that thereby He not only achieved crowning with glory and honor for himself, but also the purpose "that by God's grace he should taste death (genitive after a verb of tasting) for everyone."

The fact that this includes universality as well as substitution is rather plain although neither idea is in the foreground, this being the idea of benefiting everyone by opening up to him the avenue to eternal glory and honor.

The entire human race including those that didn't even hear the gospel, to those in hell, to wretches like myself and more?

Just ol' old correctible Jack

We know that Jesus didn't taste death for all individuals, because then He would be a liar:

"I lay down my life for my sheep"
"The reason you do not beleive is because you are not my sheep"

Digging your heels in and continually asserting that the "everyone" in Heb 2:9 refers to everyone in the human race (instead of the everyone that the passage starts to talk about) doesn't actually make it true.

 

[janxharris]

We know that Jesus didn't taste death for all individuals, because then He would be a liar:

"I lay down my life for my sheep"

Which scripture says this?

 

[janxharris]

Christ death and resurrection is that which reconciles a man to God.

Romans 5:6-10
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!​

(Of course, one must have faith in Christ for this reconciliation to be realised.)

Paul also says:

Romans 5:12;18a
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,​

So it is clear that all men stand condemned and the only option for life (that is, eternal life) is to have faith in Jesus Christ.

Some here argue that Christ did not die for all men. If that is true then those for whom Christ did not die are excluded from the reconciliation that Paul spoke of (as I quoted above). Even if it were theoretically possible for them to put their trust and faith in Christ it would avail nothing because he did not die for them.

In order to maintain responsibility, Calvinist say that a man is able but unwilling to respond to the gospel. This 'offer' of salvation cannot be anything but disingenuous. Clearly, if Christ didn't die for you, then you have no hope of eternal life.

Here is A. W. Pink on what was predetermined (from 'The Attributes of God' Chapter 4 -The Foreknowledge of God)

God not only knew the end from the beginning, but He planned, fixed, predestinated everything from the beginning. And, as cause stands to effect, so God’s purpose is the ground of His prescience. If then the reader be a real Christian, he is so because God chose him in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and chose not because He foresaw you would believe, but chose simply because it pleased Him to choose: chose you notwithstanding your natural unbelief.​

 

[janxharris]

1. The text doesn't say that. Did you not notice you inserted words that aren't there? Doesn't that bother you?

I inserted words to show my understanding.

2. Even if you're right, what does that mean about the ones he foreknow wouldn't believe? What were they predestined to do?

I answered that:
Those He foreknew would not believe would not be holy and blameless in His sight and so would not also be called, justified and glorified.

You're all over the place. Let's focus on one thing at a time.

If I am, you have not explained why. You are saying that Romans 8:28-30 is proof of predestined election and I am attempting to refute you by arguing from other scriptures. I answered your question regarding Romans 8, so there is no reason why you shouldn't engage with my argument.

In the parable of the wedding banquet, did the king exclude anyone from being invited? (It is Matthew 22 for any that don't know). Since it is the case that all were invited, and the banquet represents the kingdom of heaven, then we can rest in the knowledge that no single man is excluded by God.

We also know that faith is not a work. If faith contained within it any amount of work then Paul could not have said that those who employed it (faith) would have attained righteousness.
Romans 9:30-32
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
So, I ask you:
1. Did the king exclude anyone from the invite?
2. Do you agree that faith is something that excludes work? If not, why not?

 

[Hammster]

I answered that:
Those He foreknew would not believe would not be holy and blameless in His sight and so would not also be called, justified and glorified.

What was it about them that led Him to know that they wouldn't believe? Did He create some sort of defect in them?

 

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by Skala View Post
We know that Jesus didn't taste death for all individuals, because then He would be a liar:

"I lay down my life for my sheep"

Which scripture says this?
"I lay down my life for my sheep"

Don't attempt to distinguish between the sheep and my sheep, because all of the sheep follow Christ. All of the sheep will not follow a stranger, they will flee from the voice of a stranger.

4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them;

and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.
5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.

15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep

All of the sheep are His sheep. in v4 Christ says 'the sheep'. His 'own sheep' are 'the sheep' and 'my sheep.'

The sheep, my sheep, other sheep, His own sheep, all are of the Father and all belong to Him.

 

[sdowney717]

Christ in Matt 25 distinguishes between sheep and goats. All of the sheep are saved, none of the goats are saved. None of the sheep are lost.
All of the goats are going to hell.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[a] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

You who refuse to see this truth is because it goes hard against you mindset of who God is or a human sense of fair play in how God works in men.
But let the word transform your mind, don't transform the word to your understanding, but be renewed in the inner man to the truth of the word of God.

 

[shturt678]

Rom.8:29 the ol' "foreknowing" routine...hmmmm...... Will join you folks with Jn.10:14, ie, Jesus "knows" certain persons as "my sheep," and these know Him as their as their Shepherd. Ie, not that He separated some from the rejected.

Should have began at v.28, sorry, ie, the reason that the rest were not won in no way or to no degree lies in the call or in the divine purpose, but in the wicked human will which rejects the call and the purpose.

Back to v.29 and "foreknowing". In Matt.7:22, 23 the persons are fully described to whom Jesus says: "I never knew you!"

Just ol' old Jack's view

 

[FreeGrace2]

Eisegesis is the only method you observe. You pull scriptures from all over the place and even pit scripture against scripture. You have no respect for the "line upon line" principle of interpretation.

Take the eisegesis log out of your own eye.

This post is patently false. I pull Scriptures together to demonstrate principles and doctrines, all of which you reject. Why? Because you pull verses together that our out of context with each other to try to defend your own opinions.

Since you have charged me with "pitting" Scripture against scripture, I CHALLENGE you to prove that absurd charge. If you can. Give me a specific post # and what Scriptures I used to "pit" against.

Regarding "line upon line", it's you Calvinists who don't respect it.

The fact that "Jesus tasted death for all" simply means quite something different to you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Too bad your clearly stated verses are taken out of context. Heb 2:9 and Titus 2:11 are prime examples.

You wish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What was your question? I assume that it wasn't off the wall.

Let me refresh your memory. It wasn't my question, it was griff's. Here is what I said that you responded to:

What was it? Why do you expect me to remember a question from who knows how far back in the thread?

Most of his questions are quite off the wall anyway. Not even worth asking, much less answering.

I think he just likes to fill the thread. Just mho.

Why did you think I had asked a question from what I said here?

 

[FreeGrace2]

He has no respect for the "line upon line" principle. "Every man" in line 1 is "the many sons" of line 2.

You wish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I tried to get a response. All you've done is dodge. So be it.

Your comments are quite bewildering, given what I said that resulted in your comment here:

There is no answer for a question that is totally irrelevant to any discussion.

Just concede the point and move on. You seem not to want or be able to transition from one scenario to another. Let it go ok? I have.

Do you not grasp the meaning of "no answer for a question that is totally irrelevant to any discussion"?

You were willing to "concede the point", so I am encouraging you to do just that. Are you not sincere about what you say?

 

[Hammster]

You wish.

Demonstrated ad infinitum.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why did it suck to be a thief or a wolf, in your opinion?

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Hammster]

Your comments are quite bewildering, given what I said that resulted in your comment here:

Do you not grasp the meaning of "no answer for a question that is totally irrelevant to any discussion"?

You were willing to "concede the point", so I am encouraging you to do just that. Are you not sincere about what you say?

You said He didn't die for wolves. You've yet to explain what you meant. Now you say it's irrelevant. What else are you posting that's irrelevant that we shouldn't question?

 

[guuila]

I inserted words to show my understanding.

Okay. So rather than derive your understanding FROM the text, you force your pre-existing understanding ONTO the text, such that you're adding words to Scripture. Not exactly my style, but hey, whatever works right?

I answered that:
Those He foreknew would not believe would not be holy and blameless in His sight and so would not also be called, justified and glorified.

I didn't ask you what they are NOT predestined to. I asked you what they are predestined to. So no, you didn't answer my question.

If I am, you have not explained why. You are saying that Romans 8:28-30 is proof of predestined election and I am attempting to refute you by arguing from other scriptures. I answered your question regarding Romans 8, so there is no reason why you shouldn't engage with my argument.

Right, you added words to Scripture. You're not going to convince any of the monergists here by doing things like that.