Limited vs unlimited atonement?

[JLB777]

I said this:
"What you've failed to show so far is that "believing for a while" means "saved for a while", esp since Paul described the gift of eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and then he wrote that God's gifts are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

Further, Jesus promised that those He gives eternal life will never perish in John 10:28.

Those verses are very clear and in plain language. They teach eternal security.

Not conditional security based on what you do or do not do.

Failure to prove from Scripture."

It appears my post was very poorly understood, if at all. Or that you never bothered to even read any of it. Everyone can see that I noted 3 verses.

Maybe it's just that you've rejected those 3 verses and don't consider them to be Scripture. Well, again, that's not my problem.

However, more than citing 3 verses, I challenged your view on conditional security, which is based on what you do or do not do.

And, once again, you've failed to meet the challenge and show any verses that support your claims.

No scripture again, just opinion.

 

[Marvin Knox]

This verse does not say that God chooses unbelievers to become believers. Nor does any other verse.
Ditto here.

Of course they do. They can be taken no other way given what we know salvations limited number.

But God didn't choose them to become believers. They are drawn just like Cornelius, who did listen and learn from the Father (John 6:45).

Are you really saying that everyone is drawn to the Son by the Father and hears the Son just like Cornelius was?

Given that the Lord said that He will raise up everyone who comes to Him and only a few will be saved – that is untenable. That is because those who are so drawn will be raised up on the last day (i.e. saved).

God made a choice to give certain ones to the Son and draw certain ones to the Son. No one coerced Him in His choice of those people. God made that choice from among “unbelievers” – not from among “believers”.

The same principles hold true for both giving and drawing. Those given will not be cast out. Those drawn will be raised up.

All this goes to special or internal calling as laid out in Romans. I.E. – all those God calls He justifies.

While it is true that many are called it is not true that all are chosen. It certainly isn’t true that believers were called from among believers. That’s nonsensical.

John 6:45 doesn't allow that kind of interpretation.

“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” John 6:45

Of course it does. That is - unless you are saying that you believe in universal salvation.

Many are called -- but few are chosen.

Neither did God choose who would believe.

Of course He did. If God chose who He would give to the Son and chose who He would draw to the Son --- and all so given will not be cast out and all so drawn will be raised up ---- it is inescapable that God chose who would believe. i.e. “coming to Christ” is the equivalent to being saved.

I never said that. You are misinformed.
I have said repeatedly that God chose to save those who believe. Which isn't even close to what you're claiming I said.

Of course it’s close to what I am claiming you said.

You have constantly said that God chooses to save “believers”.

But that’s just a clever play on words. If we are talking about “believers”, we are talking about those who believe. But the question at hand in the doctrine of election and such is what were they when God chose them.

Since God made a choice to give and draw some to the Son from among believers – it is obvious that God chose God chose those who did not believe to believe and thus be saved.

You are playing silly games with words and it is not productive.

And, unlike your view about God choosing unbelievers to become believers, which has no verse to back it up, I do have a verse to back up my claim that God chooses to save those who believe.

You seem to be requiring that I provide a verse which says specifically the words you need to hear or you will not believe the doctrine. That isn’t the way the Word of God and good theology works. You don’t get to chose the way God writes doctrine. He has chosen to require us to draw doctrine in many cases from a series of statements and principles.

Doctrine which is inescapable when we do that is just as valid as out and out statements about the doctrine.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Cor 1:21

This is obviously a choice.

Again the games with words.

Of course God saves those who believe. We are talking about believers are we not?

But the question at hand is what were they when God made the choice to act in certain ways on their behalf and pass others by.

They were, of course, unbelievers.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My post ended with this:
"However, more than citing 3 verses, I challenged your view on conditional security, which is based on what you do or do not do.

And, once again, you've failed to meet the challenge and show any verses that support your claims."

No scripture again, just opinion.

I cited 3 verses, and you failed to meet the challenge to show any verses that support your claims. As usual.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Of course they do. They can be taken no other way given what we know salvations limited number.

No. We know of salvation's limited number because chooses to save only believers, from 1 Cor 1:21. The verses don't teach that God picks out who will believe.

Are you really saying that everyone is drawn to the Son by the Father and hears the Son just like Cornelius was?

No, of course not everyone. Only those who listened and learned from the Father. John 6:45.

Given that the Lord said that He will raise up everyone who comes to Him and only a few will be saved – that is untenable.

What's so difficult about saving everyone who comes to Him??

That is because those who are so drawn will be raised up on the last day (i.e. saved).

Uh, no. Raised to life. Salvation occurs when one believes, which is way before being raised to life.

God made a choice to give certain ones to the Son and draw certain ones to the Son.

Jn 6:45 tells us who will come to the Son.

No one coerced Him in His choice of those people. God made that choice from among “unbelievers” – not from among “believers”.

Your verses just don't say that.

All this goes to special or internal calling as laid out in Romans. I.E. – all those God calls He justifies.

Except that's not what Matt 22:14 says: many are called, but few are chosen.

While it is true that many are called it is not true that all are chosen. It certainly isn’t true that believers were called from among believers. That’s nonsensical.

What is nonsensical is to claim that God picks out from the human race who will believe. That is not found in Scripture.

“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” John 6:45

Of course it does. That is - unless you are saying that you believe in universal salvation.

Of course I don't.

Many are called -- but few are chosen.

But you claim that the called are justified. Does God justify unbelievers?

You have constantly said that God chooses to save “believers”.

Actually, it was Paul who made that point. In 1 Cor 1:21.

But that’s just a clever play on words. If we are talking about “believers”, we are talking about those who believe. But the question at hand in the doctrine of election and such is what were they when God chose them.

Eph 1:4 tells us plainly.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight

Who was Paul writing to? Believers. And a little further on in ch 1 he explains how believers are "in Him". From having believed.

Also, Paul defined what he meant by "us" in v.19 - and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Since God made a choice to give and draw some to the Son from among believers – it is obvious that God chose God chose those who did not believe to believe and thus be saved.

I've shown the opposite from plain language of Scripture.

You seem to be requiring that I provide a verse which says specifically the words you need to hear or you will not believe the doctrine.

I require plain language, which you've not provided, as I have.

But the question at hand is what were they when God made the choice to act in certain ways on their behalf and pass others by.

They were, of course, unbelievers.

Everyone begins as an unbeliever. And God made His choices in eternity past.

 

[EmSw]

My post ended with this:
"However, more than citing 3 verses, I challenged your view on conditional security, which is based on what you do or do not do.

And, once again, you've failed to meet the challenge and show any verses that support your claims."

I cited 3 verses, and you failed to meet the challenge to show any verses that support your claims. As usual.

To whom is eternal life rendered (given, paid, rewarded)?

Romans 2
6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Now let's see you trample these verses under your feet.

Every man will be given and rewarded according to their deeds (what they do). Eternal life will be rewarded based upon the deeds of doing good. Indignation will be rewarded based upon not obeying the truth.

Here are your three verses which say eternal life is based upon our deeds.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No. We know of salvation's limited number because chooses to save only believers, from 1 Cor 1:21. The verses don't teach that God picks out who will believe.

We know of salvation’s limited number because God has told us that all will not be saved and He has given us examples of those who will not be in Heaven in the end but elsewhere.

And, given what He has told us about that number being limited, we know that there is a choice made by God as to which will be given and which will be drawn. i.e. God chooses who will be saved through those actions.

We know that the choices God makes to do those things are unto salvation and not just for a chance at salvation - because all who are given will come to Christ and all who are drawn will be raised up with Christ.

No, of course not everyone. Only those who listened and learned from the Father. John 6:45.

The scriptures do not say that those who listen and learn will be chosen by the Father to be given and drawn to the Son. The scriptures say that those who are chosen by the Father to be given and drawn will listen and learn. i.e. those who are so chosen by God will be saved. i.e. God chooses who will be saved and brings that choice to past by giving and drawing unbelievers in order that they can become believers.

What's so difficult about saving everyone who comes to Him??

Nothing - except of course the difficulty of laying down your life for them. But I don’t see anywhere where it is “difficult” for the Father to make His choices as to who to give and who to draw. We aren’t given any information about that.

Uh, no. Raised to life. Salvation occurs when one believes, which is way before being raised to life.

It goes without saying that the raising up that the Lord is speaking of is a raising up in a saved condition and not an unsaved condition. That is to say that those who are chosen by God to be given and drawn and who are so given and drawn will be saved.

That’s very clearly God choosing who will be saved.

Jn 6:45 tells us who will come to the Son.

Exactly.

Those who are drawn by the Father will come.

Your verses just don't say that.

They don’t have to. It goes without saying that if one is to become a believer he must come from among unbelievers.

Except that's not what Matt 22:14 says: many are called, but few are chosen.

Exactly. And the golden chain of salvation says that all those called are justified. Therefore, since we reject universal salvation, God cannot be talking about the calling of the many – but about the inward call of the chosen. As you rightly have said – all those who have heard and learned from the Father will come.

What is nonsensical is to claim that God picks out from the human race who will believe. That is not found in Scripture.

I have shown you how it is inescapable for anyone who wants to know the truth – and that, only from these few verses we are considering here.

It is also provable from a dozen other avenues of consideration concerning His very nature and His providential relationship with the creation.

You have to try to miss these things.

Of course I don't.

That being the case – you absolutely have to work at missing election unto salvation in the scriptures.

But you claim that the called are justified. Does God justify unbelievers?

God justifies believers who have been given to the Lord and have been drawn to the Lord – chosen by the Father from among unbelievers by God’s grace.

Actually, it was Paul who made that point. In 1 Cor 1:21.

God saves those who believe – of course. But we are talking here about those believers before they believed not in the hereafter or even now.

Again with the silly word games.

Eph 1:4 tells us plainly.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight

Who was Paul writing to? Believers. And a little further on in ch 1 he explains how believers are "in Him". From having believed.

Also, Paul defined what he meant by "us" in v.19 - and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Again with the verbal slight of hand. We are considering the condition of the believers when they were chosen by the Father to be given and drawn. That condition was that they were unbelievers.

“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Eph. 2:3

The “we” is believers. The “were” is them as unbelievers. In all cases God chose unbelievers to become believers through being given to the Son and drawn to the Son.

These are the games you play. If it was just a worldly game we were playing it might be cute. But it is unbefitting of theologians to play these kinds of games.

Also, there will be a stricter judgment for you for doing so with such an important endeavor as teaching the Word of God.

I've shown the opposite from plain language of Scripture.

No - you have not. God did not choose believers to become believers. That’s ridiculous. God chose unbelievers to become believers.

I require plain language, which you've not provided, as I have.

I have provided plain language and you have provided games with words.

Everyone begins as an unbeliever. And God made His choices in eternity past.

Exactly.

The predestination of all things which happen in God’s creation is an inescapable doctrine if one believes the nature of God as presented in the scriptures and His omnipresent and providentially controlling relationship with His creation.

Let me give a very plain example from life to illustrate the verbal game you are playing.

Major league baseball decides to start an expansion team in Alaska whom they will call the Alaska Moose. The commissioner decides, for whatever reason, to choose the members of the new expansion team from among the N.Y. Yankees who happen to have glut of players on the payroll.

Someone looks at the now existent bunch of the Moose and fields the question as to how they got there.

I say that God chose some Yankees to come to Alaska and become Moose.

You say that God chose Moose.

Now – it is technically true that we are looking at a bunch of guys who are now Moose. Your statement is correct in that sense.

But it does nothing to answer the question at hand. What people want to know is how they became Moose. The answer is, as I say, God chose Yankees to come to Alaska and become moose.

Now – we could further ask what enticements or coercion went into causing the woud-be Moose to come to Alaska and sign the final contract to become Moose.

But that is another issue altogether.

Your way of talking about the Moose situation would not only not be helpful. It would cloud the issue.

Which of course would be your intent all along just as it is when discussing this issue.

I don’t know how much more can be said. You always end up playing games with words. Apparently you hope that no one can see what you are doing.

But when all is said and done the scriptures are clear that God chose certain unbelievers to become believers. And that – only from considering a couple of small verses.

I know how these sessions usually have ended. You will not accept the truth when the Lord hits you over the head with it. I have only gone to this much trouble for the sake of those who may be reading along and need help on this subject.

That will do it for now on this subject. I know that you know exactly what you are doing. It is not productive. It is not an honest way to dialog.

Have a good day. If they ever get around to answering my objections to the unfounded limited atonement doctrine I'll jump back in.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Never has God demanded a human to be sacrificed. In fact, God desires mercy and not sacrifice. But no, man wants a sacrifice, and desires God to sacrifice Himself.

Wrong: As shown, it is clear that Is. 53 corresponds to Lv. 16, and that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," so that "for the transgression of my people was he stricken," that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.... (Isaiah 53:10)

Thus it was the Father who slew Christ, and Christ had power to voluntarily chose this mission sent by the Father, to be a ransom for sin, having power to lay His life down and to take it again, "This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:18)

And that since this was foretold, "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved [necessary, required] Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day." (Luke 24:45-46)

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

Thus sacrificial atonement was God's idea and who in Christ choose to sacrifice Himself!

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)

As for God desiring mercy and not sacrifice, if you take this as God rejecting sacrificial atonement then you have God commanding what was abhorred, that of sacrificial atonement for sin, and that of His own Son, "that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

And for God desiring mercy, if per your reasoning we take this as God rejecting justice/judicial punishment then you have God commanding what He rejected, since He will condemn the lost.

Thus either God is contradicting Himself or the terms are comparative. Hosea 6:6 contextually is about Israelites engaging in ritual sacrifices as a substitute for obeying God, but God desires the latter over the former, which is no substitute for obedience. But which simply does not exclude the necessity of sacrificial atonement,

God desires all to be saved and not that they be lost, (2 Peter 3:9) but which does not exclude the necessity of judgment. One does not exclude the other. Thus either God is contradicting Himself or the terms are comparative,

A sacrifice is never voluntary.

Absurd. We are even called to offer voluntary sacrifice, if not for sin, while you cannot validly deny Christ gave Himself as sacrifice for us, as abundantly shown you, and that He had a choice to do so.

The animal is chosen by the guilty party and brought to the priest. This nullifies your 'sacrifice' hunger.

What?! Christ was chosen by the guilty party and (also in God's plan) brought to the priests who had Him apprehended and slain.

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. (John 11:50)

Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: (Mark 10:33)

If you are so bent on sacrificing God, be sure to know the requirements of a sacrifice.

Rather, it means that you contradict God who clearly teaches Christ gave Himself as sacrifice for us in voluntary obedience to God, by the hands of the priests (via the Romans) who had him apprehended. If you are so bent on denying sacrificing God manifest in the flesh being sacrificed for us be sure to know what the NT says about Him doing so.

You just ignore what reproofs you in order to repeat your cultic propaganda.

Do you not see that it is still a human sacrifice? It matters not if it is a child, man, or woman, it still an abomination to God. And you are wanting a pagan ritual to appease God for your sins.

Wrong. Do you not see that a voluntary sacrifice is not that of one having no choice in the matter, and that sacrifice to God cannot be a pagan one, and that these two aspects are what constituted the condemned abomination?

You surely aren't comparing a soldier's death to an animal sacrifice. You need to get a grip and learn what the animal sacrifice in the OT involved. No sacrifice goes into 'rescue mission'.

The Lord was not an animal, but one who chose to allow himself to be taken, and crucified, according to the rescue plan of God.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23)

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)

Don't tell me you are referring to these verses -
John 15
12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
Are you telling me when you love another and lay down your life for them, you are performing an OT sacrifice for them? With a faulty foundation, this is how you build upon it.

Are you telling me when you love souls and lay down your life for them by bearing their sins and making atonement for them then you are not fulfilling the OT sacrificial atonement for sins, as Scripture says? Why do you deny these many texts? Do i need to post all the verses again?

Jesus said nothing about 'sacrificing' Himself in John 10. Your faulty foundation gives rise to this abominable act.

Why don't you read all of what Christ and the rest of the Scripture says about Christ giving Himself a ransom for sin, versus engaging in isolationist absurdity and cultic exclusion of Scripture?

And why will you not tell us what books you consider to be wholly inspired Scripture, and if believe all of the statement of Faith? What you you have to hide?

"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53)

What does this have to do with a sacrifice?

Why is the purpose here too hard to see in the context of voluntary sacrifice?

You just don't see it. It matters not to whom the sacrifice is offered, it matters whom is sacrificed. Sacrificing a human is an abomination to God.

What? You mean it does not matter whether Israelites sacrificed to God or idols? And that it does not matter whether that we spiritually present our bodies as living sacrifice to God or to idols?

Of course the object of sacrifice matters, as does that of sacrificing children who have no choice in the matter, and who are not worthy to atone for sin anyway. And which is what is condemned, not doing what Is. 53 and other texts describes as God doing in making Christ the scapegoat and atonement for sin, which is whom you thus condemn!

The words of Hosea and Jesus Himself just don't seem to be opened to you. You have yet to learn what it means.
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
What is it about God not desiring sacrifice, that is difficult for you? God does not desire sacrifice, but yet, you stubbornly want to sacrifice God Himself.

Which was explained above. What is it that is difficult for you about God desiring obedience over sacrifice not excluding the necessity of the latter any more than God desiring repentance over the death of the wicked exclude the punishment of the latter?

As Jesus said, 'go and learn what this means'. Ignorance does not a doctrine make

Indeed it is you who need to learn, and stop effectually making God contradict Himself by commanding what in your eyes is condemned!

 

[FreeGrace2]

To whom is eternal life rendered (given, paid, rewarded)?

This question is flawed from the start. by including "paid" and "rewarded".

It is given. Period. And only to those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who did all the work by paying the penalty of sin on our behalf.

Romans 2
6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath,

Now let's see you trample these verses under your feet.

I'll tramply only your blasphemous claims against the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of everyone.

Every man will be given and rewarded according to their deeds (what they do).

Actually, this is true for both believers and unbelievers. Believers will be evaluated at the Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ:
2 Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

This refers to reward, which is earned, or loss of reward.

Unbelievers will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment and also judged for what they have done (books).
Rev 20:11-13 - Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Notice they are judged according to "the books".

We know what the results of this judgment will be, because Jesus explained it this way:
Matt 10:15 - I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matt 11:22 - But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.

Matt 11:24 - But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

So, from the record of "the books", one's existence in the lake of fire will be more or less bearable than others.

Eternal life will be rewarded based upon the deeds of doing good.

This is the lie from hell. That's exactly what satan wants people to think. Anything to get their eyes of the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross on behalf of mankind. You're just one of his surrogates.

I am always amazed that with all your dissing Paul when his writings refute your unbiblical views on Christ's sacrifice, that you still quote him (but in error) when it appears to support your views.

It's your pick and choose method of theology that refutes you.

Rom 2:6-8 is a statement about having to be perfect in order to earn eternal life.
And Paul then proves that isn't possible for anyone in the human race based on Rom 3:9, 3:23, and esp 3:20.

So your pick and choose method doesn't work for you.

Indignation will be rewarded based upon not obeying the truth.

OK.

Here are your three verses which say eternal life is based upon our deeds.

And here is the refutation of your unbiblical notions.

 

[JLB777]

My post ended with this:
"However, more than citing 3 verses, I challenged your view on conditional security, which is based on what you do or do not do.

And, once again, you've failed to meet the challenge and show any verses that support your claims."

I cited 3 verses, and you failed to meet the challenge to show any verses that support your claims. As usual.

You have posted no scripture, only opinion, tagged with scripture references.

I posted the actual scripture that you claimed to have cited and showed that it not only didn't say what you claimed, but also was out of context, and disregarded the other half of the scripture.


Your theory only tries to prove that those who are not believers, have eternal life.


This is false, and is nowhere to be found in scripture.



The condition to have eternal life is believe.

Those who believe for a while, then no longer believe, are no longer believers.

Are you attempting to teach this Forum that someone who no longer believes, is still somehow a "believer'?

• Romans 6:23 does not say eternal life is a gift of God.

Here is Romans 6:23 -

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

You left out the part that says the wages of sin is death, which is found by reading the context and warning from Paul to Christians who live their life practicing the unrighteous deeds of sin, by presenting themselves as slaves to the flesh, to practice the works of the flesh.

16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Romans 6:16

You also left out that eternal life is "in Christ Jesus our Lord", which is crucial to understand, that we are to remain in Christ Jesus as a branch is to remain in the vine or wither and be cast into the fire and burned.

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;...
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:2,6

Just because a person comes to be "in Him" for a while, doesn't necessarily mean they will remain in Him. We must remain in Him or wither and be cast into the fire and burned.

What is the outcome of a branch that is thrown into the fire and burned?

• Romans 11:29 doesn't say the gifts of God are irrevocable.

Here is what Romans 11;29 actually says -

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

This verse doesn't say the gift of God is eternal life and is irrevocable.

This verse says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Obviously if a person has the calling of repentance still available to them, as the context shows [unbelieving Jews], then they do not have eternal life.

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Romans 11:28-29

Though they are enemies of the Gospel, they still have the calling the repent and believe the Gospel.
But they don't have eternal life life.

If you believe unsaved Jews who still have the call to repent and believe the Gospel, somehow have eternal life, then please provide the scriptures that teach us "unsaved Jew" can have eternal life.


You however, have taken a "part' of one verse, and a part of another verse, while disregarding the rest of the verse and ignoring the surrounding context, to create a "Frankenstein" mix and match doctrine that is not found in the bible.



JLB

 

[FreeGrace2]

We know of salvation’s limited number because God has told us that all will not be saved and He has given us examples of those who will not be in Heaven in the end but elsewhere.

Sure. This is God's omniscience. But this doesn't support the notion that God chooses who will believe.

And, given what He has told us about that number being limited, we know that there is a choice made by God as to which will be given and which will be drawn. i.e. God chooses who will be saved through those actions.

What IS correct is that God DOES choose who will be saved. 1 Cor 1:21 says so. But again, that doesn't support the notion that God chooses who will believe.

The scriptures do not say that those who listen and learn will be chosen by the Father to be given and drawn to the Son. The scriptures say that those who are chosen by the Father to be given and drawn will listen and learn.

I think you've got it backward. Let's examine the verses.
John 6:44-45
44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me

v.44 says those who "come to Me" have been drawn by the Father.
v.45 says all have been tuaght by God, and those who listen and learn from the Father comes to Me.

There is nothing about those who listen and learn have been chosen. I do think you've read your theology into the verses.

Everyone has been taught, but only those who listen and learn will come to Jesus.

v.44 says that God will draw "him". In v.45 we learn that it's those who listened and learned that come to Jesus.

There is nothing about God choosing who will believe.

i.e. those who are so chosen by God will be saved. i.e. God chooses who will be saved

God does choose who will be saved. i.e. those who believe in Christ. But it does mean that God chose those who believe to believe.

They believe from their (own) heart. Rom 10:10

and brings that choice to past by giving and drawing unbelievers in order that they can become believers.

Jn 6:44-45 says that those who have listened and learned from among all who have been taught by God will be drawn to the Son.

We have a great example in Cornelius. He listened and learned and was drawn to the Son. Acts 10

I said this:
"What's so difficult about saving everyone who comes to Him??"
Nothing - except of course the difficulty of laying down your life for them.[/QUOTE]
I don't see anything difficult about that.

But I don’t see anywhere where it is “difficult” for the Father to make His choices as to who to give and who to draw.

And I don't see anything difficult about that, either.

We aren’t given any information about that.

Not sure what this refers to. I think John 6:44-45 is clear enough about who is drawn to the Son; the listeners and learners.

That’s very clearly God choosing who will be saved.

I have always maintained this very fact. From 1 Cor 1:21

I said this:
"Jn 6:45 tells us who will come to the Son."

Exactly.
Those who are drawn by the Father will come.

No. It plainly says that those who listen and learn come to Him.

I said this:
"Except that's not what Matt 22:14 says: many are called, but few are chosen."

And the golden chain of salvation says that all those called are justified. Therefore, since we reject universal salvation, God cannot be talking about the calling of the many – but about the inward call of the chosen. As you rightly have said – all those who have heard and learned from the Father will come.

But you quote Rom 8:29+ to show that the called are justified. So it is obvious that there are different kinds of "called".

I cited Matt 22:14 to show the reformed contradiction of what "called" refers to.

My understanding of that verse is different from others. I see the wedding feast as the "marriage supper of the Lamb". Those invited to that event are rewarded. The guy without proper wedding clothes represents a believer who wasn't obedient, since he didn't obtain the clothes. I read somewhere that in the ancient Orient wedding clothes were provided to the guests. So those who were given the clothes but didn't put them on weren't following directions (orders). So the guy was ejected from the banquet. Which teaches loss of reward.

All that to say this about v.22; the many who are called are all believers, and they are called to reward for faithful service. But, only a few are chosen for those rewards because of failure of the rest in service to Him.

I said this:"What is nonsensical is to claim that God picks out from the human race who will believe. That is not found in Scripture."

I have shown you how it is inescapable for anyone who wants to know the truth – and that, only from these few verses we are considering here.

It is also provable from a dozen other avenues of consideration concerning His very nature and His providential relationship with the creation.

You have to try to miss these things.

What I've missed is any clear and plain language about God choosing who will believe. I believe it's a myth. He does choose who to save and the Bible is clear about that. But not choosing who will believe. That is a reformed construct only.

That being the case – you absolutely have to work at missing election unto salvation in the scriptures.

Actually not. I've examined EVERY occurrence of the 3 related words about "choice/choose/elect/election" in the NT. Some 53 verses. The noun, verb and adjective.

In NONE of these verses is there any mention of anyone being chosen for salvation. Or elected to salvation. In EVERY verse, other than the adjective was used, it was about service, not salvation.

The ONLY verse about God choosing you for salvation, also included the means to that salvation; belief in the truth. So it's quite possible to understand 2 Thess 2:13 to say it is about God choosing the method of how one will be saved. And the word for 'choose' in that verse isn't related to any of the 3 other words regarding "choose/elect".

God justifies believers who have been given to the Lord and have been drawn to the Lord – chosen by the Father from among unbelievers by God’s grace.

The truth is the first 3 words; "God justifies believers". The rest is just reformed talking points.

God saves those who believe – of course. But we are talking here about those believers before they believed not in the hereafter or even now.

What prevents Almighty Omniscient God from teaching us that from eternity past He chose to save those who believe? Nothing. Since this choice was made in eternity past, the human race didn't even exist. So your argument about being unbelievers is irrelevant. They weren't even in existence yet.

The point is this: God's choice of who to save out of the human race is only those who believe in His Son. That's it. Nothing more.

Again with the silly word games.

Clarifying Scripture is never a word game. Many try to make it that to fit their theology.

Again with the verbal slight of hand. We are considering the condition of the believers when they were chosen by the Father to be given and drawn. That condition was that they were unbelievers.

The choice was made in eternity past. They were NON-EXISTENT at that time.

And the choice to save those who believe (1 Cor 1:21) means they ARE believers when they are saved.

“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Eph. 2:3

The “we” is believers. The “were” is them as unbelievers. In all cases God chose unbelievers to become believers through being given to the Son and drawn to the Son.

Nope. That verse doesn't say that at all. Paul was simply describing unbelievers.

I said this:
"Eph 1:4 tells us plainly.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight

Who was Paul writing to? Believers. And a little further on in ch 1 he explains how believers are "in Him". From having believed.

Also, Paul defined what he meant by "us" in v.19 - and his incomparably great power for us who believe."

These are the games you play.

Are you serious?? I've connected the "us" in 1:4 to the "us" in 1:19. That is no word game. It's context. But since it isn't part of your theology, demeaning it is the way to go.

No - you have not. God did not choose believers to become believers.

You've twisted my words. Shame.

I never said what you're insinuating I either said or believe. God chose to save believers. That's all I said. I also said that there is no plain language of Scripture to suggest that God chooses who will believe. And you've not provided any.

That’s ridiculous. God chose unbelievers to become believers.

I agree. That's a ridiculous statement. A mere reformed talking point.

I have provided plain language and you have provided games with words.

Just the opposite is true.

The predestination of all things which happen in God’s creation is an inescapable doctrine if one believes the nature of God as presented in the scriptures and His omnipresent and providentially controlling relationship with His creation.

Let's not play word games. Does God cause all outcomes? Yes or no.

Let me give a very plain example from life to illustrate the verbal game you are playing.

Wait! I'll go get some popcorn first.

Major league baseball decides to start an expansion team in Alaska whom they will call the Alaska Moose. The commissioner decides, for whatever reason, to choose the members of the new expansion team from among the N.Y. Yankees who happen to have glut of players on the payroll.

Someone looks at the now existent bunch of the Moose and fields the question as to how they got there.

I say that God chose some Yankees to come to Alaska and become Moose.

You say that God chose Moose.

Except this is a very lousy example, which doesn't even come close to my claims. But the popcorn is great!!

Now – it is technically true that we are looking at a bunch of guys who are now Moose. Your statement is correct in that sense.

But it does nothing to answer the question at hand. What people want to know is how they became Moose. The answer is, as I say, God chose Yankees to come to Alaska and become moose.

Here is the actual reality from what I've claimed.

What people want to know is how some Yankees became saved. God saved them, because they believed in His Son. But your inept example didn't include that very important part. I wonder why.

Now – we could further ask what enticements or coercion went into causing the woud-be Moose to come to Alaska and sign the final contract to become Moose.

No problem for the reformed guy. The commissioner predestinated some of the Yankees to become Moose.

Your way of talking about the Moose situation would not only not be helpful. It would cloud the issue.

What actually clouds the issue is your flimsy examples that aren't parallels to my claims.

Which of course would be your intent all along just as it is when discussing this issue.

You know the rules about judging other's thoughts and intents. And we know who ONLY has that right and power. Heb 4:12

I don’t know how much more can be said. You always end up playing games with words. Apparently you hope that no one can see what you are doing.

I have been as transparent as I know how. But I've shown here how you've played word games.

But here's the bottom line; I have Scripture that supports my claim and you don't.

But when all is said and done the scriptures are clear that God chose certain unbelievers to become believers.

That is undeniably unclear. What is crystal clear is that God chose to save those who believe.

I know how these sessions usually have ended. You will not accept the truth when the Lord hits you over the head with it.

No, I think you've confused yourself with the Lord. It's you who's been trying to "hit me over the head" with your talking points. But you've continued to miss the target. If there were clear verses, you'd have hit the target. But you don't have any.

I have only gone to this much trouble for the sake of those who may be reading along and need help on this subject.

And I have thoughtfully responded to all of your comments.

That will do it for now on this subject. I know that you know exactly what you are doing.

Yes. I am defending the fact that God chooses to save those who believe.

It is not productive.

It is always very productive to defend the truth.

It is not an honest way to dialog.

It's the ONLY way to have an honest way to dialog. It's your position that cannot be supported from Scripture, yet you claim my position isn't honest, when I HAVE supporting Scripture for my position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have posted no scripture, only opinion, tagged with scripture references.

Your continued laziness to looking up verses isn't my problem. It's totally yours.

I posted the actual scripture that you claimed to have cited and showed that it not only didn't say what you claimed, but also was out of context, and disregarded the other half of the scripture.

Only in your own mind did you think you did that. But, you didn't come close.

Your theory only tries to prove that those who are not believers, have eternal life.

You're really demonstrating just how misinformed you are about my views.

This is false, and is nowhere to be found in scripture.

I'll tell you what is false and is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

The claim that one can lose salvation. That is false doctrine. From satan.

The condition to have eternal life is believe.

This is correct.

Those who believe for a while, then no longer believe, are no longer believers.

This is irrelevant, but appears to be way over your head.

Jesus promised that those He gives eternal life will never perish in John 10:28. But your view is in direct conflict with His promise. So why should anyone accept your false view?

Are you attempting to teach this Forum that someone who no longer believes, is still somehow a "believer'?

You know very well that's NEVER been my claim. So stop being so dishonest and try some honesty for a change.

A believer who apostatizes from the faith is still saved. Because Jesus promised that those He gives eternal life will never perish in John 10:28. Something that you've been quite clear that you do not accept.

Romans 6:23 does not say eternal life is a gift of God.
Here is Romans 6:23 -

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

Your statement is blatantly ridiculous. Of course it does.

You left out the part that says the wages of sin is death, which is found by reading the context and warning from Paul to Christians who live their life practicing the unrighteous deeds of sin, by presenting themselves as slaves to the flesh, to practice the works of the flesh.

Nothing I left out makes eternal life not a gift. How silly.

16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
Romans 6:16

This verse doesn't make eternal life not a gift either.

You also left out that eternal life is "in Christ Jesus our Lord", which is crucial to understand, that we are to remain in Christ Jesus as a branch is to remain in the vine or wither and be cast into the fire and burned.

Again, you've resorted to a parable to form doctrine.

This is what the Bible teaches about parables in Matt 13:
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

That's your problem.

Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;...
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:2,6

See Matt 13:13-14

Just because a person comes to be "in Him" for a while, doesn't necessarily mean they will remain in Him. We must remain in Him or wither and be cast into the fire and burne"d.

The error in your thinking is that one can be in Him "for a while". That is directly refuted from Eph 1:13,14, which you've apparently rejected.

Romans 11:29 doesn't say the gifts of God are irrevocable.
Here is what Romans 11;29 actually says -

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

This verse doesn't say the gift of God is eternal life and is irrevocable.

The verse is clear enough for any reasonable (rational) person to understand.

Since Paul had already described eternal life as a gift of God PLAINLY in 6:23, he had no need to repeat himself. And every reasonable and rational person would easily know that. So when he mentioned "the gifts of God" it is OBVIOUS that he had ALL 3 of God's gifts in mind:
spiritual gifts from 1:11
justification from 3:24 and 5:15,16,17
eternal life from 6:23.

This verse says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.

Yep. And adding "and calling" doesn't make eternal life not a gift.

Your insinuation is absurd to the max.

Obviously if a person has the calling of repentance still available to them, as the context shows [unbelieving Jews], then they do not have eternal life.

Why would anyone add to Scripture what is NOT THERE. Paul never wrote anything about "the calling of repentance". And he also previously mentioned the call of the Gentiles in Rom 1:5.

So, from all that he wrote in Romans previous to 11:29 about God's call and God's gifts, they are ALL RELEVANT.

If you believe unsaved Jews who still have the call to repent and believe the Gospel, somehow have eternal life, then please provide the scriptures that teach us "unsaved Jew" can have eternal life.

I would never support such a nonsensical mess. I've never suggested this.

I believe you are just being intellectually dishonest.

You however, have taken a "part' of one verse, and a part of another verse, while disregarding the rest of the verse and ignoring the surrounding context, to create a "Frankenstein" mix and match doctrine that is not found in the bible.

Your silly claim changes nothing. What I've claimed comes straight from Scripture and remains true, regardless of your charges.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I do think you've read your theology into the verses.

I think you are the one reading your theology into the verses. So there!

Let's not play word games. Does God cause all outcomes? Yes or no.

YES - AS PER BELOW - DELINEATED BY THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established......"

"God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed or edited for promoting non-Nicene doctrine in a Christian Only Forum

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Let's not play word games. Does God cause all outcomes? Yes or no."

YES - AS PER BELOW - DELINEATED BY THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH.

I'm uninterested in the commentary of men when the Word of God either clearly states a principle, or clearly makes no statement about points made by men.

And 1 Cor 1:21 shows that God chooses to save those who believe. And that is no word game. It's straightforward and shows what God is pleased to do, which means it's a choice He makes.

And there are no verses that state that He chooses who will believe. If that were true, then there would absolutely be no need for evangelism.

However, in the answer of "yes" to my question, sin is an outcome, so you're siding with the WCF that God causes sin. Wow.

That is decidedly unbiblical.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established......"

This is nothing more than gobbledegook and double speak.

First, we read "God...ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

Second, we read "neither is God the author of sin".

Sorry, but one cannot have their cake and eat it too. Not possible.

If the first is true, then the second CANNOT be true.

If the second is true, then the first CANNOT be true.

Dan Gracely does an excellent job of explaining this double speak of the reformed in His book, Calvinism: A Closer Look. It used to be free on line.

God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

God never works against His own character. Ever.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm uninterested in the commentary of men when the Word of God either clearly states a principle, or clearly makes no statement about points made by men.

These, well considered, comments by men without a doubt explain principles developed from direct statements made by God.

The statements by the WCF are the culmination of what is called systematic theology. Systematic theology correlates various paradoxical statements from scripture and puts that correlation into plain words of summary rather than just picking the side of the paradox which appeals to the student of scripture and ignoring or twisting the rest which do not appeal or which are hard to explain.

And 1 Cor 1:21 shows that God chooses to save those who believe. And that is no word game. It's straightforward and shows what God is pleased to do, which means it's a choice He makes.

No it is not a word game and I have not said that it is. It is a clear statement by God which tells us that He is pleased to do what He has vowed to His Son to do – namely give, draw, justify, sanctify and glorify a number of undeserving sinners taken from amongst the clay of fallen humanity by grace and grace alone.

Of course God chooses to save to the utmost those who believe and are justified through that belief. Duhh!

And there are no verses that state that He chooses who will believe. If that were true, then there would absolutely be no need for evangelism.

There are verses which teach that. You just reject their teaching because they do not use the words you require to believe what the Spirit has communicated.

There is no “need” for evangelism from God’s perspective except the need to do things the way He has decided to do them.

However, in the answer of "yes" to my question, sin is an outcome, so you're siding with the WCF that God causes sin. Wow.
That is decidedly unbiblical.

You ignore what the WCF clearly says on that subject. You tell us that it says something which it simply does not say. In fact the WCF went out of it’s way to make sure that no one can say that it is teaching that God is the author of sin and remain truthful. WOW

This is nothing more than gobbledegook and double speak.
First, we read "God...ordain whatsoever comes to pass".
Second, we read "neither is God the author of sin".
Sorry, but one cannot have their cake and eat it too. Not possible.
If the first is true, then the second CANNOT be true.
If the second is true, then the first CANNOT be true.

No – it is a concise and detailed statement of systematic theology gleaned from the various sometimes paradoxical scriptures which God in His wisdom has chosen to use and give to us through inspiration.

God never works against His own character. Ever.

Of course not. Nor have I said otherwise.

It may appear that God has worked against His own character when He bruised His innocent and righteous Son. But He did not.

Other examples by the truck load are available from the scriptures.

 

[FreeGrace2]

These, well considered, comments by men without a doubt explain principles developed from direct statements made by God.

God never said that He chooses who will believe.

The statements by the WCF are the culmination of what is called systematic theology. Systematic theology correlates various paradoxical statements from scripture and puts that correlation into plain words of summary rather than just picking the side of the paradox which appeals to the student of scripture and ignoring or twisting the rest which do not appeal or which are hard to explain.

I have never seen a paradox in Scripture, but I know that many believe they exist.

No it is not a word game and I have not said that it is. It is a clear statement by God which tells us that He is pleased to do what He has vowed to His Son to do – namely give, draw, justify, sanctify and glorify a number of undeserving sinners taken from amongst the clay of fallen humanity by grace and grace alone.

Yes, God does choose who He will save. And 1 Cor 1:21 says He is pleased (His choice) to save those who believe.

Of course God chooses to save to the utmost those who believe and are justified through that belief. Duhh!

And that's the point. No verse says that God chooses who will believe.

There are verses which teach that. You just reject their teaching because they do not use the words you require to believe what the Spirit has communicated.

All I require is plain language that says so. Just as the Arminians cannot provide any verse that says in plain language that one can lose their salvation, there are no verses that say that God chooses who will believe.

He chooses who will be saved: believers only.

You ignore what the WCF clearly says on that subject.

Yes. But I do not ignore what the Bible says.

You tell us that it says something which it simply does not say. In fact the WCF went out of it’s way to make sure that no one can say that it is teaching that God is the author of sin and remain truthful. WOW

Wait a minute! Your previous post said that God is the cause of all things. Then you backpedalled and said that God is not the cause of sin.

Well, sin is included in "all things". Can't get away from that. So your claims (WCF) are contradictory.

No – it is a concise and detailed statement of systematic theology gleaned from the various sometimes paradoxical scriptures which God in His wisdom has chosen to use and give to us through inspiration.

I believe that "paradox" is just an excuse for not being able to understand both sides of an argument or point.

And I don't believe there are any paradoxes in Scripture.

It may appear that God has worked against His own character when He bruised His innocent and righteous Son. But He did not.

Not to me.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I have never seen a paradox in Scripture, but I know that many believe they exist.............I don't believe there are any paradoxes in Scripture.

A paradox is, or course, not a contradiction but something which seems at first glance and without a bit of thought to be a contradiction.

Even after seeing, in this forum alone, page after page of scriptures which indicate a possible loss of salvation juxtaposed with page after page of scriptures which indicate that you cannot lose your salvation- you still say that you have never seen a paradox in the scripture.

I'm tempted to say that you must be kidding. But I actually believe that you are serious in what you say.

I believe that "paradox" is just an excuse for not being able to understand both sides of an argument or point.

To the contrary.

Considering these pairs of scripture based arguments as merely pardoxical and not necessarily contradictory is what allows one to balance both sides of an argument rather than simply chose which side of the argument they prefer.

Usually, however, as with the OSAS argument, the truth is not in a middle compromise postition but, of necessity, on one side.

That means the set of scriptures used by one side of the argument must be shown to be able to be taken another way - assuming of course that they are even remotely aplicable to the argument.

In the example of OSAS - we find that the scriptures used for OSAS can only be taken one way while the scriptures used to show loss of salvation can, with some thought, be taken in a differnet way that used by that side.

If you deny these concepts concerning paradox's - apparently, at least to me, just to be obstinate - there is no use our continueing a discussion on that matter.

As always - it's been interesting.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A paradox is, or course, not a contradiction but something which seems at first glance and without a bit of thought to be a contradiction.

Still haven't seen any in Scripture. But I know what you mean.

Even after seeing, in this forum alone, page after page of scriptures which indicate a possible loss of salvation juxtaposed with page after page of scriptures which indicate that you cannot lose your salvation- you still say that you have never seen a paradox in the scripture.

Because none of the verses being claimed to indicate loss of salvation simply do not. I know that from the verses about eternal security that are so very clear.

I'm tempted to say that you must be kidding. But I actually believe that you are serious in what you say.

Yep.

I said this:
"I believe that "paradox" is just an excuse for not being able to understand both sides of an argument or point."
To the contrary.

Considering these pairs of scripture based arguments as merely pardoxical and not necessarily contradictory is what allows one to balance both sides of an argument rather than simply chose which side of the argument they prefer.[/QUOTE]
Since both sides of a diametrically opposed argument cannot be true, then the wrong one simply has another explanation for it. No paradox at all.

Usually, however, as with the OSAS argument, the truth is not in a middle compromise postition but, of necessity, on one side.

Absolutely true.

That means the set of scriptures used by one side of the argument must be shown to be able to be taken another way - assuming of course that they are even remotely aplicable to the argument.

Correct.

In the example of OSAS - we find that the scriptures used for OSAS can only be taken one way while the scriptures used to show loss of salvation can, with some thought, be taken in a differnet way that used by that side.

Of course they can. And are.

If you deny these concepts concerning paradox's - apparently, at least to me, just to be obstinate - there is no use our continueing a discussion on that matter.

As always - it's been interesting.

No, I'm not being obstinate. And your post aligns with my views on paradoxes. One side of a diametrically opposed argument, such as OSAS vs OSNAS, has to be wrong, and their "Scriptural support" simply has a different meaning, which can be explained rather easily.

That is why I don't see paradoxes.

 

[JLB777]

Your continued laziness to looking up verses isn't my problem. It's totally yours.

I take the time to look up and actually post the scripture themselves, while you don't post any scripture, but only opinion, then you call me lazy, when I put forth the effort to write out the scripture for all to see.


That's just shows how backwards, you though process really is, which exposes you condition as being propelled by a spirit of error.


13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:13

• Those who believe are Believers.
• Those who believe for a while, the return to unbelieving, are not believers.

This truth will never change.

Claiming that people who are not believers, have eternal life, is nothing but a false teaching.


Are you teaching the people of this forum, that a person who believes for a while while, then no longer believes, is somehow still a believer?



JLB

 

[Marvin Knox]

Are you teaching the people of this forum, that a person who believes for a while while, then no longer believes, is somehow still a believer? JLB

While this train of discussion is not with me - I have a thought to add here about what you said.

I accepted the Lord at 13 and lasted a couple of years until I onsciously left Him due to anger concering my Father's death.

After a time I became a strong agnostic (close to an aethiest).

I stayed in that condition for 15 years or so until the Lord convinced me of His reality through a miracle.

Looking back - I can see the Holy Spirit (with whom I was sealed when I believed in my youth) moving and using me in varios ways to argue against many of the arguments my aethist and cultish friends were using against evangelical Christians.

I believe that I was exercising gifts from the Holy Spirit even in my unbelief.

While I freely admit that I was an "unbeliever" to say the least for over 15 years - I will not agree or say that He ever left me having sealed me securely when my very real conversion happened in my youth.

However - it isn't because of my experience that I believe in OSAS. It is because I know that I passed from death to life when I was 13 and that I will never come into condemnation even if I do come under His just chastisment and even suffer loss in the long run because of my sins. I have His sure word on that.

He is the one who started a good work in me close to 6 decades ago and He is the one who will see that work to completion in my glorification.

It's for the praise of His grace and perseverance that He saved me and it is for His the praise of His grace and perseverance that He will keep me saved regardless of momentary unbelief and indescresions or even ones which last for over 15 years. should He tarry.