Predestination

[squint]

The scriptural reality of predestination is that:

A.) ALL vessels of honor know God, are born of God and God has predestined them to salvation

B.) All vessels of dishonor do not know God. God does not know them. Gods Words harden them and they automatically resist Gods Words.

C.) ALL MANKIND have both of these vessels in their LUMP OF CLAY, that is 'our bodies.' (before you bother to respond please read Romans 7:17-21/Romans 9:19-20/Romans 11:7-8/2 Tim. 2:20-21/1 John 1:8/1 John 3:6-9 and please respond specifically to these scriptures as to how YOU DON'T have a vessel of dishonor within your lump)

For those who reject Gods Words and resist them, the vessel of DIShonor is 'in temporary charge and control of that LUMP. To them I say SO WHAT and TOO BAD. There is still a vessel of honor in that lump who is carrying those vile things to judgment and therefore doing God a service which will be rewarded.

For those who accept Gods Words, I say do not let the other vessel spoil your reward by NOT LOVING your neighbors as yourself. These LUMPS have the MORE DIFFICULT position 'because' the Word is sown MORE in them and the other vessel actually becomes also MORE POWERFUL. The POWER of that other vessel WILL RESULT in your being blinded to loving your neighbors as yourself.

enjoy yer dilemma! God has set you up to PROVE you are His children in LOVE.

squint

 

[MamaZ]

Not because God withheld his spirit, but because they resisted.

It is man who rejects God, not God who rejects man.



Why can't you accept the crystal clear words of scripture?

Why do they resist? Why do men reject God? How can one receive God? Is it not by the fact that all those whom the Father gives Him not one shall he loose? If the Father does not give a man to Jesus then one cannot believe in Jesus. It is all of the Fathers will..

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies with Christ,
Eph 1:4 even as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,
Eph 1:5 predestinating us to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved,
Eph 1:7 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of deviations, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding,
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
Eph 1:10 for the administration of the fullness of the times to head up all things in Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things on earth, in Him,
Eph 1:11 in whom we also have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of the One working all things according to the counsel of His own will,


Why is this so hard to believe since it is written in the very scripture and is a teaching from Paul an Apostle..

 

[ArcticFox]

I'll end this discussion with you here. If you are not willing to appeal to logic, then leave the discussion. You have no place here. People can say "The Bible says this" and "I believe such and such" all day long but without the use of reason and logic, there is no common ground to appeal to. You thusly add no value to this discussion and there is no possible way to make any progress with a person who so willfully discards reason whenever it shows a problem in their theology.

I have had many meaningful discussions here, despite some of the problems that GT has.

Many people here can attest to the good discussions we have had together, and some of the things we were able to learn from each other through those discussions. That is my experience.

But... I will honor your request and end the discussion with you on this topic. As for your comment that I "have no place here," that is not in the least your decision, and you have no power to make it so. We ought not to want to exert power over people.

 

[MamaZ]

TWIST and shout!

Are you taking into account the full written counsel of all the scriptures? Or are you seeing free will of man over the sovern God who is in control of All things?

 

[Jedi]

But, but, but He still burns the unbelievers alive forever even in your view. What is the difference to those burned alive?

Actually, that's not the case in my view. I suggest people who go to hell are not "burned" or tortured in any respect; that they are only left to themselves. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful; rebels to the end. That the gates of hell are locked on the inside." Those who are not saved are only so because they refused to be saved. The attitude of those who are in hell can be summed up in the phrase "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven;" they would have it no other way than themselves, even at the price of misery. This is quite different than God condemning people for not doing what was never in their capacity to do (respond positively to Him) or neglecting to save those who were savable.

One of the most disturbing beliefs that freewillers and Calvinists/Reformeds hold is that God does in fact burn His children alive forever. And there is no logical way in the world that the LOVE OF GOD is a mere 'chance' or 'opportunity' or that God had children only to subsequently burn them alive forever.

See above. To force someone into Heaven when they most want to avoid God and His ways would be nothing short of tyranny and rape. Those who are not in heaven are merely left to themselves, seperated from God whom they care nothing for.

Freewillism seeks to justify God and condemn man for the sin of rejection/unbelief. What it also does in the process is to make the Cross completely completely ineffective in BEHALF of all that are burned alive forever, reduces the CROSS to a mere TEMPORARY PASSING OPPORTUNITY/CHANCE, and makes God less than a capable Saviour.

More Calvinist propeganda, I'm afraid. The Cross was never meant to force people into Heaven when they don't wish to be there. It is an offer; an opportunity of forgiveness to save people who are otherwise doomed. Contrary to Calvinist teaching, the cross has the power to save everyone; some merely choose not to be saved. This is no failing of God or the cross, as God cannot force a free-will creature to choose Him. It is no more possible for God than for the least of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive acts, but this is no limit to God's power; it only means that nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly aquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the words "God can." Thus such phrases as "God can force a free-will creature to Heaven" remains nonsensical. He cannot, just as He cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it, just as He cannot sin.

And of course that is not the typical freewiller view. Anyone who realizes that God COULD in fact over rule their views should certainly HOPE FOR THE VERY VERY BEST for all mankind.

I'm really not sure what this has to do with what I said. Explain.

Yes the very intimate nature of Gods realtionship with men was broken upon Adam falling into sin. Adam was put out of the Garden of Eden where God walked and talked with him.. Through Adam came death..

Um, no.... we didn't suddenly become "not creations of God" due to the fall. What was broken? Explain to me in detail what happened. I'll tell you what happened: the social link between men and God was broken. That's why Jews had the curtain in the temple, that's why the curtain was torn down after Christ's death. God is STILL the creator of you, even if you disobey Him, just as any child is STILL the offspring of its parent no matter what it does.

God was only the Parent of one and that is His only begotten Son. Christ Jesus.. It is through Christ that men can be born again from the Spirit of God and become His adopted children.

You're really not getting this here. I do not speak of "children" in the sense of "followers" like scripture so often does. I'm talking about the literal creator/creation link that exists regardless of what we do. Squint understands this concept - why don't you?

Human logic at work here

Zomg! Avoid logic! Avoid reason! Run! Run! Put your hands over your ears and start yelling, "La la la la" to avoid it. You know what irrational theology gets us? It gets us things like September 11th, it gets us people drinking poisoned kool-aid. That's the crowd you fall in with by rejecting reason as you do.

God created Adam and Eve.. He gave man and woman the gift of procreation.. Adam and Eve sinned.. therefore a sinner will begat a sinner..

This does NOT negate the problem of your God failing to save people who need Him most when it's perfectly in His capacity to do so, or the absurdity of your God condemning creatures for not doing what they never had the ability to do: respond positively to Him. There is no difference, then, between your God and a mad man who condemns mud for not being clean or a frog for not jumping ot the moon.

And you have a problem with this how?

Yeah, crazy. I have a problem with people being inconsistent. I have a problem with people not willing to listen to any voice but their own, rejecting any evidence and logic that reveals problems in their thinking. Passion without rational guidance is extremely dangerous and it's precisely this that you're promoting in tossing reason to the winds and clinging ever so fast to your presuppositions.

 

[chestertonrules]

Why do they resist? Why do men reject God? How can one receive God? Is it not by the fact that all those whom the Father gives Him not one shall he loose? If the Father does not give a man to Jesus then one cannot believe in Jesus. It is all of the Fathers will..

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies with Christ,
Eph 1:4 even as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,
Eph 1:5 predestinating us to adoption through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace in which He favored us in the One having been loved,
Eph 1:7 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of deviations, according to the riches of His grace
Eph 1:8 which He caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and understanding,
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,
Eph 1:10 for the administration of the fullness of the times to head up all things in Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things on earth, in Him,
Eph 1:11 in whom we also have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of the One working all things according to the counsel of His own will,


Why is this so hard to believe since it is written in the very scripture and is a teaching from Paul an Apostle..

Of course we are chosen. No one disputes this. Why are we chosen?

The bible tells us very clearly who is chosen and why, yet you reject the words of the bible for some reason.

Romans 2:6-7 "For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life."

Matt 7 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

1 Peter 1 17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;

 

[JacobHall86]

The social relationship, yes, but not the intimate nature of the relationship. When a child disobeys its parent, the parent's responsibility for the child's well-being doesn't end. What kind of parent would tell others, "Well, I would have saved my child from the raging currents in the river he jumped into, but he disobeyed me earlier so I washed my hands of him"? If we expect this kind of responsibility of an earthly parent, how much more should we expect of God, who's more intimately connected to those He creates than any earthly parent/child relationship?

That is a false and warped view of God. The intimate relationship with God was also broken in the fall. Thats why only the High Priest could go into the Holy of Holies after spending days cleansing himself and not just any could go in. You also work under the idea that God owes something to us, which is absolutely false and heretical.

Again, consider this syllogism.

1.) An all-good being would want to maximize goodness.

Yes, but he is Holy first. He wants to maximize Holiness, not goodness. Besides, you are describing goodness by your own terms.

2.) Turning an enemy to your cause is a greater good than destroying them.

Agreed.

3.) Therefore, an all-good being would want to maximize the number of enemies turned to his cause.

Easy big guy, thats a logical fallacy you just tried to pull. At best its circular reasoning.

4.) God is an all-good being.

agreed, however, You are not the standard for Good, so he can be all Good, without your consent or agreement.

5.) Therefore, God would want to maximize the number of enemies turned to His cause.

Repeat much?

6.) Sinful people are enemies to God (Colossions 1:21)

Correct

7.) Therefore, God would want to maximize the number of sinful people turned to His cause.

You make it seem as though God needs people turned to his cause. He needs for nothing.

The problem for Reformed theology is that the God they describe doesn't do this.

Exactly, because your view of God is incorrect.

They claim God could have saved everyone but chose not to. It logically must be true, then, that the God Reformed advocates describe is not an all-good being.

Because instead of giving everyone what they deserve he saves some? A Good God (Good in the sense of Just, not benevolent like you want) would send EVERYONE to hell, and not save any.

And how can you willingly serve a God who is not all good?

I don't, the question is, how do you serve a God who you see as not all just?

Put in our context, why would you serve a God who readily abandons people He creates when they need Him most?

Because he is not here to serve us, but to Glorify himself.

 

[chestertonrules]

Because he is not here to serve us, but to Glorify himself.

I think it is quite amusing that Calvinists believe that God brings glory to himself by creating humans who have no choice but to love him and humans who have no choice but to reject him. Those who he forced to love him are rewarded and those who are forced to reject him are punished.


How does this bring glory to God?

The God of Calvinism is not glorious, he is monstrous.

 

[Jedi]

Ah, Jacobhall. I was waiting for you to jump in again. I remember you from years past, my old theological nemesis. Very well then. Let's have at it.

That is a false and warped view of God. The intimate relationship with God was also broken in the fall. Thats why only the High Priest could go into the Holy of Holies after spending days cleansing himself and not just any could go in.

You're just playing with semantics now, supposing the relationship I speak of is the "intimate social relationship." It is not. We did not magically become "not created by God" at the fall. God still made us, forging a connection that cannot be altered by anything we do.

You also work under the idea that God owes something to us, which is absolutely false and heretical.

God DOES owe us something if He is all-good and especially if He's responsible for us being here, not because of some external law, but by His very nature, as an all-good being would want to maximize goodness, and if saving people is better than destroying them as John 3:16 implies, God is mandated by His own nature to save as many people as possible.

Yes, but he is Holy first. He wants to maximize Holiness, not goodness. Besides, you are describing goodness by your own terms.

The difference between "holiness" and "goodness" being...?

Easy big guy, thats a logical fallacy you just tried to pull. At best its circular reasoning.

Um, no... it necessarily follows from the previous 2 premises. If A, then B. A, therefore B. You have not demonstrated any of the premises to be false.

Repeat much?

Um, no... it's called a "syllogism." You take the reader by the hand and lead them step by step. That is the conclusion based on the previously established premises.

You make it seem as though God needs people turned to his cause. He needs for nothing

He does if He's all-good, as established in the previous premises.

Because instead of giving everyone what they deserve he saves some? A Good God (Good in the sense of Just, not benevolent like you want) would send EVERYONE to hell, and not save any.

So you readily admit that your God is not omni-benevolent. Well that was easy. If all there was to God's goodness was justice, He would not be truly "good," as mercy trumps justice whenever mercy is possible, as evidenced by the cross. If mercy wasn't a greater good than justice, then Christ wasted an awful lot of time and effort promoting mercy for people who would have had to deal with God's justice.

I don't, the question is, how do you serve a God who you see as not all just?

You don't serve a God who is not all good? On the contrary, you just admitted the God you serve is not omni-benevolent. He's not all good. He fails to give mercy to people when giving mercy is possible.

Additionally, I don't see how your appeal to God being absolutely just does you any good. You and I both agree that God doesn't dish out justice to everyone - some people are saved. If this is so, then God's justice isn't all there is to Him and certainly isn't the highest good (if it was, He should've sought that above all else - even mercy).

I maintain that God is fully just and that justice was dealt with by Christ on the cross, allowing a greater good - mercy - to be had by any who would receive it.

Because he is not here to serve us, but to Glorify himself.

Then He could just as well put a mirror in front of His throne and praise Himself, forgetting all about us, negating any real value in the things He creates.

This is essentially what Reformed theology suggests God does anyway: taking people who want nothing to do with God, forcing them to desire and consequently praise Him, and condemning the rest of humanity for not doing what they didn't have the capacity to do (respond positively to God). How Reformed advocates can view this as genuine "glory" remains a mystery.

 

[benedictaoo]

Notice that they are the uncircumcised in heart.. Therefore they have not the SPIRIT of Christ in them.

If they are resisting the Holy Spirit-- that means God is granting Him to them. He is hounding them... pursuing them... He is the hound of heaven after all.

You really are just seeing in scripture what you want.

 

[benedictaoo]

Please provide EXEGETICAL support for your assertion here. On what TEXTUAL (Gk. NT) basis do you say it is 'hideous.' Generally, the version has a good reputation. Although, no one version is the best in every case.



ESV is one of numerous versions of the Bible. There are a number of good ones out there, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Better to rely on the Greek.



Once again, you have merely stated your assertion here. Sola Scriptura, please.


[/B]

Same message as New Century, slightly different words.

[/B]

Not at all. Salvation is by God's grace. We receive salvation through faith. Faith is something exercised by the individual. Faith does not save the believer, but the believer is saved by God through faith in Jesus Christ. That is an important distinction.




"Whoseover BELIEVETH on Him should not perish . . ." Nothing to do with boasting.

Don't you just love it when they start blaming the translation?

and when they use irrevalant to the issue scriptures, like it's by grace we are saved... we know it is. But how does this translate, it is by divine election we are saved with out having an say in the matter?

 

[squint]

Actually, that's not the case in my view. I suggest people who go to hell are not "burned" or tortured in any respect; that they are only left to themselves. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful; rebels to the end.

Yes, I am familiar with the Lewis spin on this matter. His presumption is that people can outwait God. An impossible view imho, that places some supposed eternal resistance of mankind OVER the Eternal Mercy of God. Doesn't work.

That the gates of hell are locked on the inside."

Again, another non-existing premise. Jesus advised us clearly that it is HE who has ALL the Keys. Not the people who are supposedly 'confined' therein to whatever form of 'punishment' is favored.

Those who are not saved are only so because they refused to be saved.

aka God being not able and the cross being insufficient for same.

The attitude of those who are in hell can be summed up in the phrase "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven;" they would have it no other way than themselves, even at the price of misery.

We are told little about the infamous Lake of Fire but of course the realm is filled with MUCH speculation.

In reality there is not one single instance in the entire body of scripture that states a named human individual is slated to be headed there NOR is there a single named human individual even threatened with such a fate. So what many take for granted in reality does not 'specifically exist' as noted herein.

We do know that the devil and his messenger ARE headed for that fate. What most utterly fail to take into consideration is that the devil and his messengers ARE for no uncertain fact WITH mankind in the same flesh.

It is every bit as likely, vastly MORE likely imho that these parties will be separated and that they, the CAUSE of blindness will go to that place of permanent confinement and that mankind will go free of them.

This is quite different than God condemning people for not doing what was never in their capacity to do (respond positively to Him) or neglecting to save those who were savable. See above. To force someone into Heaven when they most want to avoid God and His ways would be nothing short of tyranny and rape.

Your view here is just another freewill christian fairytale. All mankind are Gods children/offspring. What makes you so utterly SURE that upon removal of the blinding force that ALL of those children will not automatically and naturally return to OUR Father? The presumption that nearly all freewillers put into play is that GOD is The Father of willfully disobedient children. It is MORE than likely that the devil who blinds people and is WITH people is the disobedient and that God has placed His children UNDER that temporal power of darkness. Your view simply has no account for this fact other than to blame Gods children, JUST LIKE the Calvinists DO. Both positions even blame GODS CHILDREN for all the DEVILS works like blaming them for 'allowance' or 'entrance' or 'whatever way' they CAN blame them. To me that is evidence of the demonic with that child of God. Of course no believer could ever accept that they themselves may be being used as a PAWN of the blamers and accusers of our fellow man. And this is another deception upon them that is NOT OF THEM imho.

Those who are not in heaven are merely left to themselves, seperated from God whom they care nothing for.

And yet another freewill christian fairytale. There is NO PLACE that is separate from OMNIpresence. We are advised in the scriptures that the TORTURE will take place IN THE PRESENCE of the LAMB in Rev. 14:10-11, so NO we are not 'getting away' from what is going to happen as if the event is not there for us to experience.

More Calvinist propeganda, I'm afraid. The Cross was never meant to force people into Heaven when they don't wish to be there.

Paul did not say that the vessels of honor had a choice about the receipt of 'effective Mercy.' They WILL. And there is also nothing that indicates that they will RESIST the receipt of same.

Vessels of DIShonor automatically resist because that is what they were made to do.

It is an offer; an opportunity of forgiveness to save people who are otherwise doomed.

Indeed and noted numerous times herein. In freewillism the Cross is reduced to A TEMPORAL PASSING CHANCE. Nothing more than a possibilty that passes away with time. Completely ineffective without MANs will. Repeat COMPLETELY ineffective. And the God behind that offer is also UNABLE to save whatsoever. And the God behind that offer not only is UNABLE to save whatsoever, He is also forced to torture those He was UNable to help.

The Great and Powerful OZ God. Pull back the curtain and He really can do almost exactly NOTHING but make a beggarly plea for cooperation.

Contrary to Calvinist teaching, the cross has the power to save everyone;

No, it doesn't. The Cross saves exactly ZERO resistors in freewill land. NONE of them are SAVED by that action. Zero.

some merely choose not to be saved.

Again exactly. Countless millions, perhaps BILLIONS of freewill individuals effectively STOP GOD DEAD in His tracks and FORCE Gods actions to boot.

This is no failing of God or the cross, as God cannot force a free-will creature to choose Him.

Duly noted. God can do exactly NOTHING for them. They MUST do it ALL for themselves. Without THEM and their actions there is NOTHING else effective for them.

It is no more possible for God than for the least of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive acts, but this is no limit to God's power; it only means that nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Of course you have limited Gods Power. You draw some perceived LINE around the will of a man and say GOD CANNOT GO HERE. I think it's patently ridiculous but that is the attempt. How a believer can effectively rule God out of the equation is quite funny. It's pure speculation to do so.

Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly aquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the words "God can." Thus such phrases as "God can force a free-will creature to Heaven" remains nonsensical. He cannot, just as He cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it, just as He cannot sin.

The presumption at the core is the term 'free'will. There is NO WILL that is FREE of God. Why would any believer in his right mind think or even want to be FREE of Perfection? Is there even a point to that? Perfection Is The Prevailing Party and the ONLY PARTY to participate 'Eternally.'

I'm really not sure what this has to do with what I said. Explain.

You noted a belief that God could prevail after death. That is not commonly held in freewill land. IF you see this to be a potential, then you may also see enemies saved AFTER DEATH in Romans 11:26-32. And you may even see that it was GOD HIMSELF who made them enemies by placing the SPIRIT OF STUPOR upon them. Once that 'spirit' is removed THEY WILL ALL SEE CLEARLY.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Don't you just love it when they start blaming the translation?

and when they use irrevalant to the issue scriptures, like it's by grace we are saved... we know it is. But how does this translate, it is by divine election we are saved with out having an say in the matter?

I would like any of you freewillers to define how EFFECTIVE the Cross is/was OF ITSELF for those whom you believe are going to burn alive forever in hell, please?

(multiple unaddressed requests)

 

[benedictaoo]

You don't seem to get this picture:

HOW MANY UNBELIEVERS ARE KEPT OUT OF HELL BY THE ATONEMENT??? All or NONE?



But not even YOU or the RCC believe that. How can you say you believe what you do NOT believe? Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

I'm a christian universalist and I don't even believe it.

squint, this is a bogus dilemma.

we have to mention here that we are talking in theory only- giving text book answers.
How it plays out, we do not know.

We do not know who wil reject unto death and who won't.

We can only say in theory if a person rejects unto death but we never condemn or say anyone is in hell. We simply do not know the mercy of God-- we can not limit it.

We can not say that unto death, God did not give even the most harden sinner the grace he needed to repent and accept Christ. WE call this hope, this is the virtue of hope and Calvinists are void of this theological virtue. They are also devoid of the virtue of charity and their faith is more presumption rather then faith.

We only say if one rejects, he will willingly go to hell becuase that is what he wants.

 

[archierieus]

Grace is a free gift. If anything is required of you it is no longer free. If you have to do something for it you have to work for it. Thus we can conclude that our faith is a free gift of God and is given to us as a result of the grace of God.

Once again, you have given your opinion about the matter. It is only your opinion. Your opinion goes beyond the Scripture passage as it reads, and is a statement of your view.

 

[archierieus]

Are you taking into account the full written counsel of all the scriptures?

Always a good reminder.

Or are you seeing free will of man over the sovern God who is in control of All things?

With this statement, you are essentially telling the person that, in your opinion, he or she ahs NOT taken into account the 'full written counsel . . .' MIght as well just say that and cut to the chase.

 

[squint]

I think it is quite amusing that Calvinists believe that God brings glory to himself by creating humans who have no choice but to love him and humans who have no choice but to reject him. Those who he forced to love him are rewarded and those who are forced to reject him are punished.


How does this bring glory to God?

The God of Calvinism is not glorious, he is monstrous.

Please describe HOW the God of freewillism is ANY LESS MONSTROUS because your God burns alive the same people, the UNbelievers. You believe your God is LESS monstrous because He gave people a CHANCE?

Why would an unsuccessful CHANCE be any different that a Godly predisposition to burn? The END RESULT is identical. You both blame the individual in any case of end result anyway.

(multiple requests)

 

[benedictaoo]

I would like any of you freewillers to define how EFFECTIVE the Cross is/was OF ITSELF for those whom you believe are going to burn alive forever in hell, please?

(multiple unaddressed requests)

but we do not say who is in hell. We operate on the virtue of HOPE for these.

Christ did not only give us faith but also hope and love and in our Charity we do not ever lose hope for anyone, not even the most harden sinner.

So you see? His sacrifice was effective for all souls. It did what it set out to do, one of which was to give us hope. No one is with out hope thanks to the efficacious work of Christ.

 

[squint]

squint, this is a bogus dilemma.

Actually I am interested in how any of you freewillers can trumpet about how personally effective the CROSS was for ALL MANKIND and ALL SINS whilst simultaneously making it of ZERO effect for those whom God burns alive forever.

Call that bogus if you want. I'm seeing provable doubletalk and calling it for what I see it as.

we have to mention here that we are talking in theory only- giving text book answers. How it plays out, we do not know.

Oh, you mean you just waive the MYSTERY WAND over the doubletalk?

We do not know who wil reject unto death and who won't.

Well, it will readily appear to me that THE CROSS 'won't' do a single beneficial thing for those who are burning alive in hell. Pardon me for observing the obvious.

We can only say in theory if a person rejects unto death but we never condemn or say anyone is in hell. We simply do not know the mercy of God-- we can not limit it.

But you DO tell us all that God WILL be forced to burn people alive in fire because He has to. So don't give me the 'I don't know who specifically' will be burning spiel. YOU DO promote that there WILL be people burning and for these THE CROSS did exactly ZERO.

We can not say that unto death, God did not give even the most harden sinner the grace he needed to repent and accept Christ. WE call this hope, this is the virtue of hope and Calvinists are void of this theological virtue. They are also devoid of the virtue of charity and their faith is more presumption rather then faith.

I am not speaking of you giving the Cross its' effect to the very last minute that YOU SEE it effective.

The fact is that for every individual that dies unchanged by their own wills THE CROSS is made of NO EFFECT millions if not billions of times for THEM specifically. It helped them exactly nothing other than to provide A PASSING AWAY SHOT at the brass ring of heaven.

We only say if one rejects, he will willingly go to hell becuase that is what he wants.

And you make my case repeatedly. The Cross FOR THESE PEOPLE does exactly NOTHING. The entire event was nothing more than A TEMPORARY PASSING OPPORTUNITY. By itself THE CROSS DID NOTHING without the person. And without the person THE CROSS is POWERLESS.

enjoy!

squint

 

[archierieus]

That was something you said you would do.. We are waiting to hear what you have to say about these according to your standard of veiwing the scripture. He gave you what you asked for so now we are awaiting your response.

The request to exegete was mine. The Jn. 10 passage is a great promise Jesus gave. It seems plain enough on its face as it reads. If someone is presenting it in support of a peculiarly Calvinist teaching, then I would like to see their exegesis--hence my request. So far, it has not been done. Waiting.

What does Scripture say to you when The scripture tells us that Jesus lays down His life For His sheep?

I take it as it reads. As it reads, it does not appear to separate any peculiarly Calvinist position.