REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[FutureAndAHope]

You are denying the omniscience of God.

Just as a practical matter, any god that is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is not worthy of the title “God” (with a capital G) but is just a little god, like Jupiter or Thor or Gaia the earth mother.

So I really have nothing to say about your god.

So you are calling God a liar? To preserve a man-made view of "omniscience". You do realize there is no such word in the Bible, it is a human definition of God not based on scripture. Scripture clearly shows God, regretting, and wishing He had not made man. Why? Even God can not control free will.

 

[BobRyan]

Foreknowledge .... knew before what the choices will be .... different than actually making choices for us.

We love Him because He loved us first. God IS love (noun)

amen!

 

[atpollard]

So you are calling God a liar?

I am not “calling God a liar”, so just dial down your rhetoric a notch.
I am STRENUOUSLY DISAGREEING with your exegesis of the comment of God concerning the generation of Noah and your conclusions about God’s inability to declare ”the end from the beginning” (God said He does that).

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is merely an accusation but is not logical

By contrast the following 2 points are irrefutably true and both sides can see the point

1. Arminians can have full assurance that they are saved today - but cannot know that 20 years from today they will still be saved.

2. The 5 point Calvinist can't even know that - since their view of 'perseverance of the saints' - means that if 20 years from today they fail to "persevere" then they would certainly retro-delete all the assurance they had claimed to have today.

Of course almost every 5 point Calvinist today would claim that although they cannot see the future - 20 years from today - yet God has told them personally via His promises in scripture that in their case they most certainly will persevere 20 years from today. But when they fail to persevere 20 years from today then at that time they will also fully affirm that God in fact did not tell them today - what they would do 20 years from today.​

​

The thing is - everyone can see this point -- it is so obvious to both sides even if one of the sides does not feel comfortable with it.

"There's a new name, written down in pencil;
And it's mine, oh yes, it's mine..."

"How Great Thou might turn out to be"

"Blessed Insurance, Jesus might be mine"

"Amazing possibility, how sweet the sound"

1. Arminian doctrine provides no assurance the believer is saved today, since their salvation depends on the sincerity of their faith, and the integrity of their decision for Christ. As time progresses, their degree of faithfulness will belie their claim. But, in spite of their theology, the assurance of the redeemed comes from the same place as that of the Calvinist redeemed, which you haven't mentioned in your formulations: The witness of the Spirit of God to their spirit, that they are the children of God.

2. The Calvinist does not depend on their perseverance for their salvation, but on Christ's work on behalf of the elect. The Spirit of God has sealed the elect, and none can remove them from God's hand. Now if your question is whether or not the Calvinist is God's elect —that is another matter. But it is not the premium concern of those whose have come to see Christ as preeminent in all things. For the Calvinist, the security of their salvation does not depend on their decision nor their performance, but upon the will of God. This is not about the believer —it is about God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you are calling God a liar? To preserve a man-made view of "omniscience". You do realize there is no such word in the Bible, it is a human definition of God not based on scripture. Scripture clearly shows God, regretting, and wishing He had not made man. Why? Even God can not control free will.

Not only not omniscient, but not omnipotent, then...

 

[atpollard]

Not only not omniscient, but not omnipotent, then...

You are my hero ... best response ever.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Not only not omniscient, but not omnipotent, then...

Jesus said:

Mark 11:29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Omnipotent is not the ability to force one's will on another, God is surely all-powerful, but He allows a choice. His nature is not dictatorial. Yet if a man chooses evil, again and again, his reward is wrath. God still enforces His will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus said:

Mark 11:29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Omnipotent is not the ability to force one's will on another, God is surely all-powerful, but He allows a choice. His nature is not dictatorial. Yet if a man chooses evil, again and again, his reward is wrath. God still enforces His will.

Who is saying that 'Omnipotent' is "the ability to force one's will on another". Don't act like we are saying that. Who says his nature is dictatorial? Nobody here, as far as I can tell, but those who want to make the opposition look as bad as they can paint it.

But he doesn't just allow a choice. He sees to it that we have the choice. This isn't a self-driven vehicle that he has to reach down now and then to straighten up. You continue to conflate his command with his decree. God enforces his command. He has no need to enforce his decree. You might hate the fact that God has decreed, but you can't do anything about it —nor can Satan. It is going to happen precisely as he spoke it.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Who is saying that 'Omnipotent' is "the ability to force one's will on another". Don't act like we are saying that. Who says his nature is dictatorial? Nobody here, as far as I can tell, but those who want to make the opposition look as bad as they can paint it.

But he doesn't just allow a choice. He sees to it that we have the choice. This isn't a self-driven vehicle that he has to reach down now and then to straighten up. You continue to conflate his command with his decree. God enforces his command. He has no need to enforce his decree. You might hate the fact that God has decreed, but you can't do anything about it —nor can Satan. It is going to happen precisely as he spoke it.

No, I rightly hate your view of God's decree, for it is not God's. It goes against all nature, and against God's Word. Which decrees salvation is open to all people.

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Joh 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

1Ti 2:4-6 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

Your doctrine is "hate-able", for it is unreasonable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I rightly hate your view of God's decree, for it is not God's. It goes against all nature, and against God's Word. Which decrees salvation is open to all people.

Yes, it is open to all people, even as Romans 1 says, that they knew God, and suppressed that knowledge. And as Romans 8 says they will not submit.

It is open to them, but they CANNOT please God, until he regenerates them.

Your doctrine is "hate-able", for it is unreasonable.

In what way is God "reasonable"? Does he negotiate?

Or do you mean he is rational, logical? He is indeed rational, and has told us that HE is the way, and that salvation —the gift of God— is by Grace through Faith. And that, not of ourselves.

 

[John Mullally]

Yes, it is open to all people, even as Romans 1 says, that they knew God, and suppressed that knowledge. And as Romans 8 says they will not submit.

It is open to them, but they CANNOT please God, until he regenerates them.

Calvinists believe that God regenerates unbelieving “dead rebel sinners” and “total haters of God” (i.e. Totally Depraved) because they happen to be elect. And this regeneration is performed through irresistible means - as you say "they CANNOT please God, until He regenerates them".

To thus imply that God cannot get anyone to please Him or love Him apart from using irresistible-means would be embarrassing, shameful, unethical, immoral, hardly glorious and frankly very insulting to God. At best, it would be analogous to brainwashing and at worst, comparable to using a date-rape drug.

Non-Calvinists, by contrast, believe that grace is resistible (Galatians 2:21), both in conversion and in daily living. Every Christian would love to be able to receive an Irresistible Grace so as to never sin again, but we intuitively know that that isn’t how God works, and instead, we must battle with our own fallen nature daily in order to walk in fellowship with God.

 

[John Mullally]

PART IV: THE VERSE
Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

The “many” refers to a large number, as in “all men,” in which Paul interchangeably uses “many” and “all people” at Romans 5:12-19.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.​

​

Why is it important to affirm with Scripture that Jesus died for everyone? The answer is that if Jesus didn’t die for everyone, but only died for Calvinism’s elect, then I would have no reason to believe that Jesus died for me in particular, except by just supposing it to be true. Christian assurance must never be grounded on guesswork, but instead must be rooted in an Abrahamic confidence that God will keep His promise to do what He says, and God promises to save “whosoever believes in Him.” (John 3:16) If Jesus died for everyone, then I don’t ever need to wonder about whether God has a good intention for me.

Jesus atoned for all man's sin. 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 show that Jesus provides atonement for all people - but as I will show from scripture that atonement is applied conditionally. It is applied only to those who believe on the one who made atonement - Jesus.

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved? God Himself established the condition.

Numbers 21:8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.​

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”​

 

[Cassian]

What is the purpose in Jesus dying in AD 33 for someone that died in 600 BC and is already in Hell (like the rich man that Jesus described)?

Adam was told by God in Gen 3:15 that He would send someone to correct the condemnation mankind suffered through Adam. Thus God dealt with man all through the OT as if Christ had already come. OT believers lived in the hope of a coming Messiah. We still live in the Hope of His Second Coming.
Christ descended into Hades to free those held captive. Captive of what? Death. All men will be raised in the last day because Christ defeated death by His own death/resurrection.
This was the primary work of Christ. Secondarily, He provided a sacrifice for sin so that man, those that believe could have their sins forgiven and have communion with God in this life as well.
This is why limited atonement is false respective of scripture.
How could an Incarnate Christ, meaning Christ took on our human nature for the sole purpose of being able to raise that mortal nature to an immortal nature. Man is not just consubstantial with the physical world, but with each other. We all have the very same human nature. so when that nature is changed by Christ it changes that nature for all human beings. Limited atonement is an impossibility.

 

[bling]

The “many” refers to a large number, as in “all men,” in which Paul interchangeably uses “many” and “all people” at Romans 5:12-19.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.​

​

Why is it important to affirm with Scripture that Jesus died for everyone? The answer is that if Jesus didn’t die for everyone, but only died for Calvinism’s elect, then I would have no reason to believe that Jesus died for me in particular, except by just supposing it to be true. Christian assurance must never be grounded on guesswork, but instead must be rooted in an Abrahamic confidence that God will keep His promise to do what He says, and God promises to save “whosoever believes in Him.” (John 3:16) If Jesus died for everyone, then I don’t ever need to wonder about whether God has a good intention for me.

Jesus atoned for all man's sin. 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 show that Jesus provides atonement for all people - but as I will show from scripture that atonement is applied conditionally. It is applied only to those who believe on the one who made atonement - Jesus.

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved? God Himself established the condition.

Numbers 21:8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.​

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”​

The “many” refers to a large number, as in “all men,” in which Paul interchangeably uses “many” and “all people” at Romans 5:12-19.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.​

​

Why is it important to affirm with Scripture that Jesus died for everyone? The answer is that if Jesus didn’t die for everyone, but only died for Calvinism’s elect, then I would have no reason to believe that Jesus died for me in particular, except by just supposing it to be true. Christian assurance must never be grounded on guesswork, but instead must be rooted in an Abrahamic confidence that God will keep His promise to do what He says, and God promises to save “whosoever believes in Him.” (John 3:16) If Jesus died for everyone, then I don’t ever need to wonder about whether God has a good intention for me.

Jesus atoned for all man's sin. 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 show that Jesus provides atonement for all people - but as I will show from scripture that atonement is applied conditionally. It is applied only to those who believe on the one who made atonement - Jesus.

Since Jesus took upon Himself the “sin of the world,” (John 1:29), His atonement is therefore available to all, though is only applied whenever people place their faith in Him, just like His illustration at John 3:14-15 of Numbers 21:6-9 shows. Before a person looked upon the serpent on a standard, was anyone healed? Before a person believes in Jesus, is anyone saved? God Himself established the condition.

Numbers 21:8 The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.​

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”​

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, sinners goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if all is done right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 (The sacrifice) As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but the sacrifices are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.



Jesus is the atonement sacrifice, but Jesus is not the atonement itself, since there are more elements to the atonement process than just the sacrifice itself.



We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding, but you asked for other word used to describe Jesus’ sacrifice:

Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrews all describe Christ torturous, humiliating murder as a ransom payment.

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified; a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses, for lack of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is not set free to go to the Father.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?

Would the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God describe a criminal unworthy kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable nor has he the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process. If you have no kidnapper then it is not a kidnapping scenario, yet it fits beautifully a kidnapping scenario and really gets the meaning across.

Verse we need to really review heavily would be Ro. 3:25, Psalms 22, Is. 53, and lots more, but all the “theories” of atonement right now have huge issues, but the Bible explains it with lots of thinking or experience.

That is my intro.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinists believe that God regenerates unbelieving “dead rebel sinners” and “total haters of God” (i.e. Totally Depraved) because they happen to be elect. And this regeneration is performed through irresistible means - as you say "they CANNOT please God, until He regenerates them".

To thus imply that God cannot get anyone to please Him or love Him apart from using irresistible-means would be embarrassing, shameful, unethical, immoral, hardly glorious and frankly very insulting to God. At best, it would be analogous to brainwashing and at worst, comparable to using a date-rape drug.

Non-Calvinists, by contrast, believe that grace is resistible (Galatians 2:21), both in conversion and in daily living. Every Christian would love to be able to receive an Irresistible Grace so as to never sin again, but we intuitively know that that isn’t how God works, and instead, we must battle with our own fallen nature daily in order to walk in fellowship with God.

Apparently, you just can't help yourself. You have to make it look bad instead of just to say what they believe. Nobody "just happens to be elect". But I can see how you might think God behaves randomly, to come up with your beliefs. You don't qualify what "Totally Depraved" is about. You don't even differentiate between one grace and another, which has everything to do with Irresistible Grace. You posted a strawman.

The question of whether God does something (or not) is unrelated to whether he can or cannot "get anyone to please Him or love Him apart from using irresistible means". But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would draw that implication. But if you can draw that implication from the question, it turns right back around on you: Since you suppose that free will is able to please Him or love Him, apart from Grace, I'm curious why only some do, while the others don't. How does it happen, that one chooses right, and the other chooses wrong?

 

[John Mullally]

Apparently, you just can't help yourself. You have to make it look bad instead of just to say what they believe. Nobody "just happens to be elect".

You don't shy away from making unflattering observations. You may not see a problem with a doctrine that says God uses "irresistible" means to add disciples, but others do. Ever watch "The Stepford Wives"?

Using "happens to be" instead of "are" does not change the meaning of what I said. It is tongue-in-cheek as when people insert "allegedly" in statements when expressing another's position that they don't completely agree with. Its not unreasonable.

But I can see how you might think God behaves randomly, to come up with your beliefs.

Hey, are you trying to make me look bad?

You don't qualify what "Totally Depraved" is about.

I try to be brief. "Total Depravity" is a well-known Calvinist term. But since you ask, let's assume what Calvin says which is: “So depraved is [human] nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil.”.

You don't even differentiate between one grace and another, which has everything to do with Irresistible Grace. You posted a strawman.

Graces are not enumerated in the Bible and thus "Irresistible grace" is never mentioned.

Since you suppose that free will is able to please Him or love Him, apart from Grace, I'm curious why only some do, while the others don't. How does it happen, that one chooses right, and the other chooses wrong?

Jesus draws all men to himself (John 12:32), the Holy Spirit convicts (John 8:16), and the Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe (Romans 1:14-17). But some still resist per John 3:18.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You don't shy away from making unflattering observations. You may not see a problem with a doctrine that says God uses "irresistible" means to add disciples, but others do. Ever watch "The Stepford Wives"?

Bad analogy. Ever asked if God asks permission of a person before giving them their first birth?

Using "happens to be" instead of "are" does not change the meaning of what I said. It is tongue-in-cheek as when people insert "allegedly" in statements when expressing another's position that they don't completely agree with. Its not unreasonable.

Using "happens to be" instead of "are" implies that God has no purpose in choosing. It changes the whole direction of argument. You are misrepresenting that against which you are arguing. Strawman.

Hey, are you trying to make me look bad?

No need. Just pointing out your argument is not altogether honest. Strawman, they call it.

I try to be brief. "Total Depravity" is a well-known Calvinist term. But since you ask, let's assume what Calvin says which is: “So depraved is [human] nature that he can be moved or impelled only to evil.”.

Don't excuse your strawman on the need for brevity.

Graces are not enumerated in the Bible and thus "Irresistible grace" is never mentioned.

That's not the point, John. Whether or not "Graces are not enumerated in the Bible and thus 'Irresistible grace' is never mentioned." doesn't explain why you group them all together as though Calvinism is claiming that man cannot resist any grace. It doesn't claim that, so your argument is vacuous.

Jesus draws all men to himself (John 12:32), the Holy Spirit convicts (John 8:16), and the Gospel is the power of God to save all who believe (Romans 1:14-17). But some still resist per John 3:18.

That does not answer what I am asking, per usual. WHY? Or HOW IS IT that some do and some don't. All you have done is repeat yourself. What makes the difference between what one man does vs what another does? What makes the difference between when a star is constant, and when it explodes? What makes the wind calm at one point, and hurricane at another point?

I'm not asking how the one comes about and how the other comes about. And no matter your answer, ask yourself the childlike, and reasonable, question, WHY?

 

[John Mullally]

The Calvinist systematic is missing from the New Testament, such as any mention of an Irresistible Grace as the solution for the unsaved to be able to receive the gospel. Jesus never said that God had to first give people spiritual life in order to be able to come to Him, but rather that people must come to Him to obtain “life.” (John 5:40) Jesus and His apostles declared things no Calvinist would ever say, such as God having so loved the “world” that He gave it a Savior, Jesus (John 3:16), who tasted death for “everyone” (Hebrews 2:9), who for His part desires “all men to be saved” (1st Timothy 2:4), “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (2nd Peter 3:9) If Calvinism was true, then the Bible-writers would have been careless in their words, or intentionally trying to deceive—something no Christian would accept as true.

Bad analogy. Ever asked if God asks permission of a person before giving them their first birth?

My analogy works for those not steeped in Calvinistic determinism. A determinism backed by Calvin saying that God predestines some to hell before giving them their first breath.

Using "happens to be" instead of "are" implies that God has no purpose in choosing. It changes the whole direction of argument. You are misrepresenting that against which you are arguing. Strawman.

Using "happens to be" instead of "are" implies I don't agree with Calvinism that has God choosing who will believe and be saved. If I exchanged "happens to be" with "are" it would eliminate your complaint and yet not change the nature of my argument. Thus, you are nit-picking.

Don't excuse your strawman on the need for brevity.

This echoes your originally unreasonable complaint that I need to define "Total Depravity" before using that Calvinist term.

That's not the point, John. Whether or not "Graces are not enumerated in the Bible and thus 'Irresistible grace' is never mentioned." doesn't explain why you group them all together as though Calvinism is claiming that man cannot resist any grace. It doesn't claim that, so your argument is vacuous.

In the third paragraph of Post 51, I stated that non-Calvinists do not believe in Irresistible Grace, although they wish it was available so that they would never sin again. I did not say anything about what Calvinists believe.

That does not answer what I am asking, per usual. WHY? Or HOW IS IT that some do and some don't. All you have done is repeat yourself. What makes the difference between what one man does vs what another does? What makes the difference between when a star is constant, and when it explodes? What makes the wind calm at one point, and hurricane at another point?

I'm not asking how the one comes about and how the other comes about. And no matter your answer, ask yourself the childlike, and reasonable, question, WHY?

Peter, exhorts Christians saying, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (I Peter 3:15).

I am not going to venture on explaining how or why God does things beyond what scripture plainly says.

 

[Mark Quayle]

1 John 2:2 NIV - 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Here John speaks of the WHOLE world - not just "world" and he specifically singles out the saved "an NOT for OUR sins only" -- which is explicit language ofr INCLUSION rather than EXCLUSION. So with that in mind - notice what the "OUR" group is included in --- the WHOLE world... showing that he means both the saved and the unsaved and a total and full scope for world -- "whole world" in that very context.

Details which I think we can assume will get skimmed over as they are truly "inconvenient" for some points of view..

You have been here long enough, I'm pretty sure you have heard a couple of Calvinistic interpretations/uses of "the whole world" as pertains to this verse. One of them also abides by the "inclusion" language —"not just for the Jews, but the Gentiles too"— but you apparently "skimmed over" that. Perhaps you just don't know how to argue with it, or maybe its 'truly "inconvenient" for some points of view.'

I mean, it's one thing to posit a POV, and it's one thing to back it up with your reason for it. But when your reason for it, (even if one accepts your reason), doesn't deny the opposing POV, then it seems to me disingenuous to speak as thought your POV is the only possible one.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You have been here long enough, I'm pretty sure you have heard a couple of Calvinistic interpretations/uses of "the whole world" as pertains to this verse. One of them also abides by the "inclusion" language —"not just for the Jews, but the Gentiles too"— but you apparently "skimmed over" that. Perhaps you just don't know how to argue with it, or maybe its 'truly "inconvenient" for some points of view.'

I mean, it's one thing to posit a POV, and it's one thing to back it up with your reason for it. But when your reason for it, (even if one accepts your reason), doesn't deny the opposing POV, then it seems to me disingenuous to speak as thought your POV is the only possible one.

I am wondering; do the conversations you've had with me modify anything you have to say to others?