The Offer of Salvation is given to "all" who choose to Believe!

[DRobert]

Gentil with the sucker punches tho Rick

Nope. His logical fallacy is burden of proof because he requires me to prove that it's true. He attempted to shift the burden of proof to me, and by doing so, asserted that his proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false(in his eyes). This comes from a fallacy of ignorance on Rick's part in his argument, due to confirmation bias. Where were his counter arguments that take the Catholic's views about Free will into account? Has he looked into catholic teaching about free will with an open mind without it being affected by any kind of bias? I conclude that his argument lacked sufficient and unbiased evidence when making his point.

As I said earlier, I'm done discussing about Nicene Creed. It's up to you from this point on to voluntarily look into the matter to investigate my argument further. And may God bless you, Rick. As I said, I'm going to focus the remainder of my discussion to the subject of OP's initial post.

God bless.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Nope. His logical fallacy is burden of proof because he requires me to prove that it's true. He attempted to shift the burden of proof to me, and by doing so, asserted that his proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false(in his eyes). This comes from a fallacy of ignorance on Rick's part in his argument, due to confirmation bias. Where were his counter arguments that take the Catholic's views about Free will into account? Has he looked into catholic teaching about free will with an open mind without it being affected by any kind of bias? I conclude that his argument lacked sufficient and unbiased evidence when making his point.

As I said earlier, I'm done discussing about Nicene Creed. It's up to you from this point on to voluntarily look into the matter to investigate my argument further. And may God bless you, Rick. As I said, I'm going to focus the remainder of my discussion to the subject of OP's initial post.

God bless.

I agree that the Op's reference to all mankind, everyone and whosoever was not sufficiently addressed. Nor do I think Rick's definition of freewill accurate either because the only limitation to the context of God's will is the essence of Who He is.

...
I have made it clear that "free" will is a valid concept within the limiting context of God's will, from which there is no freedom.

The offer of salvation through faith is given to ""all"" who believe. This belief results in eternal salvation:

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to ""all"" people. Titus 2:11

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that ""whoever"" believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

For this is the will of My Father, that ""everyone"" who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40)

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires ""all"" men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for ""all"" to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ""all"" men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ""all"" men, (Titus 2:11)And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ""all"" men to Myself." (John 12:32)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ""all"" men. (Romans 5:18)

For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for ""all""; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for ""all"", therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:15)

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for ""all"" when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:26-27)

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for ""all"", having obtained eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:11-12)

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for ""all"". (Hebrews 10:10)

For Christ also died for sins once for ""all"", the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Peter 3:18)

"All" is written within the context of understanding at the time, that salvation was for Jews only.
Eph 1:4 (among others) reveals whom God chooses (elects) to save. So to broaden the definition beyond context destroys the meaning.
That said, I applaud your concern.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is love not the only limit that He has placed upon restricting His will? Or are there more?

Yes, within more specific contexts.
But observe what I said regarding "God's will" being the limit of human freedom... 'God is Love', right? So Love is the limit.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nope. His logical fallacy is burden of proof because he requires me to prove that it's true. He attempted to shift the burden of proof to me, and by doing so, asserted that his proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false(in his eyes). This comes from a fallacy of ignorance on Rick's part in his argument, due to confirmation bias. Where were his counter arguments that take the Catholic's views about Free will into account? Has he looked into catholic teaching about free will with an open mind without it being affected by any kind of bias? I conclude that his argument lacked sufficient and unbiased evidence when making his point.

As I said earlier, I'm done discussing about Nicene Creed. It's up to you from this point on to voluntarily look into the matter to investigate my argument further. And may God bless you, Rick. As I said, I'm going to focus the remainder of my discussion to the subject of OP's initial post.

God bless.

Good, because you fail to substantiate your position. I gave my definition of free will and by definition, proved the only person with "absolute" freedom of will is God and that the 'free will" of man is a valid concept within the context of God's sovereignity.
So the ignorance and bias remain yours, not mine.
God has and continues to bless me abundantly. Saying "may" sounds like your giving Him permission.
If Him blessing me is something you want, you have already been given that beyond your imagination, but thanks anyway.

 

[Rick Otto]

Romans 9-11, the great proof text for Calvinism, or is it?

Long ago, God choose Israel to be His servant, His messenger, a special object lesson of His love so that she could be a witness to the nations and to illustrate the mystery of sovereignty and free will. Later on, Acts 2 records God's sovereign action in giving birth to another elect group, that was more international in scope, than the chosen people of Israel, known as the church, the body of Christ, whose purpose it is to carry out the mission of Matthew 28:19-20, until Jesus returns. For the last 2,000 years, God has been using the church to do what He originally chose Israel to do.

In the first century, this willingness of God to use Gentile believers raised many questions. Had God broken His promise to use Israel as His chosen servant? How could He set aside the nation He had set apart for Himself? In response to these questions, the apostle wrote Romans 9-11 to Jewish countrymen, undoubtedly believers in Jesus, who were having a hard time with the idea that God had set Israel aside. After expressing his deep love for his Jewish brothers, Paul developed the theme of 9:6, "It is not as though God's Word had failed." He wanted his readers to know that God still had a future plan for the people through whom He had chosen to bless the whole world.

Understanding Paul's purpose here, helps us to see that Romans 9-11 is not a treatise on predestination or individual election as Calvinism has supposed. It is not saying that some people have not and never will have an opportunity to be saved. Rather, it is saying that God has the prerogative to choose the servants He will use to point the world to a salvation that comes not from works but from grace alone.

First of all, I am not a Calvinist nor do I intend to defend them.
Secondly, I never did or would come anywhere near to describing Romans 9 as a treatise on predestination.
You need to drop the attitude about "Calvinism" and focus on issues.
That God is sovereign over his creations is indeed made clear in it, though.
People over-invested in their own sovereignity violate context in an attempt to rescue their overrated individuality by claiming predestination only applies to groups, as if groups being composed of individuals is beside the point.

 

[DRobert]

Good, because you fail to substantiate your position. I gave my definition of free will and by definition, proved the only person with "absolute" freedom of will is God and that the 'free will" of man is a valid concept within the context of God's sovereignity.
So the ignorance and bias remain yours, not mine.
God has and continues to bless me abundantly. Saying "may" sounds like your giving Him permission.
If Him blessing me is something you want, you have already been given that beyond your imagination, but thanks anyway.

You didn't prove anything.
God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance. "(2 Peter 3:9). If His will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven, free will exists. That's why Satan was able to rebel, that's why Cain killed Abel, that's why Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers even though they freely intended it for evil God used it for good, that's why the Israelites chose evil and rejected their God, that's how Solomon the king that God granted the gift of wisdom was able to freely sin and be lead astray, that's How Jonah freely willed to avoid his role as prophet until he co-operated with God using his own free will.

If we have no free will, then how would Mary freely consent to doing God's will if she was in sin, totally depraved as Calvinists believe, and had limited will according to your argument. On the contrary, she is praised and blessed because of her example of free will in choosing to do God's will and co-operating in God's predestined plan of salvation. The best way to be loved is to be loved freely by another person's free will. God's authority is absolute and does not contradict free will. If anything, free will of man in co-operating with God is an act of worship by freely submitting ourselves to him out of love. Praying truthfully in your mind and proclaiming from your lips "Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" is freely praying that prayer with the intention of co-operating with God's will to do his will on Earth as it is in heaven. Your flesh wants you to sin but you exert self-mastery by not giving in out of love for God is an example of freely loving God not only in word but also in deed.

Hebrews 6:4-9 is talking about converts who commit apostasy. If God is not willing that any should perish and yet it is impossible for converts to repent after falling away, God's will is not done. If God's not will is being done because people fall away and perish for their apostasy and contempt, it's because people's free will is not limited under God's sovereignty. Therefore, your view is false. The truth is that we have free will that is not restricted by God's sovereignty because God predestines all to be saved but not to damnation. You can freely choose eternal damnation even though God's will is that you don't do that. That is what a loving and respectful husband would do towards his wife in a marriage: Not force her to do anything against her will but desire her to co-operate with him in the marriage covenant. This upholds the Catholic doctrine of free will in constrast to your opinion on the matter.

 

[DamianWarS]

people love to quote John 3:16 but because it is isolated it shows us that faith alone (belief) saves us. If you read on Jesus shows us that our faith and our works are inexplicably tied together.

John 3:16-21
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”​

Jesus tells us to believe in him to have everlasting life then he shows how what we do has a role in that belief.

 

[AvgJoe]

First of all, I am not a Calvinist nor do I intend to defend them.
Secondly, I never did or would come anywhere near to describing Romans 9 as a treatise on predestination.
You need to drop the attitude about "Calvinism" and focus on issues.

I didn't call you a Calvinist, nor did I say that you were describing all of Romans 9 as a treatise on predestination, as you only referenced verses 22 and 23. Post 125 was a reply to a Calvinist, so of course, it spoke of Calvinism and it also shows the greater context of the chapter, showing that those verses are not talking about individual salvation.

 

[Rick Otto]

I didn't call you a Calvinist, nor did I say that you were describing all of Romans 9 as a treatise on predestination, as you only referenced verses 22 and 23. Post 125 was a reply to a Calvinist, so of course, it spoke of Calvinism and it also shows the greater context of the chapter, showing that those verses are not talking about individual salvation.

Right, thank, and i didn't accuse you of calling me one either, but the point of confronting the issue, which isn't limited to Calvinists, is still a valid point to make.

 

[Rick Otto]

people love to quote John 3:16 but because it is isolated it shows us that faith alone (belief) saves us. If you read on Jesus shows us that our faith and our works are inexplicably tied together.

John 3:16-21
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”​

Jesus tells us to believe in him to have everlasting life then he shows how what we do has a role in that belief.

Yes, works are "tied" to faith in that works are the result of faith.
So it is not the effects (work) that save us, it is the cause (faith).

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes, works are "tied" to faith in that works are the result of faith.
So it is not the effects (work) that save us, it is the cause (faith).

v21 "...but whoever does what is true comes to the light" John seems to suggest that good works actually plays a role in drawing us to faith. Certainly "works" alone do not save us but there seems to be room for works which leads to an expression of faith rather than the other way around. I suspect its "both and". Works and faith are inseparable parts and it doesn't matter which is more evident first.

Jesus calls the disciples to follow him first not to believe in him. The "following" was not an expression of faith instead the faith was learnt by following.

 

[Rick Otto]

v21 "...but whoever does what is true comes to the light" John seems to suggest that good works actually plays a role in drawing us to faith. Certainly "works" alone do not save us but there seems to be room for works which leads to an expression of faith rather than the other way around. I suspect its "both and". Works and faith are inseparable parts and it doesn't matter which is more evident first.

Jesus calls the disciples to follow him first not to believe in him. The "following" was not an expression of faith instead the faith was learnt by following.

I totally disagree.
The part works play is the part called "effects". No one performs a work of faith without first having faith.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I totally disagree.
The part works play is the part called "effects". No one performs a work of faith without first having faith.

Basing that on the law of cause and effect to which God is no respecter of persons according to His laws ... the action is within the reaction to the One acting.
IOW, the question should be does a person need to believe faithfully that God's actions/teachings should be reacted to in order to create a work ... or is the work's only countability is that which is outside of any (even natural) law and therefore within the realm of what would be called miracles because the reaction was only in yielding to a greater power.

 

[Rick Otto]

Basing that on the law of cause and effect to which God is no respecter of persons according to His laws ... the action is within the reaction to the One acting.
IOW, the question should be does a person need to believe faithfully that God's actions/teachings should be reacted to in order to create a work ... or is the work's only countability is that which is outside of any (even natural) law and therefore within the realm of what would be called miracles because the reaction was only in yielding to a greater power.

Ya lost me. What is your point, here Lady C?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, works are "tied" to faith in that works are the result of faith.
So it is not the effects (work) that save us, it is the cause (faith).

Because you brought this into the realm of cause and effect, that being a natural law of God in the same way that gravity is or eating too much will cause a tummy ache thereby suffering consequences like falling off a cliff ... the natural law's only cause is God.
I'm questioning your analogy as beginning from a falsehood to reach an unrealistic conclusion.

 

[Rick Otto]

Because you brought this into the realm of cause and effect, that being a natural law of God in the same way that gravity is or eating too much will cause a tummy ache thereby suffering consequences like falling off a cliff ... the natural law's only cause is God.
I'm questioning your analogy as beginning from a falsehood to reach an unrealistic conclusion.

OK.
I don't see analogy.
I see faith as a cause of works (of faith).
What's the analogy, and how is faith not the motivating cause of works?

a·nal·o·gy
[əˈnaləjē]
similarity · parallel · correspondence · likeness · resemblance ·
correlation · relation · kinship · equivalence · similitude · metaphor · simile

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

OK.
I don't see analogy.
I see faith as a cause of works (of faith).
What's the analogy, and how is faith not the motivating cause of works?

It's just not cause and effect in it's reality. If it were then it would be faith as the work of God thru an motiveless vessel.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's just not cause and effect in it's reality. If it were then it would be faith as the work of God thru an motiveless vessel.

What I'm seeing is faith as the work of God through what had been a hostile vessel.

Rom.5

1. [10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What I'm seeing is faith as the work of God through what had been a hostile vessel.

Rom.5

1. [10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Reconciliation would preclude propitiation because of the two-fold acts of repentance and redemption that accomplish the reconciliation that begins at the change of mind (Romans 12:1-2). So God's saving work takes place instantaneously upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no logical procession. IT JUST IS.
Propitiation places God into the position to act on our behalf. With that comes a wanting to do good b/c of the place of high esteem one finds oneself. That's because of the justification which can also be translated the suffering that fills up the body's part that is left undone in Christ's suffering. Colossians 1:24
The afflictions of Christ are of two categories: those for accomplishing redemption, which were completed by Christ Himself, and those for producing and building the church, which need to be filled up by the apostles and the believers.

So anyway, it may be my interpretation of works that is lacking because I see works as incorperating (in an individual way) ( as in juztaposition to corperately) the things that Christ has left as our inheritance now. In order to access the future rewards that only come from overcoming before the stone kingdom.

I know few people will follow the logic of that, cept a few, because as communially speaking my voice has not been heard for a long time and it's much to catch up on.

Color me living in Boring, Boring with little left to say.

( My own interpretation of sucker punch)

Hope that answered your question, which I think was what was anolgezic about that and I said nothing.

 

[DamianWarS]

I totally disagree.
The part works play is the part called "effects". No one performs a work of faith without first having faith.

Which part do you disagree with? Certainly as you said no one performs a work of faith without first having faith. The problem is I missed the part of the text that speaks about a "work of faith"