The third chapter of John

[janxharris]

This section is talking ONLY about Believers. It has reference to no others. Read it again.

The very passage you point to as proof of your position undermines it completely. Paul is talking about Believers, and ONLY Believers here.

So the 'all' of v.23 is 'all believers'? 'For all believers have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'? Aren't you ignoring the fact that vv.10-20 establishes that all men are the context (indeed, such verses being the beloved of Calvinism's total depravity)?

There is nothing in the verses you cite that serves to redefine 'all' so that we may say that v.25a is restricted to believers only. And since you have already admitted that you aren't sure if 1 Corinthians 15:3 was or was not preached to the unsaved then your position does seem rather unconvincing. If you don't know, then do you know exactly what the constitutes the Gospel? And why say this:

We are charged to share the Gospel indiscriminately. The results of that are not up to us, nor in our hands. We are not told who God has chosen to save. That's His venue.

Is Romans 3:25a the Gospel or not? If Romans 3:25a is for believers only, why respond by saying that unbelievers reject it:

Me:
Telling unbelievers, indeed telling those that will never believe, that they should have faith in Christ's blood proves that that such blood was shed for them.

You:
No, it doesn't. Those who will never believe will not receive the words of the Gospel. They will reject them. That's not the fault of the preacher or the Gospel itself.

?

If such a Gospel is not to be preached to them, how can they reject it?

 

[nobdysfool]

So the 'all' of v.23 is 'all believers'? 'For all believers have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'? Aren't you ignoring the fact that vv.10-20 establishes that all men are the context (indeed, such verses being the beloved of Calvinism's total depravity)?

That is not what I said. Please understand that I know a bit about sentence structure, word usage, and how to read with comprehension. If you care to look at what I quoted, which was what you quoted and posted, the sentence structure, clauses, etc. all support that the benefits bought by Christ are for them that believe. I even highlighted and enlarged and bolded it to make it plain. How did you miss it?

There is nothing in the verses you cite that serves to redefine 'all' so that we may say that v.25a is restricted to believers only.

"whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

Funny, I don't see the word "all" in verse 25a. Where is it? You are reading that into it, because it isn't there.

And since you have already admitted that you aren't sure if 1 Corinthians 15:3 was or was not preached to the unsaved then your position does seem rather unconvincing.

Where did I say that? Cite the post, or withdraw the charge.

If you don't know, then do you know exactly what the constitutes the Gospel?

A false charge, and a personal attack. I do know what the Gospel is, apparently in more detail, too.

And why say this:

We are charged to share the Gospel indiscriminately. The results of that are not up to us, nor in our hands. We are not told who God has chosen to save. That's His venue.

I say it because it is a true statement. Prove that it's wrong. What did Jesus charge us to do? "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be condemned." No mention of disclaimers, or pre-determining who will believe, as your theology insists on.

Is Romans 3:25a the Gospel or not? If Romans 3:25a is for believers only, why respond by saying that unbelievers reject it:

Me:
Telling unbelievers, indeed telling those that will never believe, that they should have faith in Christ's blood proves that that such blood was shed for them.

You:
No, it doesn't. Those who will never believe will not receive the words of the Gospel. They will reject them. That's not the fault of the preacher or the Gospel itself.

?

If such a Gospel is not to be preached to them, how can they reject it?

Where did I say it was not to be preached? I DIDN'T! That's YOUR trumped up charge against Calvinists, demanding that we must give some sort of disclaimer before we share the gospel. Romans 3:25a is not the whole of the Gospel, nor should it be treated as such. And, as I have shown, nothing in Romans 3:25a refers to all of mankind. It specifically refers to those who believe. That is not all of mankind, no matter how you slice it.

It was you who claimed that whether they believe it or not is irrelevant. Unbelievers reject the Gospel 100% of the time, unless and until God regenerates their heart and opens their ears to hear and receive. We don't do that regenerating, and opening of ears, not by the eloquence of preaching, not by persuasiveness, not by any artifice of man. God is the ONLY One who does so, AS HE WILLS. We are charged to preach the Gospel. God's job is to make it effectual for those whom He has chosen, at that time.

Are you even understanding what I'm saying? It doesn't look like it.

If you think that Romans 3:25a is the entirety of the gospel, then get it tattooed on your forehead and you won't have to say a word.

It is clear here that discussing this is a waste of time, since there is no interest on your part in being enlightened, and you'd rather waste time attacking your own brethren in Christ, than expend that energy fighting the real enemy, which, just to be clear, is NOT Calvinists, or Calvinism.

 

[janxharris]

That is not what I said. Please understand that I know a bit about sentence structure, word usage, and how to read with comprehension. If you care to look at what I quoted, which was what you quoted and posted, the sentence structure, clauses, etc. all support that the benefits bought by Christ are for them that believe. I even highlighted and enlarged and bolded it to make it plain. How did you miss it?

This what you said:
This section is talking ONLY about Believers. It has reference to no others. Read it again.
The very passage you point to as proof of your position undermines it completely. Paul is talking about Believers, and ONLY Believers here.

The section you cite contains v.23. Whom is it that Paul says have fallen short? 'All' or 'all believers'?
The context is established in vv.10-20.

"whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."
Funny, I don't see the word "all" in verse 25a. Where is it? You are reading that into it, because it isn't there.

Nor do we see 'just believers'. The context continues to be all men as is clear from v.23.

Where did I say that? Cite the post, or withdraw the charge.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7843406-26/#post66449820

Me:

Until you explicitly respond to whether Paul preached 'Christ died for our sins' to the unsaved then I can't really respond.

You:

The truth is, I don't know, and neither do you. Neither of us was there. You ASSUME that he did because your theology requires it. That doesn't pass the smell test. That's called eisegesis. You are reading into the text what you want it to say. I reject that methodology.

__________________

I say it because it is a true statement. Prove that it's wrong. What did Jesus charge us to do? "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be condemned." No mention of disclaimers, or pre-determining who will believe, as your theology insists on.

So Romans 3:25a is the Gospel and is to be preached...just not to unbelievers. That is a clear position regarding the Gospel is it?

Where did I say it was not to be preached? I DIDN'T! That's YOUR trumped up charge against Calvinists, demanding that we must give some sort of disclaimer before we share the gospel. Romans 3:25a is not the whole of the Gospel, nor should it be treated as such. And, as I have shown, nothing in Romans 3:25a refers to all of mankind. It specifically refers to those who believe. That is not all of mankind, no matter how you slice it.

So something that only applies to believers can be preached to whomever - can be preached to those who will never believe - those for whom such words do not apply? Am I understanding you correctly?

It was you who claimed that whether they believe it or not is irrelevant. Unbelievers reject the Gospel 100% of the time, unless and until God regenerates their heart and opens their ears to hear and receive. We don't do that regenerating, and opening of ears, not by the eloquence of preaching, not by persuasiveness, not by any artifice of man. God is the ONLY One who does so, AS HE WILLS. We are charged to preach the Gospel. God's job is to make it effectual for those whom He has chosen, at that time.

Are you even understanding what I'm saying? It doesn't look like it.

If you think that Romans 3:25a is the entirety of the gospel, then get it tattooed on your forehead and you won't have to say a word.

It is clear here that discussing this is a waste of time, since there is no interest on your part in being enlightened, and you'd rather waste time attacking your own brethren in Christ, than expend that energy fighting the real enemy, which, just to be clear, is NOT Calvinists, or Calvinism.

It is not relevant to this thread.

 

[nobdysfool]

This what you said:
This section is talking ONLY about Believers. It has reference to no others. Read it again.
The very passage you point to as proof of your position undermines it completely. Paul is talking about Believers, and ONLY Believers here.

The section you cite contains v.23. Whom is it that Paul says have fallen short? 'All' or 'all believers'?
The context is established in vv.10-20.

Funny how all of a sudden context is important, when before you showed that it didn't matter. I addressed the content of what you posted. in that section, believers were the focus, not all mankind. Yes, Paul made reference to all mankind in regard to their condemnation. but Paul did not address all mankind when talking about those who believe. I stand by what I said regarding that.

Nor do we see 'just believers'. The context continues to be all men as is clear from v.23.

What part of "those who believe" are you not getting?

So Romans 3:25a is the Gospel and is to be preached...just not to unbelievers. That is a clear position regarding the Gospel is it?

That bears no resemblance to what I said. You keep inserting your own delusion into the discussion and try to make it appear we said things we did not say. That is dishonest.

So something that only applies to believers can be preached to whomever - can be preached to those who will never believe - those for whom such words do not apply? Am I understanding you correctly?

No, you're not, because you don't want to. What applies to believers is the benefits of Christ's actions. They are the only one who receive benefit from His actions. Unbelievers receive nothing, and by their nature, they don't want it.

It is not relevant to this thread.

It is entirely relevant to this thread because you are attacking and misrepresenting fellow believers, and wasting time doing so, instead of fighting our common enemy, who is Satan and his demonic minions. Calvinism is not the enemy here. Nor are Calvinists. Why can't you accept that we disagree and move on?

 

[janxharris]

Funny how all of a sudden context is important, when before you showed that it didn't matter.

Context is always important.

I addressed the content of what you posted. in that section, believers were the focus, not all mankind. Yes, Paul made reference to all mankind in regard to their condemnation. but Paul did not address all mankind when talking about those who believe. I stand by what I said regarding that.

You are not dealing with the fact that you consider that Paul did preach Romans 3:25a to the unsaved.

What part of "those who believe" are you not getting?

Then you will be careful not to preach v.25 to those who might never believe since it does not apply to them...but we know you think it okay to preach it to whomever.

That bears no resemblance to what I said. You keep inserting your own delusion into the discussion and try to make it appear we said things we did not say. That is dishonest.

So no clarification provided by you?

No, you're not, because you don't want to. What applies to believers is the benefits of Christ's actions. They are the only one who receive benefit from His actions. Unbelievers receive nothing, and by their nature, they don't want it.

You are contradicting yourself. Your position is that it is to be preached but it doesn't apply to all. This has all the appearance of playing fast and loose with those who will never believe. Why isn't it?

It is entirely relevant to this thread because you are attacking and misrepresenting fellow believers, and wasting time doing so, instead of fighting our common enemy, who is Satan and his demonic minions. Calvinism is not the enemy here. Nor are Calvinists. Why can't you accept that we disagree and move on?

I merely point out what I see as a contradictory position that flows from Calvinism.
Why did you not respond to my citation of proof that you were unsure whether 1 Cor. 15:3 was preached to unbelievers or not (http://www.christianforums.com/t7843406-26/#post66449820)? You said: The truth is, I don't know...

Perhaps I am rightly confused by you stance on this issue since you appear to be unsure yourself. Do you know now if it was / is to be preached to the unsaved?

 

[janxharris]

The Gospel has spiritual content which is not understood by those whose spiritual ears are not open. The opening of the spiritual ears to hear and understand is not by the eloquence of the preaching (or lack of eloquence), nor is it by the words themselves, nor by a decision of the hearer, it is by the Holy Spirit, who opens the spiritual ears of those whom He chooses, at the time and place He chooses.

Which means the preachers is rightly levelled with the charge of disingenuity. Those that will never believe are told about Christ 'whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood'. The fact that God decided (under Calvinism) not to enable then to do the very thing they are enjoined by the preacher to do (to put their faith in His blood) is not made apparent.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quit acting like a Pharisee. You are free to think what ever you want. We don't agree on this. We never will. You obviously think this is some major problem. I see it as a pimple on a gnat's nose. Inconsequential. You think Calvinists need to provide a disclaimer before they preach. I think Jesus would ask you, "why are you adding to my Word?"

The bottom line is, those whom God has chosen will believe at the time and place He has appointed. Those whom He does not chose, won't. That's what I believe Scripture says. You cannot deny that some will not believe, and will wind up in Hell. Scripture is clear about that.

But, we are charged to preach the Gospel to all. The results of that preaching are in God's hand. He is the one who makes it effectual, not you, not me, not anyone. Stick to what God has charged you to do, and don't stray from it.

And, to be clear, God did not charge you to attack and vilify Calvinists.

 

[nobdysfool]

Which means the preachers is rightly levelled with the charge of disingenuity. Those that will never believe are told about Christ 'whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood'. The fact that God decided (under Calvinism) not to enable then to do the very thing they are enjoined by the preacher to do (to put their faith in His blood) is not made apparent.

They wouldn't do it even if they were told. How many believe the Gospel when the preacher preaches? As many as God has ordained. It isn't a man-centered, or man-made decision. No man can just decide to believe any time he chooses. That's the glaring fault of your theology. You have this idea that when it comes to the Gospel, no matter how bad the man is, he is morally neutral, able to choose either way with equal ability to believe or not believe. Not one verse in Scripture supports such an idea. NOT ONE!

Your charge against Calvinists is false, it is bogus, it has no substance, it is of no value. It is a trumped-up charge to justify a refusal to accept and believe the Truth.

 

[janxharris]

They wouldn't do it even if they were told. How many believe the Gospel when the preacher preaches? As many as God has ordained. It isn't a man-centered, or man-made decision. No man can just decide to believe any time he chooses. That's the glaring fault of your theology. You have this idea that when it comes to the Gospel, no matter how bad the man is, he is morally neutral, able to choose either way with equal ability to believe or not believe. Not one verse in Scripture supports such an idea. NOT ONE!

Your charge against Calvinists is false, it is bogus, it has no substance, it is of no value. It is a trumped-up charge to justify a refusal to accept and believe the Truth.

Romans 10:5
Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Romans 10:5
Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Good scriptures. However, that is not the whole of it, and there is that one little phrase that Paul includes, which prevents it from saying what you want it to say. That phase is:

that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim

Only those who hear and understand the Gospel message, who have been pricked in their heart, will get to this point. Man cannot just decide anytime he wants. Decisional Regeneration (or decisional salvation, take your pick) is not biblical. Man cannot just decide to be born again. The new birth is from God

 

[sdowney717]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Good scriptures. However, that is not the whole of it, and there is that one little phrase that Paul includes, which prevents it from saying what you want it to say. That phase is:

[/SIZE][/FONT]that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim

Only those who hear and understand the Gospel message, who have been pricked in their heart, will get to this point. Man cannot just decide anytime he wants. Decisional Regeneration (or decisional salvation, take your pick) is not biblical. Man cannot just decide to be born again. The new birth is from God

A good proof text of that is

1 Cor 12

3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

People who confess Jesus out-loud as LORD are saved people, due to the Holy Spirit who has done His work in their hearts. I suppose an unsaved person could say such a thing, but mostly they take His name in vain.
But if they did say such a thing, it would only be the power of God speaking through them.

 

[janxharris]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Good scriptures. However, that is not the whole of it, and there is that one little phrase that Paul includes, which prevents it from saying what you want it to say. That phase is:

[/SIZE][/FONT]that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim

Only those who hear and understand the Gospel message, who have been pricked in their heart, will get to this point. Man cannot just decide anytime he wants. Decisional Regeneration (or decisional salvation, take your pick) is not biblical. Man cannot just decide to be born again. The new birth is from God

But you have not addressed what Paul says when he quotes from Deuteronomy. Moses says that:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

Though Paul does not quote v.11 ('not too difficult or beyond your reach'), Moses uses such words to describe that which Paul does quote (v.12 - 'It is not up in heaven...'). Now if we contrast this with what you said, then there is a clear difference:
"You have this idea that when it comes to the Gospel, no matter how bad the man is, he is morally neutral, able to choose either way with equal ability to believe or not believe. Not one verse in Scripture supports such an idea. NOT ONE! "

Essentially, you are claiming that man is not able to choose to believe, but Moses says: 'not too difficult or beyond your reach'

 

[janxharris]

A good proof text of that is

1 Cor 12


People who confess Jesus out-loud as LORD are saved people, due to the Holy Spirit who has done His work in their hearts. I suppose an unsaved person could say such a thing, but mostly they take His name in vain.
But if they did say such a thing, it would only be the power of God speaking through them.

Please address the OP first. If the Holy Spirit only comes upon the unconditional elect, then the rest have no access to salvation. They would be condemned (John 3:18) for not believing in Christ - and since Romans 3:25 ('through faith in His blood') constitutes the Gospel, then they are condemned for not believing in that which five-point Calvinists say they have been excluded from.

 

[janxharris]

...You obviously think this is some major problem. I see it as a pimple on a gnat's nose. Inconsequential...

And yet you have not dealt with it. Those who will never believe are enjoined to believe in the very blood five-pointers say they have been excluded from. That is untenable and unconscionable.

 

[nobdysfool]

And yet you have not dealt with it. Those who will never believe are enjoined to believe in the very blood five-pointers say they have been excluded from. That is untenable and unconscionable.

I actually have dealt with it, and come to a conclusion that you refuse to accept. That's not my problem.

Underlying your stance is what seems to be a belief that all men must be afforded a "chance" to be saved. This denies that all mankind are actually deserving of the condemnation that they are under, because they are sinners. It seems that in your view, unless man has the "opportunity" to receive or reject Christ, it is only AFTER they have rejected Christ that they can be condemned, and even then I think that you secretly believe that even that is unjust.

It also seems that you believe that the only sin man will be condemned for is the sin of unbelief, that all other sins have been washed away. Some of your compadres even go so far as to say that unbelief is the unforgiveable sin, ignoring the very words of Jesus who clearly taught exactly what that sin was (and it wasn't unbelief).

There also seems to be a belief that you hold that thinks that with regard to the Gospel, man is morally neutral, and can with equal ability choose to accept or reject its message, that the unsaved man can actually understand the import of the message, and make an informed decision about it. This points to a belief that receiving the Gospel is basically an intellectual exercise, and it is only after that intellectual decision that God renews the heart. This flies in the face of Scripture, and is a refual to accept that mankind is depraved, wholly sinful, incorrigibly so, and cannot save himself, and in reality doesn't want to. Mankind is not just sick in sins, they are dead in sins.

And so now you try to accuse Calvinists of lying to the unsaved and being inconsistent in our beliefs, in the mistaken belief that somehow this will undercut Calvinism. The problem is, this only exists in your mind. Nobody else is buying it.

 

[janxharris]

I actually have dealt with it, and come to a conclusion that you refuse to accept. That's not my problem.

Underlying your stance is what seems to be a belief that all men must be afforded a "chance" to be saved. This denies that all mankind are actually deserving of the condemnation that they are under, because they are sinners. It seems that in your view, unless man has the "opportunity" to receive or reject Christ, it is only AFTER they have rejected Christ that they can be condemned, and even then I think that you secretly believe that even that is unjust.

Scripture is clear that we are all dead in our sins and deserving of wrath. I don't disagree.

It also seems that you believe that the only sin man will be condemned for is the sin of unbelief, that all other sins have been washed away. Some of your compadres even go so far as to say that unbelief is the unforgiveable sin, ignoring the very words of Jesus who clearly taught exactly what that sin was (and it wasn't unbelief).

John 8:24 is clear that we die in ours sins if we do not believe.

There also seems to be a belief that you hold that thinks that with regard to the Gospel, man is morally neutral, and can with equal ability choose to accept or reject its message, that the unsaved man can actually understand the import of the message, and make an informed decision about it. This points to a belief that receiving the Gospel is basically an intellectual exercise, and it is only after that intellectual decision that God renews the heart. This flies in the face of Scripture, and is a refual to accept that mankind is depraved, wholly sinful, incorrigibly so, and cannot save himself, and in reality doesn't want to. Mankind is not just sick in sins, they are dead in sins.

You've yet to refute Romans 10 / Deuteronomy 30. Yes, men are depraved. No, it's not just an intellectual exercise.

And so now you try to accuse Calvinists of lying to the unsaved and being inconsistent in our beliefs, in the mistaken belief that somehow this will undercut Calvinism. The problem is, this only exists in your mind. Nobody else is buying it.

Nothing here that actually deals with the anomaly.

 

[nobdysfool]

Scripture is clear that we are all dead in our sins and deserving of wrath. I don't disagree.

Good.

John 8:24 is clear that we die in ours sins if we do not believe.

Encouraging.

You've yet to refute Romans 10 / Deuteronomy 30.

Refute?? There's nothing to refute, those passages just do not say what you think they do. I fully accept them. they present no problem for Calvinism at all.

Yes, men are depraved.

Glad you realize that.

No, it's not just an intellectual exercise.

Then it is not in man's power to decide to believe any time he wants.

Nothing here that actually deals with the anomaly.

Actually it does. I'm examining underlying beliefs that lead to it. I am trying to uncover where you went wrong. For you, you see an anomaly, and think it presents a huge problem to Calvinists, and quite frankly, we don't see a problem at all. In our eyes, we don't see an anomaly. That's why we're scratching our heads, wondering what you're going on about.

 

[janxharris]

Refute?? There's nothing to refute, those passages just do not say what you think they do. I fully accept them. they present no problem for Calvinism at all.

Then you will make a response to http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-46/#post66686002.

Nothing so far.

Actually it does. I'm examining underlying beliefs that lead to it. I am trying to uncover where you went wrong. For you, you see an anomaly, and think it presents a huge problem to Calvinists, and quite frankly, we don't see a problem at all. In our eyes, we don't see an anomaly. That's why we're scratching our heads, wondering what you're going on about.

Those who will never believe are told to have faith in Christ's blood which was never shed for them. No shedding of blood means no regeneration and so no enabling to believe in that blood. It is an anomaly.

There is no 'we' regarding this anomaly in Calvinism. You know very well that some argue that Paul never intended Romans 3:25 to be preached to unbelievers.

Are you going to respond to this (http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-45/#post66682163):

Why did you not respond to my citation of proof that you were unsure whether 1 Cor. 15:3 was preached to unbelievers or not (http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-46/t7843.../#post66449820)? You said: The truth is, I don't know...

Perhaps I am rightly confused by you stance on this issue since you appear to be unsure yourself. Do you know now if it was / is to be preached to the unsaved?

 

[nobdysfool]

But you have not addressed what Paul says when he quotes from Deuteronomy. Moses says that:
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

Though Paul does not quote v.11 ('not too difficult or beyond your reach'), Moses uses such words to describe that which Paul does quote (v.12 - 'It is not up in heaven...'). Now if we contrast this with what you said, then there is a clear difference:
"You have this idea that when it comes to the Gospel, no matter how bad the man is, he is morally neutral, able to choose either way with equal ability to believe or not believe. Not one verse in Scripture supports such an idea. NOT ONE! "

Essentially, you are claiming that man is not able to choose to believe, but Moses says: 'not too difficult or beyond your reach'

Has it ever occurred to you that Paul quoted it differently because there is a change in the covenant? You cannot apply what Moses said without understanding that he was talking to Israel, God's Chosen people at that time, not to the world at large.

Even Paul was not talking to the world at large, but teaching those who were already saved. And it is a fact that unless the Holy Spirit FIRST does a work in the listener's heart (regeneration) that man will choose to reject the Gospel. Every time.

You've got your knickers in a knot over something that you are wrongly blaming on Calvinists, when your real problem is with God. We are charged to preach the Gospel indiscriminately to all men, and we are NOT charged with trying to figure out who will believe and who won't. Nor are we given that information. We preach, God saves. Period.

What you don't like is the way God has chosen to save people or not save them, as He wills. Your issue is with God, not with Calvinists. Take it up with Him, and leaves us out of it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Then you will make a response to http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-46/#post66686002.

Nothing so far.

Done.

Those who will never believe are told to have faith in Christ's blood which was never shed for them. No shedding of blood means no regeneration and so no enabling to believe in that blood. It is an anomaly.

No it is not. Your problem is with God, not with Calvinists.

There is no 'we' regarding this anomaly in Calvinism. You know very well that some argue that Paul never intended Romans 3:25 to be preached to unbelievers.

I know it bothers you that Calvinists don't all march in lock step. Don't drag other people into this. We are speaking to each other. I do not answer for anyone else but myself. We all have our own understanding of Scripture, and some are more mature than others. Don't talk to me about anyone else because that is irrelevant to our conversation.

Are you going to respond to this (http://www.christianforums.com/t7840224-45/#post66682163):

I already answered it.

Let me make myself clear: Do NOT demand anything from me. Ask, all you want. Demand something from me, and you will be reported. I will not be spoken to any longer the way you have spoken to me. Show respect, and you'll get it in return. Demand and vilify, and speak evil of what I believe, and there will be consequences.

Perhaps you should read the rules again.