Total Inability: Genesis 1-4

[OzSpen]

Not being hypocritical. You have yet to actually answer any of my questions, simply answering them with more questions and jabs rather than actually addressing the questions. Let's take a look at what the Scriptures teach, and step away from personal presuppositions and college degrees.

1.) We know that Salvation cannot be Unlimited because the Scriptures speak of a specific people of God

~ Deuteronomy 10:14-15
~ Psalms 33:12
~ Psalms 65:4
~ Psalms 106:5
~ Matthew 11:27
~ Matthew 22:14
~ Matthew 24:22
~ Matthew 24:24
~ Matthew 24: 31
~ Luke 18:7
~ Romans 8:28-30
~ Romans 8:33
~ Romans 11:28
~ Colossians 3:12
~ Titus 1:1
~ 1 Peter 2:8-9

- This election preceded Salvation
~ Romans 11:7
~ 2 Timothy 2:10
~ Acts 13:48
~ 1 Thessalonians 1:4
~ 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
~ Ephesians 1:4

Jesus came to actually save sinners, not to make them savable. He did not merely throw out his blood for all to latch onto; He made his blood effective for those whom He chose by the power of His spirit.

~ Matthew 1:21
~ Luke 19:10
~ 2 Corinthians 5:21
~ Galatians 1:3-4
~ 1 Timothy 1:15
~ Titus 2:14
~ 1 Peter 3:18

Notice how none of these verses mentions Christ's blood being unlimited, but rather saying that it accomplishes its goals. It does not give the choice to man, but rather gives all the power to Christ, who claims that He saves sinners.

The result of Christ's blood is expressed to be reconciliation and justification.

~ Romans 5:10
~ 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
~ Ephesians 2:15-16
~ Colossians 1:21-22
~ Romans 3:24-25
~ Romans 5:8-9
~ 1 Corinthians 1:30
~ Hebrews 9:12
~ 1 Peter 2:24

How can everyone then be covered by Christ's blood? If the result of the application of His blood is reconciliation and justification, if this blood covers all then all are reconciled to Him, and therefore all are saved.

Another result of Christ's blood is the regeneration and sanctification.

~ Ephesians 1:3-4
~ Philippians 1:29
~ Acts 5:31
~ Titus 2:14
~ Titus 3:5-6
~ Ephesians 5:25-26
~ 1 Corinthians 1:30
~ Hebrews 9:14
~ Hebrews 13:12
~ 1 John 1:7

Again, if the result of the application of His blood is always regeneration and sanctification, how could He have died for all men? This would mean that all men are regenerated and sanctified, which we know is not true!

Christ Himself speaks of His people in finite terms; and He speaks of His work as effective for His people and them alone.

~ John 6:35-40
~ John 10:11-18
~ John 10:24-29

Jesus, in His high priestly prayer, does not pray for the entire world, but for those whom the Father has given to Him.

~ John 17:1-11
~ John 17:20
~ John 17: 24-26


How Jesus died for "All", and yet for a particular people.

Some passages speak of Christ dying for "all" men and of His death as saving the "world", yet others speak of His death as being definite in design and of His dying for a particular people and securing salvation for them.

1.) There are 2 classes of texts that speak of Christ's saving work in general terms:
a.) Those containing the word "world"
~ John 1:9
~ John 1:29
~ John 3:16-17
~ John 4:42
~ 2 Corinthians 5:19
~ 1 John 2:1-2
b.) Those containing the word "all"
~ Romans 5:18
~ 2 Corinthians 5:14-15
~ 1 Timothy 2:4-6
~ Hebrews 2:9
~ 2 Peter 3:9

One of the reasons for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews only. Such phrases as "the world", "all men", "all nations", and "every creature" were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men with out distinction, but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception.

There are many passages that speak of Christ's work in definite terms:
~ Matthew 1:21
~ Matthew 20:28
~ Matthew 26:28
~ John 10:11
~ John 11:50-53
~ Acts 20:28
~ Ephesians 5:25-27
~ Romans 8:32-34
~ Hebrews 2:17
~ Hebrews 3:1
~ Hebrews 9:15
~ Hebrews 9:28


We are left with 4 options regarding Christ's death:

1.) Christ died for all sins of all men.
2.) Some sins of some men
3.) Some sins of all men.
4.) All sins of some men

- If 1 is correct, then what about the sin of unbelief? He died for ALL sins, so this would include the sin of unbelief, therefore all men would be saved.

- If 2 or 3 is correct, then there are still some sins that are not covered, which means that no one is saved.

- If 4 is correct, then we see the exact same thing that the Scriptures teach: That Christ died for His people, and that not everyone is of His people.


The word hypocrite is a very strong word, so while were throwing them around, how about heretic? Because believing that man's salvation is in his own hands is a heresy that goes back to a serpent in the garden of Eden.

Mjh,

I agree with you on one point: There are specific people of God. They were under the Old Covenant and since the cross & resurrection, they are under the requirements of the New Testament.

It's no good giving me a string of verses from OT and NT that encourage the theology you try to promote. I didn't see Matt 23:37; John 12:32; Titus 2:11; and 1 John 2:2. These verses lead to the shipwreck of your Calvinistic ship.

You ask:

How can everyone then be covered by Christ's blood? If the result of the application of His blood is reconciliation and justification, if this blood covers all then all are reconciled to Him, and therefore all are saved.

That's your presuppositional error. The truth is that 'the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people' (Titus 2:11 NIV).

Oz

 

[atpollard]

atp,

That's because this is what Hitler did:

‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing' (Matt 23:37 NIV). Or as the NIRV puts it, 'And you would not let me!'.​

Jesus died for the sins of wicked OzSpen, Idi Amin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Emperor Diocletian, the Auca Indians who murdered the missionaries in Ecuador, etc.

The grace of God has been extended to all people (Titus 2:11) but people resist and are not willing to come to Jesus. Why? Romans 1:18 gives one of the reasons: 'But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (NLT).

Seems that you can't understand universal atonement (that does not lead to universal salvation) because you can't comprehend 'you were not willing', i.e. free will given to all people to accept or reject the grace of God in salvation.

Oz

I really have to ask ... do you have a comprehension problem?

I mean how can someone come in an make claims of theological superiority because of their PhD and have so much difficulty following a simple conversation that they need to jump in and offer completely inappropriate correction.

GodsGrace and I were discussing Limited vs Unlimited atonement and I commented that Unlimited Atonement carried the “logic” challenge that God was punishing the same sin twice. She asked for clarification how God was punishing the same sin twice, so I offered the example of Adolph Hitler because I knew that Adolph was an occultist and not a Christian, so I could safely present a scenario where he died unrepentant. That is what my post was about, explaining how Jesus was punished for all sins and those that burn in Hell are also punished for those same sins.

Do you deny that Jesus was punished for all sins?
Do you deny that some people go to Hell?
Do you deny that the people that go to Hell are punished for their sins?

If you disagree with none of those statements of “fact”, then you have nothing in my post to correct!
In any event, you certainly had no cause to be insulting towards me. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about your PhD ... your Christianity sucks. I don’t think I have any more interest in suffering smug abuse from you. Please just leave me alone, you have nothing to teach that I want to learn.

 

[prism]

You are obviously terrified of confronting the truth well established by modern scholarship.

You understand that 'modern scholarship is 2000 years removed from the event compared to the eyewitnesses who were there?

 

[OzSpen]

You understand that 'modern scholarship is 2000 years removed from the event compared to the eyewitnesses who were there?

However, we are dealing with 3 translated languages of the original MSS where the meaning of words, grammar and syntax are very different to English.

If it weren't for modern scholarship, we wouldn't have translations of the Bible.

 

[OzSpen]

I really have to ask ... do you have a comprehension problem?

I mean how can someone come in an make claims of theological superiority because of their PhD and have so much difficulty following a simple conversation that they need to jump in and offer completely inappropriate correction.

GodsGrace and I were discussing Limited vs Unlimited atonement and I commented that Unlimited Atonement carried the “logic” challenge that God was punishing the same sin twice. She asked for clarification how God was punishing the same sin twice, so I offered the example of Adolph Hitler because I knew that Adolph was an occultist and not a Christian, so I could safely present a scenario where he died unrepentant. That is what my post was about, explaining how Jesus was punished for all sins and those that burn in Hell are also punished for those same sins.

Do you deny that Jesus was punished for all sins?
Do you deny that some people go to Hell?
Do you deny that the people that go to Hell are punished for their sins?

If you disagree with none of those statements of “fact”, then you have nothing in my post to correct!
In any event, you certainly had no cause to be insulting towards me. Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about your PhD ... your Christianity sucks. I don’t think I have any more interest in suffering smug abuse from you. Please just leave me alone, you have nothing to teach that I want to learn.

atp,

I sincerely apologise for causing you offense and interrupting your topical conversation with GodsGrace on the atonement. It was not my intent to cause you this kind of upset.

I encourage you to use non-offensive language when responding to others and me.

Proverbs 15:1 gives wise advice for all of us: 'A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger' (NIV).

Blessings in Christ,
Oz

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

This is unbiblical teaching. Joshua 24:14-22 (ESV) confirms it:

14 “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

16 Then the people answered, “Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods, 17 for it is the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed. 18 And the Lord drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the Lord, for he is our God.”

19 But Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. 20 If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good.” 21 And the people said to Joshua, “No, but we will serve the Lord.” 22 Then Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord, to serve him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.”​

You promote false theology with your statement. It cannot be confirmed by the totality of Scripture.

Who are the people Jesus draws to salvation? John 12:32 (ESV) is crystal clear: 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself"'.

Oz

Joshua 24 confirms no such thing.

eccl8:
11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

eccl9:
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

 

[Enoch111]

Do you deny that Jesus was punished for all sins? Do you deny that some people go to Hell? Do you deny that the people that go to Hell are punished for their sins?

Since it is clear from the Gospel that the atoning work of Christ for the whole world applies ONLY to those who obey the Gospel, it should also be evident that those who fail to obey the Gospel are punished for their sins, but primarily for the sin of unbelief.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Rev 21:8)

REVELATION 20
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The strawman fallacy of Calvinism is that if Christ did indeed die for the sins of the whole world, then all should be automatically saved. Since all are not saved, Christ died only for the so-called *elect*.

 

[prism]

However, we are dealing with 3 translated languages of the original MSS where the meaning of words, grammar and syntax are very different to English.

If it weren't for modern scholarship, we wouldn't have translations of the Bible.

Do you mean the modern scholarship that denies the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Exactly which modern scholarship are you referring to because many 'scholars' have varying opinions and many of them are not regenerate.

1 Corinthians 2:5-7,10,12,14,16 KJVS
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. [6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: [10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Enoch111]

Do you mean the modern scholarship that denies the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Modern scholarship generally cannot be trusted. Christians beware of so-called *scholars* whose primary objective is to undermine the Bible and God's truth. Indeed *Modernism* is another word for theological liberalism, and theological liberalism is another word for apostasy.

 

[OzSpen]

The same people that insist on telling me that "every person without exception" was drawn in John 3, refuse to touch the fact that in John 6:44 everyone drawn comes to Jesus and is raised to eternal life at the last day. I know it does not say "to eternal life" in John 6:44 but what is the point of the verse in its context if God draws and teaches and raises you to eternal damnation? [... and people accuse the God of Calvinism of being a monster. :) ]

atp,

I agree that John 6:44 teaches that people need to be 'drawn' by the Father to receive eternal life. However, does God only draw a select, fixed number of people for salvation?

When I examine the context of 6:37, it states, 'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out' (ESV). That sounds like predestination, as understood by Calvinism, is signed, sealed and delivered. Only those drawn by the Father will come, but there is a handicap: the language is 'whoever comes'.

However, 6:47 states that 'whoever believes has eternal life'.

Are there limitations on God's drawing power? There certainly are according to the Presbyterian and Reformed standard in the Westminster Confession of Faith: (2) WCF 3:3-4 – Some are predestined to eternal life, others foreordained to death; this number is fixed.

There is a stumbling block in John 12:32 - so it seems: 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself’ (ESV). How can ALL people be drawn to Jesus if only the ones given by the Father - the limited number of the elect - are the drawn ones. That sounds like a contradiction to me.

Don Carson (Calvinistic commentator) gets around it with the interpretation of

Here, ‘all men’ reminds the reader of what triggered these statements, viz. the arrival of the Greeks, and means ‘all people without distinction, Jews and Gentiles alike’, not all individuals without exception, since the surrounding context has just established judgment as a major theme (v. 31) (Carson 1991:444).
That's a typical Calvinistic technique of making 'all men/people' equal 'all kinds of people and not every person in the world'.

BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM ...

John 6:37 teaches:

• ‘all that’ refers to the mass of people, ‘each individual’;
• The neuter ‘him that’ (‘whoever’ ESV) is ‘the neuter singular and is used as an abstract expression and as such sums up the whole mass of believers of all ages and speaks of them as a unit’ (Lenski 1943:463).
• ‘All believers are regarded as one complete unit’ (Vincent 1887/1946:150).

Lenski considers this passage (John 6:37 ff) teaches, "the gift as having been made once for all and now being permanent as such a gift…. For all that the Father “gives to me,” Jesus says, “shall get to me … because the Father’s gift cannot possibly fail…. In v. 39 the perfect tense, “all that he has given to me,” pictures the gift from the viewpoint of the last day when Jesus will appear and will not have lost any part of the gift" (Lenski 1887/1946:464).

John 6:37 (ESV) states, 'Whoever comes to me...', so it amounts to a personal, voluntary decision, based on God's drawing (v 44) and it is because of God's grace alone. It will be effective and is capable of changing the unwilling person into the willing - not irresistible or by coercion. People can stubbornly refuse to come to Christ. But the one who comes is able to do so because of God's wonderful power of grace: 'For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people' (Titus 2:11 NIV).

John 12:32 is possible because of Jesus' gracious drawing. Everyone is drawn but because of their depraved stubbornness, it nullifies the power of grace and leads to hardening of the heart. Matt 23:37 gives an example of how this happens: 'Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!' (NRSVA)

From an examination of these verses, I conclude that the biblical emphasis is that God provides salvation, extends his grace to all people, but they can be stubborn and resist his offer. God does not have a fixed number in the list who are unconditionally elected, the only ones for whom Jesus died, and are irresistibly drawn by Jesus to salvation.

The latter view kills evangelism and makes God into the Almighty who shows favouritism to a certain few.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality (Rom 2:6-11 ESV).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Do you mean the modern scholarship that denies the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Exactly which modern scholarship are you referring to because many 'scholars' have varying opinions and many of them are not regenerate.

1 Corinthians 2:5-7,10,12,14,16 KJVS
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. [6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: [10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Which evangelical, Bible-believing OT, NT and theologians have you read? Have you read the entirety of the late Dr Norman Geisler's 4 volumes of systematic theology. He was one of the authors of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

 

[OzSpen]

Joshua 24 confirms no such thing.

eccl8:
11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

eccl9:
3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Anthony,

That's your assertion about Joshua 24. You haven't demonstrated it by exegesis and exposition.

As for those two verses from Ecclesiastes, to whom was the Book of Ecclesiastes written and from what perspective?

‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’
says the Teacher.
‘Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless'

3 What do people gain from all their labours
at which they toil under the sun? (Eccl 1:2-3 NIV).
​

Everything is utterly meaningless from the human perspective of life 'under the sun'. We don't seek godly advice from people who are living life from a carnal view.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Modern scholarship generally cannot be trusted. Christians beware of so-called *scholars* whose primary objective is to undermine the Bible and God's truth. Indeed *Modernism* is another word for theological liberalism, and theological liberalism is another word for apostasy.

Which authors of modern liberalism have you read and paid attention to? There's a stack of modern scholars who are committed to the authority of Scripture. Here's a sample:

Norman Geisler
Wayne Grudem
Craig Blomberg
Ravi Zacharias
Bruce Demarest
Gordon Lewis
Millard Erickson
Gordon D Fee
William Hendriksen/Simon Kistemaker
D A Carson
Gleason Archer
Ben Witherington III
Edwin M Yamouchi
Greg Koukl
Frank E Gaebelein
Carl F H Henry
Francis A Schaeffer
James Montgomery Boice
Bruce M Metzger
William Lane Craig
John Frame
Kenneth Kitchen
John Warwick Montgomery
J P Moreland
Etc.

There are many more on the list at: List of evangelical Christians - Wikipedia

 

[Earburner]

It is utter nonsense to claim that TULIP (with a P for Perseverance of the Saints) destroys assurance of salvation.

SInce that is the case, then we all, who call upon the Name of Jesus, can be assured that His promise is true!
Rom. 10[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[Heart2Soul]

GENESIS 4:


[Genesis 4:6-7 NASB] 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 "If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."


Observation: God offers a warning to Cain that sin and death are waiting for him if he continues on his present path. Cain has every opportunity to use his free will to obey the warning directly from God and avoid the sin.

Speculation: It is often suggested that the fact that God gives a command must mean that men can obey it. That does not seem true. How can an omniscient God not know how Cain and Abel will end? If the desire of God was to save Abel, then God should have warned Abel to defend himself. Instead God gives a warning to Cain that God must know Cain will not obey. Part of “Total Inability” is that warnings are given to all men not because they can obey, but to leave them without excuse in their guilt for the evil they have already set their heart on.


[Genesis 4:8-10 NASB] 8 Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.


Observation: Cain ignored God’s warning. The sins of the children were greater than those of the parents. Cain used his free will to murder Abel and lie to God. Once again, God must confront men with their sin since men choose to hide their sins.

Speculation: Like the first generation, all mankind is “Totally Incapable” of choosing to do right, even when warned by God, and will not go to God of their own free will to confess and repent of their sin. God, and only God, confronts men with sin and only God has the ability to draw men to God’s grace.


So there is TOTAL INABILITY presented from the beginning of the story … Genesis

Then we have arriving on the scene is Noah....God chose him because of his obedience to follow His Commandments.
He had ABILITY to please God and walk upright . Abraham is considered as a GREAT man of faith and is called the father of many nations. He had ABILITY to trust and obey God and it was counted unto him as being righteous. Moses....wow what an example of one with an ABILITY to be obedient to God.
Daniel....another who refused to bow down to man's laws and stayed faithful to God.

 

[prism]

Which evangelical, Bible-believing OT, NT and theologians have you read? Have you read the entirety of the late Dr Norman Geisler's 4 volumes of systematic theology. He was one of the authors of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

I read some of Geisler's works. Point? That's like me asking if you have read all of Luther's Works or Chemnitz's 4 vol treatise on The Examination of the Council of Trent? Or is this some sort of arrogant 'Ive read more scholarly works than you' contest? God is not impressed.

 

[marks]

explaining how Jesus was punished for all sins and those that burn in Hell are also punished for those same sins.

Those who are tossed into the lake of fire, it is not because of the sins for which Jesus died, instead, it is because their names are not written in the Book of Life, that is, they were not born again. You must be born again, not just forgiven.

Much love!

 

[Mjh29]

I agree with you on one point: There are specific people of God. They were under the Old Covenant and since the cross & resurrection, they are under the requirements of the New Testament.

In the New Testament, many times are the people of God called the Church. So... I don't know what you mean here.

It's no good giving me a string of verses from OT and NT that encourage the theology you try to promote. I didn't see Matt 23:37; John 12:32; Titus 2:11; and 1 John 2:2. These verses lead to the shipwreck of your Calvinistic ship.

I did deal with verses like this and added a string of them as well for the very purpose of leaving you without excuse. I dealt with these kinds of passages in my previous post... please read that.

That's your presuppositional error. The truth is that 'the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people' (Titus 2:11 NIV).

If my presuppositions are in error, by all means point out where the logic doesn't uphold. Simply saying a presupposition is wrong doesn't make it wrong; you actually need to have facts and reasons behind your claims. Again, I dealt with passages like Titus 2:11 in my last post; This refers to all KINDS of men. If we interpret it like you do, it causes Scripture to contradict other passages that speak of a specific elect people of God.

Again, your claims do not have Scripture behind them. You pull a verse here or there, but the application you present contradicts plain Scriptures elsewhere. You have claimed that I am "wrecked" by quoting passages that I dealt with in my previous post, and trying to use them in the same way that I debunked! And on top of that, you didn't actually explain WHY the Scriptures and interpretations I gave were wrong; you simply said "they're wrong" and moved on as though your beliefs were sufficient. I am not trying to be rude or anything like that; I just have a genuine care for the right dividing of the Word, and this is not at all it.

 

[OzSpen]

I read some of Geisler's works. Point? That's like me asking if you have read all of Luther's Works or Chemnitz's 4 vol treatise on The Examination of the Council of Trent? Or is this some sort of arrogant 'Ive read more scholarly works than you' contest? God is not impressed.

prism,

I was responding to your censored statement:

Do you mean the modern scholarship that denies the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Exactly which modern scholarship are you referring to because many 'scholars' have varying opinions and many of them are not regenerate.​

Of course there are radical scholars who deny the authority of Scripture. I've been battling them for many years, people like Peter Sellick (a liberal Anglican) who wrote: Two scholars battle it out over the resurrection

I hope you now understand that there are many scholars who are evangelical and support the authority of Scripture.

You stated, 'many of them are not regenerate', but didn't give any examples, thus making it one of your assertions.

Oz

 

[atpollard]

SInce that is the case, then we all, who call upon the Name of Jesus, can be assured that His promise is true!
Rom. 10[12] For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Believe it or not, most Calvinists, including this one, firmly believe every word of that. The issue is that without the DRAW of God, natural man (that is most people) have no real interest in calling on Jesus as Lord (their Creator God, in charge) and Savior (the one responsible for saving them, rather than them deciding what seems best in their mind). That is why so many eagerly embrace every New Age religion ... they all teach “any lord but God and any savior but Jesus”.

So the fact that someone, like you or I, WANTS to call on God means that God has placed that desire in our hearts. We have been drawn to want Jesus.