ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

1 Tim 2:4: God desires (is willing) that all men be saved. 1 John 2:2, Christ's propitiation is for the sins of the whole world. God's willing is that all sins are propitiated.

For Calvinism to be accurate, we have to conclude that God does not grant Himself that which He desires, which means either His actions or His desires were evil.

Muz

 

[Nang]

1 Tim 2:4: God desires (is willing) that all men be saved. 1 John 2:2, Christ's propitiation is for the sins of the whole world. God's willing is that all sins are propitiated.

Two proof texts, ripped out of context, do not negate the truth of Romans 9:22-23 that clearly teaches God determines the fates of all men . . . and not all men will resurrect to everlasting life, but many will resurrect to eternal damnation.

If you want to interpret these two verses in a universalistic sense, then you must logically procede in one of two ways, by:

1. Teaching Universalism. All men will be forgiven their sins. All sinners will escape final judgement and hell. All souls will live forever with Christ . . . even those who never did the will of the Father on this earth.

or . . .

2. Teaching the Sovereignty of man. The wills and choices of sinners overrules the will and sovereignty of Creator God. All men choose their own destiny. God is simply a reactionary observer of the works of His hands. The will of man can trample the blood of Christ and His Covenant of Grace; establishing men as gods who dictate and determine the actions of their Maker.

Otherwise, your theological views become illogical.

It is my opinion that neither of the above teachings can be substantiated by Holy Scripture.

It is also my opinion that the Reformed teachings of the two verses you present is entirely logical and Scriptural.

For Calvinism to be accurate, we have to conclude that God does not grant Himself that which He desires, which means either His actions or His desires were evil.

Muz

If one misinterprets God's "desires", then ugly statements like this are produced.

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Two proof texts, ripped out of context, do not negate the truth of Romans 9:22-23 that clearly teaches God determines the fates of all men . . . and not all men will resurrect to everlasting life, but many will resurrect to eternal damnation.

If you wish, I can provide you with contextual evidence that I have used both properly, but seeing as you only make a claim without evidence, it seems pretty hollow.

OTOH, your reference to Romans 9:22-23 is taken out of context, and here is why:

Romans 9:1-5 clearly sets the context of Romans 9-11 to be Israel as a corporate entity, not for individuals. Paul is lamenting that most of his countrymen have not come to Christ. The remainder of chapter 9 is an explanation of why.

The use of Jacob and Esau bring out the fact that Paul is referring to covenants, old and new, but in a twist, the Old Covenant, which established the nation of israel, is the older child, the one not chosen, and the New Covenant established by Christ as now the chosen one.

The remainder of the chapter, including 22-23, is about covenants, and how God chooses some covenants for wrath and others for glory.

Thus, when we actually do exegesis, rather than trying to refute Scripture with Scripture, we see a clearer picture.

If you want to interpret these two verses in a universalistic sense, then you must logically procede in one of two ways, by:

1. Teaching Universalism. All men will be forgiven their sins. All sinners will escape final judgement and hell. All souls will live forever with Christ . . . even those who never did the will of the Father on this earth.

Clearly this is not the case.

or . . .

2. Teaching the Sovereignty of man. The wills and choices of sinners overrules the will and sovereignty of Creator God. All men choose their own destiny. God is simply a reactionary observer of the works of His hands. The will of man can trample the blood of Christ and His Covenant of Grace; establishing men as gods who dictate and determine the actions of their Maker.

Of course, this presupposes Calvinist's view of God's sovereignty, which, again, is not Scriptural.

Scriptural sovereignty is God's ability to execute justice over His creation, not His meticulous control of everything that happens. (Indeed, the latter completely voids the Scriptural doctrine of justification.)

There is a view of God as sovereign over creation which includes men who have free will.

So, when we make some adjustments to poor presuppositions, option 3 arises:

3) God is powerful enough to retain just sovereignty over creatures who have free will, and loving enough to extend salvation to all who are lost, and that He might draw them to Himself, so that they might hear and learn from God and come to Christ (See John 6:44-45)

Otherwise, your theological views become illogical.

Yes, we must abandon your unscriptural presuppositions in order to arrive at biblical conclusions.

It is my opinion that neither of the above teachings can be substantiated by Holy Scripture.

It is also my opinion that the Reformed teachings of the two verses you present is entirely logical and Scriptural.

Nang

And a lovely opinion it is. But that's all that it is.

Muz

 

[Nang]

And a lovely opinion it is. But that's all that it is.

Muz

Thank you Michael for sharing your opinions with me, but that is all they are.

:yawn:

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

At least I do some exegesis to back it up.

 

[penofareadywriter]

Two proof texts, ripped out of context,

You still did not give your interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:24.....

do not negate the truth of Romans 9:22-23 that clearly teaches God determines the fates of all men . . .

It does NOT clearly teach that! Paul is "clearly" pulling from the parable of the potter in Jer. which teaches the exact OPPOSITE of your interpretation of Rom. 9. God is not arbitrary(random) in His election! Rather He works WITH the clay that is before Him.
Jer.18:2."Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
3.So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
4.But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.5.Then the word of the LORD came to me:
6."O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
7.If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,
8.and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.9.And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,
10.and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

This does not sound like the god of your interpretation of Rom.9.....:readthis:

 

[Nang]

At least I do some exegesis to back it up.

Please show me your exegesis that leads to your interpreting these two verses as being absolutely universal in intent.

Then, please tell me how your conclusions fit with emperical evidence.

You won't be able to do so, and will have to fall back on your presuppostion that men thwart the will of God according to the powers of their supposed "free" will.

Which will contradict the teachings of the bible, which describe the wills of men as being enslaved to sin, death, and the devil, and therefore, not "free" at all.

Which is the basis for the gospel message of the Savior provided by God, to rescue men from this bondage and certain judgment for their sins.

At that point, our discussion is no longer about exegesis, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I do not consider your views to be superior to mine.

We are proclaiming two kinds of gospel. And there is only one gospel, so one of us is seriously wrong.

You proclaim a gospel of Jesus Christ that is only partially successful, due to sinners' choices. Jesus Christ fails to save all He atoned for.

I proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ that is completely successful, due to God's choices. 100% of those the Father chose, and 100% for whom the Son died, and 100% of those the Holy Spirit calls, are saved according to Christ's promise to the Father, that He would lose none.

I like my gospel message better than yours . . .Soli Deo Gloria!

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

Please show me your exegesis that leads to your interpreting these two verses as being absolutely universal in intent.

Then, please tell me how your conclusions fit with emperical evidence.

You won't be able to do so, and will have to fall back on your presuppostion that men thwart the will of God according to the powers of their supposed "free" will.

Which will contradict the teachings of the bible, which describe the wills of men as being enslaved to sin, death, and the devil, and therefore, not "free" at all.

Which is the basis for the gospel message of the Savior provided by God, to rescue men from this bondage and certain judgment for their sins.

At that point, our discussion is no longer about exegesis, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I do not consider your views to be superior to mine.

We are proclaiming two kinds of gospel. And there is only one gospel, so one of us is seriously wrong.

You proclaim a gospel of Jesus Christ that is only partially successful, due to sinners' choices. Jesus Christ fails to save all He atoned for.

I proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ that is completely successful, due to God's choices. 100% of those the Father chose, and 100% for whom the Son died, and 100% of those the Holy Spirit calls, are saved according to Christ's promise to the Father, that He would lose none.

I like my gospel message better than yours . . .Soli Deo Gloria!

Nang

Your gospel preaches a god who is glorified in, sickness, rapes, and murders.
Your gospel preaches a arbitrary god who gets pleasure in billions of people burning in hell! Your right....one of us is seriously wrong. My Bible say God gets NO delight in the death of the wicked..Ezekiel 18:23
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
My Bible says God does not willfully afflict anyone..Lamentations 3:33
"For He does not afflict willingly (HELLO!!!)Or grieve the sons of men."
My Bible says God wants EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of His Son....1 Timothy 2:4
"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." My Bible portrays a God of passions and personality....who wants relationship...not robots......I will take the true Gospel over your gospel any day. Your God sounds way to much like allah...a detached...destaint...passionless...emotionless....inmoveable Deity who can't and won't answer prayer/ be moved to compassion on broken sinners.

 

[Nang]

Your gospel preaches a god who is glorified in, sickness, rapes, and murders.
Your gospel preaches a arbitrary god who gets pleasure in billions of people burning in hell! Your right....one of us is seriously wrong. My Bible say God gets NO delight in the death of the wicked..Ezekiel 18:23
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
My Bible says God does not willfully afflict anyone..Lamentations 3:33
"For He does not afflict willingly (HELLO!!!)Or grieve the sons of men."
My Bible says God wants EVERYONE to come to the knowledge of His Son....1 Timothy 2:4
"who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." My Bible portrays a God of passions and personality....who wants relationship...not robots......I will take the true Gospel over your gospel any day. Your God sounds way to much like allah...a detached...destaint...passionless...emotionless....inmoveable Deity who can't and won't answer prayer/ be moved to compassion on broken sinners.

Thank you Pen for sharing your imaginations and opinions of the Holy Scriptures, but they are inaccurate and don't mean much.

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Let's begin with 1 Tim 2, then.

1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.​

In this time period, Christianity is beginning to experience persecution. We know that the letters to Timothy were written late in Paul's life, after he had been imprisoned, and possibly during his imprisonment.

Thus, the importance of Paul's plea: If the kings would believe, then persecution would end, and they would live in peace.

Of course, the natural response of humans is for the destruction of one's enemies, especially those in power, but Paul presents a different perspective:

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.​

God desires for all to know the truth and be saved. This includes those evil kings and authorities, for Christ's ransom is for all men.

Paul then goes on to give instruction about women. Maybe you should pay close attention to verse 11.

So, 1 Tim 2:4 is quite clear.


In 1 John, John is concerned with understanding who we are and who we are in Christ. 1 John 1:9 is well known, since it confirms that forgiveness is ours in Christ when we confess our sins to Him.

1 John 2 begins:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.​

Clearly this portion is about Christ's sacrifice, and clearly the sacrifice is universal. There simply isn't any context to suggest that "whole world" is anything other than a universal atonement.

The remainder of chapter 2 picks up the themes of chapter 1 in an ethical manner.


Now, my belief inerrancy extends to the book and pericope level. I believe that each idea in Scripture, when exegeted properly, is inerrant without the need for other portions of Scripture to be imported to change that meaning. In short, I don't refute Scripture with Scripture. Each passage as exegeted must be in harmony with every other passage of Scripture as it stands.


So, it is important not to extend the meaning of passages beyond what the author intends for them.


And these themes fit well with Jesus' teaching. In John 6:44 and 45, God enables people to come to Christ through His drawing, but only those who hear and learn from the Father come to Christ. This balance is found throughout Scripture.

The only place we see God hardening with respect to one's salvation is Israel, and that was necessary for Christ's death to occur. We see this in John 12 and Romans 11, and this is a corporate hardening, just like election to the Old Covenant was corporate (see Romans 9:1-5).

So, there you go, a more complete exegesis.

Muz

 

[penofareadywriter]

Thank you Pen for sharing your imaginations and opinions of the Holy Scriptures, but they are inaccurate and don't mean much.

Nang

Ummm...I just quoted scripture...:idunno:

 

[Nang]

Quoting muzicman:

Paul then goes on to give instruction about women. Maybe you should pay close attention to verse 11.

I will address this first, since how others react to your inserting it amidst your exegesis, will affect how they receive my reply to you.

It is my practice to learn the truths of God in silence, in personal study at home, both privately and with my husband, of whom I can ask questions. Therefore, I am not studying or learning while participating on TOL. Neither am I teaching on TOL, for there are male Reformed teachers present (AMR, and Lon) who take that role.

I am participating on TOL and other discussion groups to witness to my faith, and to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ from false teaching. I do so, under the oversight of my husband, and the approval of my Reformed brethren.

So, I will reply to your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4 in this spirit, under these conditions, and counter your interpretation of the passage, according to historical, Reformed teachings:

Let's begin with 1 Tim 2, then.
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
In this time period, Christianity is beginning to experience persecution. We know that the letters to Timothy were written late in Paul's life, after he had been imprisoned, and possibly during his imprisonment.

Thus, the importance of Paul's plea: If the kings would believe, then persecution would end, and they would live in peace.

There is no argument regarding this limited context you establish. There indeed was the beginnings of persecution of Christians, and Paul is encouraging Timothy to function as a preacher, recognizing all authorities, in order for the church to remain at peace within their midst.

However, I believe the emphasis of this particular instruction given to Timothy by Paul is found in I Timothy 2:1, which says, “. . . that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men.”

This is the primary thought and exhortation given to Timothy. This was to be his priority as a pastor. To pray and intercede and give thanks “for all men” which the next exhortation includes even “kings and all who are in authority.”

Since Paul deliberately inserted this detail and included rulers as needful of prayers and intercessions, we ask, who else is included in the first group of “all men.”

You have taken the universal approach, and teach that Timothy was being instructed to pray for all men that walked the earth.

The Reformed view is that Paul was exhorting Timothy to pray for all kinds of men and to give thanks for them, regardless of rank or position in life, who might walk into his church or be exposed to Timothy’s ministry of the gospel.

IOW’s, the “all men” are everyone else who is not a “king or those in authority.” A pastor is not a respector of persons, but is responsible to pray and intercede on behalf for all kinds of men (and women) who would come under his “ministry.”

For the “ministry” was what Paul concerned himself about in this epistle. I Timothy l:12 Paul exhorted Timothy to conduct a pure ministry by, “not giving heed to fables and endless genealogies which cause disputes” I Timothy 1:4, out of “love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,” I Timothy 1:5

In fact, Paul mentions Timothy’s good conscience in regard to Timothy’s church ministry, twice, while exhorting him to “wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience.” I Timothy 1:18

So, I Timothy 2: 1-2 continue these thoughts of Paul toward Timothy’s ministry, and I Timothy 2:2-3 more clearly defines what constitutes a good conscience in a pastor of a church: “. . . all godliness and reverence, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior.”

Paul concludes his thoughts regarding church ministry, by testifying this was also his role, and as Timothy being made a minister of the church of Jesus Christ, just as Paul “was appointed a preacher and an apostle . . .a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” I Timothy 2:7

There is specific mention of “kings and all who are in authority,” and “Gentiles” in this passage. Why?

Paul has explained in verses I Timothy 4-6:

“(God our Savior) 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 Jesus Christ, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

Then Paul shifts from instructing Timothy in his ministry to giving general instructions to Timothy’s church members. I Timothy 2:8-13.

This is the context of the verse (I Timothy 2:4) that causes such controversy between Arminians and Calvinists.

As you have exegeted the passage in a universal sense, so do most Arminians.

Calvinists exegete the same passage as particular instructions regarding the ministry of the church, which will include those God has drawn from out of all kinds of people: “those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” I Timothy 1:16

These will include all kinds of men, who were “blasphemers, persecutors, and insolent;” all formerly ignorant in their unbelief. I Timothy 1:13

Paul compares all these kinds to his former self, before Paul received the grace of God, which was “exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 1:14

The same Jesus Christ who came into the world to save all kinds of sinners:

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” I Timothy 1:15

I contend that if one, such as yourself, exegetes I Timothy 2:4, amidst all this context, in a universal sense, that in order to be consistent with exegesis of every verse in the bible, one must remain Universalist and prove universalism (for there truly is no theological middle ground).

It is an either or. Paul was either teaching universalism or Paul was teaching particularism. Which brings us to your favorite passage of John 6:44 and 45.

And these themes fit well with Jesus' teaching. In John 6:44 and 45, God enables people to come to Christ through His drawing, but only those who hear and learn from the Father come to Christ. This balance is found throughout Scripture.

I do not see you interpreting this passage in a universal sense, as you do I Timothy 2:4. You definitely establish conditions in this passage that rule out the salvation of all men, universal.

In fact, neither of us believe John 6:44-45 is a universalist teaching. You believe God draws only those who believe, to Christ (Arminianism), and I believe God draws only those elect in Christ, to Christ (Calvinism).

We are both making distinction amongst persons (from two opposite premises), who end up coming to faith in Christ.

My premise is logically consistent, because I see all of Holy Scripture as being particular in nature. God desires that all kinds of men (rich or poor, kings or slaves, male or female, slaves or free, Jew or Gentile, etc) be saved.

Apparently you, see in some Scriptures God desiring all men who have ever lived be saved, but in other Scriptures God making distinction amongst men who will or will not be saved, according to their willful choices to believe or not. I say this is logically inconsistent hermeneutics

(And that is by using your own method of hermeneutics, and not by using the Analogical method!)

So I ask, if God only draws believing men to Christ, and the rest of unbelieving mankind perishes in their sins, how do you conclude that Paul is teaching Timothy that “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?” (I Timothy 2:4)

Are there conflicting desires and unattained purposes harbored in the heart of God?

The only place we see God hardening with respect to one's salvation is Israel, and that was necessary for Christ's death to occur. We see this in John 12 and Romans 11, and this is a corporate hardening, just like election to the Old Covenant was corporate (see Romans 9:1-5).

Even if you want to corporate particularism (denying individual election), the question remains . . .if God did not save Israel as a nation, but many if not most Jews perished in their unbelief, how can you teach that God "desires all men to be saved?" What happened to your universalist exegesis?

God has never saved an entire nation, and entire family, an entire earthly kingdom, or an entire church. Never. God only saves individuals out of nation, families, earthly rules, and churches.

I repeat: This is an either/or argument. Either God wills to save all men universally, and fails, or God wills to save all kinds of men out of all the world, and succeeds!

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

Quoting muzicman:



I will address this first, since how others react to your inserting it amidst your exegesis, will affect how they receive my reply to you.

It is my practice to learn the truths of God in silence, in personal study at home, both privately and with my husband, of whom I can ask questions. Therefore, I am not studying or learning while participating on TOL. Neither am I teaching on TOL, for there are male Reformed teachers present (AMR, and Lon) who take that role.

I am participating on TOL and other discussion groups to witness to my faith, and to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ from false teaching. I do so, under the oversight of my husband, and the approval of my Reformed brethren.

So, I will reply to your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4 in this spirit, under these conditions, and counter your interpretation of the passage, according to historical, Reformed teachings:



There is no argument regarding this limited context you establish. There indeed was the beginnings of persecution of Christians, and Paul is encouraging Timothy to function as a preacher, recognizing all authorities, in order for the church to remain at peace within their midst.

However, I believe the emphasis of this particular instruction given to Timothy by Paul is found in I Timothy 2:1, which says, “. . . that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men.”

This is the primary thought and exhortation given to Timothy. This was to be his priority as a pastor. To pray and intercede and give thanks “for all men” which the next exhortation includes even “kings and all who are in authority.”

Since Paul deliberately inserted this detail and included rulers as needful of prayers and intercessions, we ask, who else is included in the first group of “all men.”

You have taken the universal approach, and teach that Timothy was being instructed to pray for all men that walked the earth.

The Reformed view is that Paul was exhorting Timothy to pray for all kinds of men and to give thanks for them, regardless of rank or position in life, who might walk into his church or be exposed to Timothy’s ministry of the gospel.

IOW’s, the “all men” are everyone else who is not a “king or those in authority.” A pastor is not a respector of persons, but is responsible to pray and intercede on behalf for all kinds of men (and women) who would come under his “ministry.”

I understand the Reformed position, but it is eisegeted rather than exegeted because it tears a hole in Reformed theology. The problem is that this position simply isn't tenable in its context, given that Paul goes on to say that Christ paid the ransom for "all men" using the same terms. And, as we know from Paul's writing, there is no distinction, male/female, slave/free, or even nobility/commonfolk. Thus, to say that there is distinction in the kinds of men Christ died for is simply out of step with Paul's thought.

Thus, the reformed position, while an admirable attempt, falls short when we consider the entire context.

For the “ministry” was what Paul concerned himself about in this epistle. I Timothy l:12 Paul exhorted Timothy to conduct a pure ministry by, “not giving heed to fables and endless genealogies which cause disputes” I Timothy 1:4, out of “love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,” I Timothy 1:5

In fact, Paul mentions Timothy’s good conscience in regard to Timothy’s church ministry, twice, while exhorting him to “wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience.” I Timothy 1:18

So, I Timothy 2: 1-2 continue these thoughts of Paul toward Timothy’s ministry, and I Timothy 2:2-3 more clearly defines what constitutes a good conscience in a pastor of a church: “. . . all godliness and reverence, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior.”

Paul concludes his thoughts regarding church ministry, by testifying this was also his role, and as Timothy being made a minister of the church of Jesus Christ, just as Paul “was appointed a preacher and an apostle . . .a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” I Timothy 2:7

There is specific mention of “kings and all who are in authority,” and “Gentiles” in this passage. Why?

Because the church was experiencing persecution at the hands of kings and authority, and their salvation was a key to ending persecution, and Paul's specific mission from God was to go to the Gentiles.

These two are simply not connected in any way.

Paul has explained in verses I Timothy 4-6:

“(God our Savior) 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 Jesus Christ, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

Then Paul shifts from instructing Timothy in his ministry to giving general instructions to Timothy’s church members. I Timothy 2:8-13.

This is the context of the verse (I Timothy 2:4) that causes such controversy between Arminians and Calvinists.

As you have exegeted the passage in a universal sense, so do most Arminians.

And as Paul would have wanted.

Calvinists exegete the same passage as particular instructions regarding the ministry of the church, which will include those God has drawn from out of all kinds of people: “those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” I Timothy 1:16

These will include all kinds of men, who were “blasphemers, persecutors, and insolent;” all formerly ignorant in their unbelief. I Timothy 1:13

Paul compares all these kinds to his former self, before Paul received the grace of God, which was “exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.” I Timothy 1:14

The same Jesus Christ who came into the world to save all kinds of sinners:

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” I Timothy 1:15

I contend that if one, such as yourself, exegetes I Timothy 2:4, amidst all this context, in a universal sense, that in order to be consistent with exegesis of every verse in the bible, one must remain Universalist and prove universalism (for there truly is no theological middle ground).


It is an either or. Paul was either teaching universalism or Paul was teaching particularism.

You're engaging in a false dichotomy, here. There are various doctrines which can be drawn between the two extremes.

Given that for this particular context, God's desire and the extent of Christ's sacrifice are either one or the other, but these are only two of many elements.

But, in the end, you don't even cite the verses of chapter 1 in order and deal with them in order, so how can we assume any order in the theology you present?

Which brings us to your favorite passage of John 6:44 and 45.



I do not see you interpreting this passage in a universal sense, as you do I Timothy 2:4. You definitely establish conditions in this passage that rule out the salvation of all men, universal.

Of course. My exegesis of 1 Tim 2:4 doesn't mandate universalism. It is only the imposition of your presuppositions that don't allow you to see that.

In fact, neither of us believe John 6:44-45 is a universalist teaching. You believe God draws only those who believe, to Christ (Arminianism), and I believe God draws only those elect in Christ, to Christ (Calvinism).

Incorrect. I believe that God draws many (through the preaching of the gospel, Rom 10:13-17), but only those who respond through hearing and learning come.

We are both making distinction amongst persons (from two opposite premises), who end up coming to faith in Christ.

More importantly, your distinction is arbitrary, whereas mine involves justification.

My premise is logically consistent, because I see all of Holy Scripture as being particular in nature. God desires that all kinds of men (rich or poor, kings or slaves, male or female, slaves or free, Jew or Gentile, etc) be saved.

Mine is logically consistent, as well. God desires all to be saved, and made ransom for all to be saved. But there is a human response required, as we see in verse 45.

Apparently you, see in some Scriptures God desiring all men who have ever lived be saved, but in other Scriptures God making distinction amongst men who will or will not be saved, according to their willful choices to believe or not. I say this is logically inconsistent hermeneutics

That's because you can't get away from your own invalid presuppositions.

(And that is by using your own method of hermeneutics, and not by using the Analogical method!)

I'm using the historical-grammatical method. The one the church has used since its inception.

So I ask, if God only draws believing men to Christ, and the rest of unbelieving mankind perishes in their sins, how do you conclude that Paul is teaching Timothy that “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth?” (I Timothy 2:4)

Actually, God draws from those who hear the gospel. Some believe.

Are there conflicting desires and unattained purposes harbored in the heart of God?

Not at all. God's desire is for all to be saved, and God's purpose is to have a people who are His (corporately.) God acts in a way that makes the former possible, and the later come to pass.

Even if you want to corporate particularism (denying individual election), the question remains . . .if God did not save Israel as a nation, but many if not most Jews perished in their unbelief, how can you teach that God "desires all men to be saved?" What happened to your universalist exegesis?

1) I'm not a universalist.

2) Man's sin put God in a position of needing to harden some, so that many others may be saved.

God has never saved an entire nation, and entire family, an entire earthly kingdom, or an entire church. Never. God only saves individuals out of nation, families, earthly rules, and churches.

True enough. But God doesn't arbitrarily pick who they are.

I repeat: This is an either/or argument. Either God wills to save all men universally, and fails, or God wills to save all kinds of men out of all the world, and succeeds!

You'd have to demonstrate that God having a people for Himself without saving everyone is a failure in some way, first.

You see, a major part of your theological problem is your inability to grasp the nature of creation, and more specifically the nature of man as created. God created us with a free will. Having free will makes the doctrine of justification possible. However, in your deterministic view of creation, free will isn't possible, thus a doctrine of justification isn't possible, because all causes trace back to God. In your theology, God is the ultimate sinner. Yes, i know you try to dodge and weave your way out of it, but that's where meticulous control and individual election end. Arminius, whether right or wrong in his own theology, was correct in pointing out the major issue with Calvinism: God is made to be the one who causes all evil.

Once we introduce a true element of free will, and understand God's purpose, failures become man's domain, and success God's.

Is it God's failure that men reject Him? For Calvinists, yes. For Free will folks, no. Just as we see in Jeremiah 3:6-7, God reaches out to us, but some who hear the gospel don't embrace it.

So, what is God's purpose? In a corporate election world, it is to have a people for Himself. (Eph 1:4) God has succeeded in having a people for Himself who have chosen to participate in the was God has chosen to save many.

So, once we ditch the Calvinist presuppositions, and expose the Calvinist issues surrounding the nature of creation and the doctrines of Scripture, we can see God succeeding even as men fail.

Muz

 

[Nang]

My exegesis of 1 Tim 2:4 doesn't mandate universalism.

Your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4 concludes that God desires all men be saved. That is a universal interpretation, that you, by necessity to uphold your "free" will teachings, must backpedal from.

I believe that God draws many (through the preaching of the gospel, Rom 10:13-17), but only those who respond through hearing and learning come.

If God so wills that all men be saved, and calls all men indiscriminately through the preaching of the gospel, why does God only draw "many" to Christ?

You are claiming that the drawing is particular, based upon the wills of sinners, rather that the will of God.

Doesn't that sit kinda funny with you?

Isn't that disjointed? Why would God will one thing and hand over His intents and purposes to sinners, making His will dependent upon their actions?

More importantly, your distinction is arbitrary, whereas mine involves justification.

There is much I would like to say about the doctrine of justification, but cannot approach it right now, due to time constraints. Later . . .

You'd have to demonstrate that God having a people for Himself without saving everyone is a failure in some way, first.

Which is God's primary purpose and pleasure? That all men be saved? Or that He obtain a people according to their pleasure?

However, in your deterministic view of creation, free will isn't possible, thus a doctrine of justification isn't possible, because all causes trace back to God.

Justification for sinful men is possible through the Mediation of Jesus Christ, which defines God as the Saviour, not the author of sin. Jesus Christ, as federal head of all souls given to Him by the Father, reverses the effects of Adam's original sin, through His own humanity suffering the deserved judgments of His people.

So, what is God's purpose? In a corporate election world, it is to have a people for Himself. (Eph 1:4) God has succeeded in having a people for Himself who have chosen to participate in the was God has chosen to save many.

So how does your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4, claiming God desires all men to be saved, fit in with this purpose? Which one is primary, in your thinking?

Or would you like to ditch one at this point?

Otherwise, you are responsible to reconcile the two (supposed) purposes of God, that appear to be quite contrary to each other.

Perhaps you are willing and content to accept contradiction?

Nang

 

[penofareadywriter]

Either God wills to save all men universally, and fails, or God wills to save all kinds of men out of all the world, and succeeds!

Nang

I pick #1 ! God's will is NOT done EVERYDAY by people(Luke7:30."But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.")! If this were not true...why did Jesus pray for His Father's will to be done! If His will is always done....WHY PRAY!? (oh ya..I forgot...we pray because he tells us to..period...wait....did I not just have a Muslim tell the same thing...???)

 

[themuzicman]

Your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4 concludes that God desires all men be saved. That is a universal interpretation, that you, by necessity to uphold your "free" will teachings, must backpedal from.

I've not backpeddled from anything.

If God so wills that all men be saved, and calls all men indiscriminately through the preaching of the gospel, why does God only draw "many" to Christ?

Because God created a world where men freely choose to love Him, and never intended for man to sin. When man sinned, all the good things that God declared to have a relationship with man became limitations on man's hearing of the gospel.

You are claiming that the drawing is particular, based upon the wills of sinners, rather that the will of God.

No. I'm claiming that God's drawing is general but not universal, because God chooses to initiate drawing through the church.

Doesn't that sit kinda funny with you?

Not at all. The doctrine of justification requires free will. If God has declared that men have free will, then God will not violate His declaration in working to save men from their own sins.

Isn't that disjointed? Why would God will one thing and hand over His intents and purposes to sinners, making His will dependent upon their actions?

The first is God's will with respect to His actions. He acted in such a way that all men would have the possibility of being saved. All sins are propitiated, all ransoms paid.

The second is the result of God's declaration in creation, which reflects His purpose in creating men who would freely choose to love Him, which results in God needing to work through the church to preach the gospel and draw men to Himself.

Which is God's primary purpose and pleasure? That all men be saved? Or that He obtain a people according to their pleasure?

Neither. God's primary purpose in creating was to have a race of beings having the freedom to choose to love him, and for them to choose to do so.

The fall wasn't God's will in any sense. Not that God didn't know it wasn't possible, but a perfect world would have had Adam and Eve rejecting the serpent's lies, and believing in God.

When man sinned, God was prepared to redeem creation and to ultimately have a people for Himself, but these would need to be done within His declared Word for creation.

Justification for sinful men is possible through the Mediation of Jesus Christ, which defines God as the Saviour, not the author of sin. Jesus Christ, as federal head of all souls given to Him by the Father, reverses the effects of Adam's original sin, through His own humanity suffering the deserved judgments of His people.

The problem is that in order for sinful men to be condemned before God, they must sin. Sin is a free will act of defying God's will. Guilt can only come if it was possible not to sin, and justification through faith can only come if it was possible to reject God's drawing.

Calvinism denies both.

So how does your exegesis of I Timothy 2:4, claiming God desires all men to be saved, fit in with this purpose? Which one is primary, in your thinking?

1 Timothy 2:4 details God's actions with respect to salvation. Just as we see in Romans 5:18, it brought justification to all men, it paid the ransom for all men. It reflects God's desire for all men to be saved, and His actions are specifically directed to saving as many men as will believe. The failure in all respects is man's whether those who reject him, or those who will not reach out to a broken and lost world.

Or would you like to ditch one at this point?

Not at all.

Otherwise, you are responsible to reconcile the two (supposed) purposes of God, that appear to be quite contrary to each other.

Not at all. They are quite consistent, when we properly understand God's purpose, God's declarations with respect to creation, and man's failings.

Perhaps you are willing and content to accept contradiction?

It's resolved.

Muz

 

[Nang]

I've not backpeddled from anything.


Because God created a world where men freely choose to love Him, and never intended for man to sin.

God created all things and immediately made man subject to law and commands, which means man was never truly "free" to function in disobedience to that law and command without suffering death.

Adam was not given options. Adam was commanded how to live and what purposes he was responsible to fulfill, through the exercise of moral agency. Adam was warned of death the day he disobeyed.

This is called the Covenant of Works, which Adam quickly breached, demonstrating he did not love God, did not love God's law or words, and that he was faithless.

All of which covenant and human faults, the last Adam, Jesus Christ perfectty achieved and covered, with the sacrifice of His life's blood.

No. I'm claiming that God's drawing is general but not universal, because God chooses to initiate drawing through the church.

I know this is what you believe and teach. The drawing to Christ is not universal, and yet you persist in saying that God desires all men to be saved. Doesn't jive, as far as I am concerned. You contradict yourself.

Not at all. The doctrine of justification requires free will.

Where does the Bible teach so? Where does the Bible even teach man has a "free" will? No man is free to oppose or disobey the will and Word of God.

The first is God's will with respect to His actions. He acted in such a way that all men would have the possibility of being saved. All sins are propitiated, all ransoms paid.

This is where our gospel messages differ.

You say Jesus Christ atoned for sins to make salvation possible.

I say Jesus Christ atoned for sins to make salvation certain.

God's primary purpose in creating was to have a race of beings having the freedom to choose to love him, and for them to choose to do so.

How can sinners, totally corrupted by sin and enslaved to serving the devil, sin, and death, find the moral capacity and desire to willfully change masters? Where does the Bible reveal sinners can do this on their own, apart from the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit? Where does the Bible teach that corrupted, enslaved sinners, have faith inherent to their souls? I read the Bible that says faith comes by the grace of God, which is a gift.

justification through faith can only come if it was possible to reject God's drawing.

I believe the opposite . . .justification comes to sinners, only through the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ, who perfectly fulfilled the Covenant of Works, obeyed the Law to the letter, and suffered the vicarious judgment and death for the people God gave Him to rescue and ransom.

1 Timothy 2:4 details God's actions with respect to salvation. Just as we see in Romans 5:18, it brought justification to all men, it paid the ransom for all men.

Romans 5:19 quantifies verse 18, to number "many" of all kinds of men. Just as Paul taught Timothy, Paul taught the church at Rome.

It reflects God's desire for all men to be saved, and His actions are specifically directed to saving as many men as will believe.

Well, now you are including the quantative language, but the qualitative language of God "desire for all men to be saved," is being presuppositionally inserted into the Romans passage without warrant.

Romans 5:15-21 is all about the righteous achievment of Jesus Christ, reversing the wicked acts of men. There is mention of judgment, offenses, condemnation, disobedience, and sin committed by men, but by "one Man's righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. . .so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous."

The only time "free" is mentioned in the passage, speaks not to human will or actions or choices or decisions, but only about the free gift of God . . .which is the grace of God:

"So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

I submit your gospel message is man-centered; humanistic.

My gospel is Christ-centered; God glorifying.

It's resolved.

Right. Our discussion concludes with us proclaiming different gospel messages, just as I predicted it would.

Your gospel proclaims free will =hypothetical faith =possible justification=good works to realize uncertain eternal life.

My gospel proclaims Christ's rightousness = justification =grace and faith = guarantee of everlasting life.

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

God created all things and immediately made man subject to law and commands, which means man was never truly "free" to function in disobedience to that law and command without suffering death.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from law. Freedom means the ability to choose apart from programming and external determination.

Adam was not given options. Adam was commanded how to live and what purposes he was responsible to fulfill, through the exercise of moral agency. Adam was warned of death if he disobeyed.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that Adam was not given options. But he WAS. The options were: 1) Obey God and continue life eternally, or 2) Disobey God and surely die.

How can you live with this kind of dissonance?

This is called the Covenant of Works, which Adam quickly breached, demonstrating he did not love God, did not love God's law or words, and that he was faithless.

You see, I find it interesting that your view of sovereignty suddenly disappears when you talk about this. Your problem is not that Adam breaches the covenant, but that God is the cause of Adam's breach, as God causes all things that happen, in your view.

All of which covenant and human faults, the last Adam, Jesus Christ perfectty achieved and covered, with the sacrifice of His life's blood.

However that isn't all that Christ died for. Christ died to redeem and restore creation. How can creation be restored, if not all sins are propitiated?

I know this is what you believe and teach. The drawing to Christ is not universal, and yet you persist in saying that God desires all men to be saved. Doesn't jive, as far as I am concerned. You contradict yourself.

That's just silly. If God has constrained Himself through His creative declarations because God desired and anticipated perfection from Adam and Eve, and they failed, then God will act to maximize the number who are saved because He desires for all to be saved.

Where does the Bible teach so? Where does the Bible even teach man has a "free" will? No man is free to oppose or disobey the will and Word of God.

Um... Adam did it. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. Adam ate. The very covenant of works that you speak of demonstrates Adam's free will.... unless you blame God for evil, of course.

This is where our gospel messages differ.

You say Jesus Christ atoned for sins to make salvation possible.

I say Jesus Christ atoned for sins to make salvation certain.

Scripturally, the former is what we see throughout Scripture. John 6:44-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:18, etc.

How can sinners, totally corrupted by sin and enslaved to serving the devil, sin, and death, find the moral capacity and desire to willfully change masters? Where does the Bible reveal sinners can do this on their own, apart from the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit? Where does the Bible teach that corrupted, enslaved sinners, have faith inherent to their souls? I read the Bible that says faith comes by the grace of God, which is a gift.

I never said that they could. This is one of the major errors in the Calvinist argument against free will.

No person can, apart from God's drawing, come to Christ. That drawing comes in the form of teaching from the Father (John 6:45), which Paul describes as the preaching of the gospel (Rom 10:13-17). Those who hear are then able to come (John 6:44), and those who learn and believe, come (John 6:45-47).

Your attempt to push everyone who isn't Calvinist into the Pelagian camp is an invalid attempt at guilt by association, and it doesn't work.

I am semi-Augustinian. God acts first to draw via the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. However, as we see in John 6:29 (and any number of other places) man's response of learning and believing in Christ is necessary for salvation.

I believe the opposite . . .justification comes to sinners, only through the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ, who perfectly fulfilled the Covenant of Works, obeyed the Law to the letter, and suffered the vicarious judgment and death for the people God gave Him to rescue and ransom.

How, then, is creation redeemed, if not all sins are propitiated?

Romans 5:19 quantifies verse 18, to number "many" of all kinds of men. Just as Paul taught Timothy, Paul taught the church at Rome.

LOL.. You need to learn to recognize parallel patterns. Paul is stating similar statements using a different adjective to maintain a proper theology. Romans 5:18 must refer to all men, because the first "all" refers to how many fell into sin:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.​

If justification doesn't come to literally all men, then the one tresspass didn't condemn all men, either.

Verse 19, then refers to who will be saved:

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.​

Paul uses "many" here, first because he has established the condemntion of all men, but wishes to maintain the repetitive construct (18 having "all" twice, 19 having "many" twice) so he doesn't turn into a universalist, but says that righteousness onloy comes to many.

Thus, we have a separation between those to whom justification has come and those who are made righteous.

And, no, there is no contextual basis for saying "kinds of men", and if you do so, you lose the idea that ALL men are condemned.

Well, now you are including the quantative language, but the qualitative language of God "desire for all men to be saved," is being presuppositionally inserted into the Romans passage without warrant.

Not at all. Each stands on its own as exegeted, and are in perfect harmony.

Romans 5:15-21 is all about the righteous achievment of Jesus Christ, reversing the wicked acts of men. There is mention of judgment, offenses, condemnation, disobedience, and sin committed by men, but by "one Man's righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. . .so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous."

The only time "free" is mentioned in the passage, speaks not to human will or actions or choices or decisions, but only about the free gift of God . . .which is the grace of God:

Neither Eph 2:8-9 nor Phil 1:29 state that faith is a gift. In fact, in both cases it cannot be the gift. That is poor exegesis on the part of the Calvinist.

"So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

Paul isn't addressing free will, here. He's referring to the work of Christ, which brings justification to all (5:18), and makes many righteous (5:19)

I submit your gospel message is man-centered; humanistic.

My gospel is Christ-centered; God glorifying.

First, this is soteriology, not gospel.

And your soteriology is God damning. In the end, you make God the cause of all evil and suffering. That's not glorifying.

I submit that my soteriology properly assigns blame for sin completely and solely upon man, and assigns all credit for salvation and righteousness to God, and the two are never confused as they are in Calvinism.

Right. Our discussion concludes with us proclaiming different gospel messages, just as I predicted it would.

Not really. The gospel consists of man having fallen in sin, and God making a way for men to receive salvation through faith in Christ.

The difference is in soteriology, not the message of the gospel.

Your gospel proclaims free will =hypothetical faith =possible justification=good works to realize uncertain eternal life.

Not exactly. Faith is the condition of eternal life, not works.

My gospel proclaims Christ's rightousness = justification =grace and faith = guarantee of everlasting life.

Which was Calvin's concern in establishing theology: He wanted to assure his congregants that they were secure in their salvation apart from the Catholic Church.

However, in his fervor to reassure them, he went beyond Scripture to ignore verses like Col 1:21-23 which clearly make faith the ongoing condition of salvation

In the end Scripture doesn't support you.

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from law.

However, in Christ, we are free from the law.

 

[Nang]

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from law. Freedom means the ability to choose apart from programming and external determination.

Which describes both natural law and formal law, IMO.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that Adam was not given options. But he WAS. The options were: 1) Obey God and continue life eternally, or 2) Disobey God and surely die.

I did contradict myself with poor wording, which I just edited. Instead of using the word "if," I have changed it to correctly say "the day" he disobeyed. God was not surprised, but knew Adam would fall short of the law and God's glory.

ou see, I find it interesting that your view of sovereignty suddenly disappears when you talk about this. Your problem is not that Adam breaches the covenant, but that God is the cause of Adam's breach, as God causes all things that happen, in your view.

God is the first cause of all things, including secondary causes.

God caused man.
Man caused sin.

Scripture clearly says Adam is the cause of sin and death in Romans 5:12.

However that isn't all that Christ died for. Christ died to redeem and restore creation. How can creation be restored, if not all sins are propitiated?

Hellfire.

Creation is redeemed, both by God's grace in Jesus Christ, and by holy justice executed by Jesus Christ.

If God has constrained Himself through His creative declarations because God desired and anticipated perfection from Adam and Eve, and they failed, then God will act to maximize the number who are saved because He desires for all to be saved.

I do not believe the Bible teaches God anticipated perfection from A&E, else they would have been equal to God. And God by definition is uncreate. God knew when He created, He was not creating perfect gods, but rather, limited creatures with limited capacities. They were made of dust, not Spirit.

The perfect humanity God had in mind, could only be created in Christ. Ephesians 2:10

Um... Adam did it. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. Adam ate. The very covenant of works that you speak of demonstrates Adam's free will.... unless you blame God for evil, of course.

Yes. Adam demonstrated that creatures made of dust cannot function as moral agents successfully, but fall short of the glory of God. However, before God created man, knowing where the human nature of man would lead, God established the Covenant amongst the Godhead, to provide not only salvation for the creatures who would fall, but accomplish access into the heavenlies for their human offspring, in and through the Son of God becoming a Man Himself.

No person can, apart from God's drawing, come to Christ. That drawing comes in the form of teaching from the Father (John 6:45), which Paul describes as the preaching of the gospel (Rom 10:13-17). Those who hear are then able to come (John 6:44), and those who learn and believe, come (John 6:45-47).

The Father chooses who will be drawn to Christ.
The Son died for those the Father chose.
The Holy Spirit calls those whom the Father chose and those for whom Christ died.

You are omitting the role of the Holy Spirit in the order of salvation. Before any sinner can spiritually hear and comprehend the gospel, he must be born again by the Holy Spirit of God, and gifted with faith to believe, and the spiritual capacity to repent of sin.

I am semi-Augustinian. God acts first to draw via the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. However, as we see in John 6:29 (and any number of other places) man's response of learning and believing in Christ is necessary for salvation.

The presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit guarantees that the regenerated sinner will respond in belief and repentance. That is His role and His power at work, converting the sinner to saint. But God still gets all the glory of this. Man cannot believe and repent on his own, due to the totally corrupting effects of sin on the human nature.

How, then, is creation redeemed, if not all sins are propitiated?

Through the Godly deliverance of the children of God:

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans 8:19-21

The "children of God" prove to be those elect in Christ Jesus, who will reconcile all things to Himself, by Him . . .Colossians 1:19-20

Any one whose sins have not been propitiated on the cross, are those who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life. These will be judged and suffer eternal hellfire according to God's holy justice.

All those in Christ are delivered, the creation is reconciled to God for Christ, and all wicked men, spirits, and death will be judged and destroyed by Christ.

If justification doesn't come to literally all men, then the one tresspass didn't condemn all men, either.

Not all men are condemned by sin. The Man, Jesus Christ was exempt. Thus, even this verse is not universal in scope.

Thus, we have a separation between those to whom justification has come and those who are made righteous.

The only way sinners are declared "righteous" is through legal imputation of Christ's righteousness to their record with God, and the only basis for God to legally declare guilty men pardoned, is through vicarious justification for their sins, which Christ accomplished in His death. Justification and imputation were both forensic accomplishments achieved, before God, on the cross. This is the definition of saving grace, which proves to be efficacious only for those for whom Christ suffered judgment and death on their behalf.

Neither Eph 2:8-9 nor Phil 1:29 state that faith is a gift. In fact, in both cases it cannot be the gift. That is poor exegesis on the part of the Calvinist.

I know, I know the Greek renderings here, but without a doubt God's grace is a gift. And without God's grace, a sinner has nothing: No justification, no faith, no repentance, no comprehension of the kingdom of God, no sanctification, conversion, assurance or hope. So arguing that faith is not technically a "gift" is nonsense. Faith is not a reality, unless the grace of God raises dead sinners from being dead in their trespasses and sins (which is the context of the teaching).

First, this is soteriology, not gospel.

Oh. I read in the bible that it is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation. . . Romans 1:15-16.

And your soteriology is God damning. In the end, you make God the cause of all evil and suffering. That's not glorifying.

God is not the author of sin. God is the provider of our Savior. How many times does a Calvinist have to repeat his beliefs before he is heard?

Faith is the condition of eternal life, not works.

Faith is not a "condition," but evidence of saving grace, that produces good works.


Nang