ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Sonnet]

Scriptures that teach Universalism: Zero.

Why address this to me?

I note you didn't disagree that you haven't any scriptures.

Scriptures that teach God would be just to destroy all men, but shows saving grace to spare many: The entire Bible.

It's true that all have turned away.

 

[Sonnet]

To clarify my testimony:

"I do not believe a "free will offer of the gospel" is truthful."



The Latin word for "offer" as confessed in the Canons of Dort, III Point, Article 9, is "offero" which means to "set forth" or "proclaim."

Therefore, I believe and attempt to proclaim the Gospel indiscriminately to as many as will listen to the message.

I do not present the Gospel message as a modern "offer" that is optional or contingent upon sinners "accepting Christ."

Since 1 Cor 15;3 is an core element of the Gospel which you refuse to proclaim indiscriminately, then I have no idea why you are making this claim. Paul said, '...this is what we preach...'

You won't.

 

[Sonnet]

God commands all sinners that they must believe the Gospel to live, but no man will nor can believe, apart from being indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God. I Corinthians 2:13-14

Paul clearly contrasts the proclaiming of the Gospel when he first came to the Corinthians (without eloquence or human wisdom) and such as you cite which is a message of wisdom for the mature - so your point fails.

Believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is the work of God. John 6:29

Since Jesus tells the crowd not to work for food that spoils (they having followed Jesus so that they might have their fill again) but to work for food that endures...that they should 'feed' on Him - to then suggest, as you do, that such is the work of God would then make Jesus woefully disingenuous.

Many hear the Gospel proclaimed but do not believe, because they have not been given new hearts nor ears to hear.

One must first be born again and changed by the Holy Spirit, before he can respond to the Gospel message.
This is the work of Triune God: John 3:3-8; 5:21

No order given in John 3 and in John 5:31 Jesus foretells the raising of Lazarus..the context being physical healing (vv. 1-11).

Not the work or choice of man . . .

Godly Regeneration precedes faith.

Rather, belief through drawing John 12:32.

 

[Cross Reference]

It's true that all have turned away.

Unto what is the question? Certainly not all utterly forsaking God but to presume on Him would be a more realistic understanding unless of course you are speaking of a specific period of time for instance when God looked down from heaven to see if anyone was righteous and He found none. That was a period in David's reign. If Paul was saying this with regards to the gentiles, what did he have in mind by saying they turned away from God?

 

[Cross Reference]

Unto what is the question? Certainly not all utterly forsaking God but to presume on Him would be a more realistic understanding unless of course you are speaking of a specific period of time for instance when God looked down from heaven to see if anyone was righteous and He found none. That was a period in David's reign. If Paul was saying this with regards to the gentiles, what did he have in mind by saying they turned away from God?

And God commands without enablement?? Even common sense says she's wrong.

 

[Sonnet]

Unto what is the question?

?

Certainly not all utterly forsaking God but to presume on Him would be a more realistic understanding

Presume on Him?

unless of course you are speaking of a specific period of time for instance when God looked down from heaven to see if anyone was righteous and He found none. That was a period in David's reign. If Paul was saying this with regards to the gentiles, what did he have in mind by saying they turned away from God?

? You are referring to Psalm 14 & 53?

All have turned away because all have sinned and fallen short.

 

[Sonnet]

And God commands without enablement?? Even common sense says she's wrong.

Indeed - for it would make Jesus' appeals to believe Him woefully disingenuous.

 

[Cross Reference]

?

Presume on Him?

Scriptures tell us man did whole lot-0-things in the OT that God "winked at" which, no doubt in my mind created problems for mans thinking through the narrow religious issues he was commanded not to take for granted.

? You are referring to Psalm 14 & 53?

All have turned away because all have sinned and fallen short.

Yes, which Paul quotes in Rom 3:10 that birthed a whole new stupid doctrine based on mans supposed total depravity. Alone with others, Nang bought into that. That is the argument you are getting from her.

 

[Cross Reference]

Indeed - for it would make Jesus' appeals to believe Him woefully disingenuous.

Absolutely! And God and unjust God. In fact God would not be God. Satan would.
The only way that could ever have been possible was if Jesus had failed in His wildrness experience; in any of His trials or temptations. And He was made vulnerable to those occasions..

 

[Nang]

Yes, which Paul quotes in Rom 3:10 that birthed a whole new stupid doctrine based on mans supposed total depravity.

Paul TAUGHT what was recorded in Romans 3:10, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Romans 3:10 is the Word of God!

All men are sinners, all the sons of Adam are totally depraved, all men have been legally imputed with Adam's sin and all are sentenced to death.

Denial of this biblical truth is stupid. Pelagian lies about this truth are deadly.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is not only historic reality, but it is the orthodox teaching of the entire Holy Scriptures, Moses, the prophets, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the true, invisible church of Jesus Christ!

Warning!

Try to buck THIS most elemental truth, that the fall of Adam into sin corrupted humankind and brought death upon all (excepting the sinless Son of Man, Jesus Christ), and that one who denies this Truth, will fall and become entrapped in heresy quickly, without rescue, without a doubt, and eternally . . .

Alone with others, Nang bought into that. That is the argument you are getting from her.

You betcha! The Total Depravity of God's creation, is real. Death of all things created is the evidence of this doctrine of the fall of Adam. Denial of this truth is denial of reality as well as blatant denial of God's Revelation (Word)!

 

[TulipBee]

When the Protestant Reformers talked about total depravity, they meant that sin—its power, its influence, its inclination—affects the whole person. Our bodies are fallen, our hearts are fallen, and our minds are fallen—there’s no part of us that escapes the ravages of our sinful human nature. —R.C. Sproul

 

[Sonnet]

All men are sinners, all the sons of Adam are totally depraved, all men have been legally imputed with Adam's sin and all are sentenced to death.

You seem to be avoiding responding to this very issue (it being part of the OP):

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 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.

You define 'many' as not all:

Nick's earlier thread OP includes the quote of Romans 5:18 to suggest that the death of Jesus Christ universally paid for "all" sins, but Romans 5:19 quantifies Paul's gospel message as pertaining only to "many."

So you think that not all were made sinners even though you say that, 'All men are sinners'?

 

[Sonnet]

"The Reformed deny that the work of Christ had equal reference to all mankind. There are differentiations within the love of God: God's highest love reserved for His elect (Ephesians 1:4),

The spiritual blessing of v.3 are for those in Him. So believers will be holy, blameless and adopted to sonship - redeemed, forgiven their sins, given to know mysteries and made heirs.

His sheep (John 10:15),

John 10 is a parable about good and bad shepherds. Jesus tells the Pharisees they are bad shepherds. There is nothing there that speaks of the sheep as the elect as you would define it.

His people (Matthew 1:21)

Jesus came to the Jews - his people.

and His children given to the Son (John 17;

That's vague.

Hebrews 2:13).

?

Join to this truth, the fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart (Romans 9),

All men have hard hearts.

refrained from choosing Judas (John 13:18),

Nothing there about being excluded from God's salvific provision.

Luke 22:2-21.

and allowed His holy hatred to rest upon Esau (Romans 9),

You mean God 'liked less' (Luke 14:26). Jacob, not Esau, was chosen to be the one through whom Jesus would come...so what is your point?

That you believe God hated Esau in the way you describe is astonishing and tragic.

and we are left with the biblical truth of Limited Atonement."

George C. Miladin

He twisted scripture upon scripture and forced an unwarranted extrapolation.

 

[Sonnet]

An example of Jesus' love even for those that stoned him:

John 10:31-38
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Such men as these Jesus describes as not his sheep - and yet he still persists with them...to believe him through the works.

Only if belief is possible could Jesus enjoin them to do so.

 

[Sonnet]

and allowed His holy hatred to rest upon Esau (Romans 9), and we are left with the biblical truth of Limited Atonement."

George C. Miladin

Why did God reprobate Esau (your view, not mine) and not you?

 

[intojoy]

Faith is not the gift.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Cross Reference]

All men have hard hearts.

We can't assume that from scripture, Sonnet. "Many" didn't. Two give us the contrast: Cain and Abel.

OMT: God would never harden a 'soft' heart towards Him to sin and remain a God. He cannot deny Himself. Pharoah was no exception. His heart was already given over to sin against God that God could use Pharoah's evil to reveal Himself to His people. Even then I don't believe it was given over to reprobation. He could have repented.

I don't believe there is another example of this in the scriptures other than Judas who, in His foreknowledge, God saw that Judas of his own accord would irreversibly forsake [take action against] Jesus thus enabling Satan to enter him as he does all God gives over to reprobation. The spiritual application for us is, killing Jesus leaves no one to reverse the penalty for sin.

 

[Sonnet]

We can't assume that from scripture, Sonnet. "Many" didn't. Two give us the contrast: Cain and Abel.

Hard in terms of 'all have sinned' - not in terms of inability to exercise faith.

OMT: God would never harden a 'soft' heart towards Him to sin and remain God. Pharoah was no exception. His heart was already given over to sin against God that God could use Pharoah's evil to reveal Himself to His people. Even then I don't believe it was given over to reprobation. He could have repented.

Yes.

I don't believe there is another example of this in the scriptures other than Judas who, in His foreknowledge, God saw that Judas of his own accord would irreversibly forsake [take action against] Jesus thus enabling Satan to enter him as he does all God gives over to reprobation. The spiritual application for us is, killing Jesus leaves no one to reverse the penalty for sin.

Indeed - Judas chose his path and God foreknew. Even so, Jesus poured out his blood for him (Luke 22:20-21).

 

[Cross Reference]

Why did God reprobate Esau (your view, not mine) and not you?

RE George C. Miladin: There is nothing in his personal testimony I have read that even hints of him receiving a "gift of faith". In fact, he is still doing "his own thing" in the world. When he 'gave his heart to the Lord' and they found out he was a professional piano player, he was asked to lead the worship service with his music. Go figure. An unproven new convert leading the worship service. I guess the assumption was he had received a gift of faith that signed, sealed and delivered him to Christ. Strange doctrine that.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So an example of quantitative 'all' would be?

The passage we've been addressing at length. "All" with the Greek article is "the" "all"; anarthrous is always addressing qualitative characteristics and functional activity. That's why nouns in Greek are substantives.

Thanks - I'm taking note of your reasoning - still would like to see a particular example of articular 'all' from scripture with the context being people.

There is none better than the one being addressed. No article means anarthrous. Anarthrous substantives are never articular. It's very simple, except for Englishizers.

You imply here that anarthrous 'all' would point to a quantitative meaning. I asked for an example but you haven't responded.

Missed it, then banned for a week.

Anarthrous substantives are ALWAYS qualitative.

"We all went bowling" doesn't mean all mankind did so. "We all went bowling, and they all went golfing".

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

So what are you suggesting? All kinds of people? So too verse 12?

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

One wonders where 'all' can ever mean 'all' quantitatively?

With the article and in context.

Here's a link to an expose on the Lutheran position, that represents Unlimited Atonement with Limited Election (in contrast to both Calvinism and Arminianism).

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/10/10-4/BETS_10_4_179-187_Scaer.pdf