Are the five points Biblical or man made?

[RAdam]

I don't wish to get into a manuscript fight, but the "older" argument is subjective. All we know is that the actual manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are, themselves, older than the actual manuscripts used for the TR. We do not, however, know which stream is older. I have my opinion, you are yours, but to sit there and act like you definantly know which is older is just plain wrong. For one thing, the two you prefer were put on better materials, and for another they weren't used for a long period of time. Is it any wonder they survived longer than those put on cheaper products and used until they fall apart? Again, this argument is subjective so I don't wish to get too far into it, but we must at least admit that it is subjective.

Now, you said those that are firmly established have no need to repent. This is so wrong I can't believe you stated it. Even those firmly established need to repent. I still sin, and I need to repent from that sin. You need to as well. We all do. Now, there are yet children of God to be born of God, and Jesus has not come back yet because these have not been quickened and repented yet. Hence, He is longsuffering to those people, not the lost, hellbound scoffers described elsewhere by Peter in this chapter as "wicked".

 

[RAdam]

So, if all means all, as in every single person, every single event, etc, let's look at some passages.

Romans 8:28 - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose." Does every single event in my life work together for my good? Does the brutal murder of a mother of 4 work together for good for them? Does the abortion of a baby work together for the mother who spends the rest of her life grieving for her good?

Ephesians 1:11 - "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Does God work every single action in the world after the counsel of his own will? Did God work 9/11 after the counsel of his own will? Perhaps He worked the murders committed by Ted Bundy or another serial killer after the counsel of His own will.

You might say I'm taking these things out of context. Exactly. Context tells us what all means. Context tells us that all, here in 2 Peter 3:9, means all of the elect.

 

[yshwa4life]

Ac 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

2Ch 30:8 Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;

whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Eze 33:11 Say unto them,...As I live......saith the Lord GOD,...... I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;

but that the wicked turn from his way and live:

turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So you agree that we have the "choice" to be stiffnecked and/or turn from our wicked ways? What are you trying to say i'm not understanding.

 

[BaptistBob]

One more thing..........

Context tells us that all, here in 2 Peter 3:9, means all of the elect.

It has been clear to me that you have been attempting a commonly used ploy of trying to make the "beloved" mean "all of the elect." However, the unbelievers who will someday believe in the future are never call "beloved" by the author. Rather, all those doing evil are called evil. Indeed, the "beloved" are described in the most vivid terms found anywhere in Scripture as having been cleansed of their sins through faith and Christ and are firmly established. This book is not written to any unbelievers called "beloved" in addition to believers called "beloved."

 

[BaptistBob]

I don't wish to get into a manuscript fight, but the "older" argument is subjective. All we know is that the actual manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are, themselves, older than the actual manuscripts used for the TR. We do not, however, know which stream is older. I have my opinion, you are yours, but to sit there and act like you definantly know which is older is just plain wrong. For one thing, the two you prefer were put on better materials, and for another they weren't used for a long period of time. Is it any wonder they survived longer than those put on cheaper products and used until they fall apart? Again, this argument is subjective so I don't wish to get too far into it, but we must at least admit that it is subjective.

It's a lot more than that. There is no debate among the major scholars on this issue. If you want to discuss it, fine. If not, fine.

Now, you said those that are firmly established have no need to repent. This is so wrong I can't believe you stated it.

You are misrepresenting my position, perhaps intentionally.

I said that the scoffers need to repent to be saved. There is no need for the "firmly established" to repent and be saved. Christ's delay will not save any more of the "firmly established" whatsoever. Heck, that argument would play right into the hands of the scoffers.

So, if all means all, as in every single person, every single event, etc, let's look at some passages.

Romans 8:28 - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose." Does every single event in my life work together for my good? Does the brutal murder of a mother of 4 work together for good for them? Does the abortion of a baby work together for the mother who spends the rest of her life grieving for her good?

Paul's point in 8:17-25 is that that we are saved through hope in the midst of suffering. Our continued existence in this suffering world is God's means of transforming us.

Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Therefore, both the the good and the painful aspects of existence in this world work to our advantage as we cry out through the Spirit while we wait for the redemption of our bodies and adoption as sons. Paul is not addressing the minute aspects of anyone's life, such as why their pants ripped on stage during the school play, or why there were only 12 oz of milk left instead of 13 oz for this morning's breakfast. Rather, his point is that not only the good God has done for us in Christ ours, but also the continued suffering works to transform us. Therefore, suffering as inhabitants of this planet is good for us, as we cry out to God through the Spirit. (Sorry for being so redundant here. I'm in a rush.)

If even suffering works to our advantage, then "all things" work to our advantage.

Ephesians 1:11 - "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Does God work every single action in the world after the counsel of his own will? Did God work 9/11 after the counsel of his own will? Perhaps He worked the murders committed by Ted Bundy or another serial killer after the counsel of His own will.

God works all that he does out of the counsel of his will. It does not say that he does everything you do out of the counsel of his will. That would be a different issue.

Certainly, however, God does at times use the good and bad intentions of people to achieve his purposes. And the fact that evil acts happen in a fallen world are part of his will to allow the world be in its fallen existence. In that sense, I would also say that evil events are part of his will (but not his work), or he would move to stop them. Sometimes he does, and sometimes he does not.

You might say I'm taking these things out of context. Exactly. Context tells us what all means.

I'm convinced you didn't intend to say what you just said. If context tells us what it means, and taking it out of context is exactly what you are doing, then what have you accomplished?

Context tells us that all, here in 2 Peter 3:9, means all of the elect.

Ummmm.....I'm pretty sure that you don't know that "context" means. The context is found in the passage in which the verse resides.

I think you mean something like "the author's intent." But we would have to read what the author said to figure that out.

 

[RAdam]

To say there is no debate on the issue of manuscripts is ridiculous at best. It's subjective. Either you believe that the physically oldest manuscripts represent the more faithful rendering of scripture, or you believe the strain from which the TR was formed is older (though the manuscripts themselves are not, due to use and inferior materials) and thus represent the more faithful line. Really, it's an issue of faith more than anything else. No single person living today has seen the original manuscripts. We have these manuscripts and each person has to judge for themselves which to trust. Again, it's an issue of preference, not scholarship.

I think there's a disconnect between you and what I am trying to say on 2 Peter 3:9 because you keep talking about the "firmly established", and that's probably my fault due to bad wording. When I say God is longsuffering to the elect, not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all should come to repetence, we are talking about some who are not "firmly established". I believe Peter is talking about those elect who've yet to be born of God. Here are some who are yet in their sins, yet to be born of God and thus yet to come to repentence, and if Christ came back before this took place they would be condemned. Thus, God is longsuffering toward us, allowing this old sinful world to continue until the day He hath appointed for His Son Jesus Christ to judge the secrets of men, because by that day every heir of promise shall be secure in the everlasting arms.

 

[zrs6v4]

2Pe 3:9 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


"Should come" is not past or present, it's "FUTURE".

And "ALL" means "ALL".

I am sure there is some sense of longing that God has for the unrepentant to repent. We know He loves the lost.

but..

ALL doesnt have to mean all (not sure in this text who it is directed to). Example: Im in my house with a bunch of friends and I say, "Hey lets all go get some Ice cream" you draw the conclusions. It does depend on the context.

Another thing to note is that if God wills for everyone to come to repentance then nobody would go to hell. There are translations that use the word wishes rather than wills. So if God wishes for all to repent then why doesnt he just call them to repentance? Im not really sure to be honest (maybe He doesnt decide to have mercy on them). But to me as of right now the context seems to lean toward the believers IMO. I could be wrong.

 

[Me4Him]

I am sure there is some sense of longing that God has for the unrepentant to repent. We know He loves the lost.

but..

ALL doesnt have to mean all (not sure in this text who it is directed to). Example: Im in my house with a bunch of friends and I say, "Hey lets all go get some Ice cream" you draw the conclusions. It does depend on the context.

Another thing to note is that if God wills for everyone to come to repentance then nobody would go to hell. There are translations that use the word wishes rather than wills. So if God wishes for all to repent then why doesnt he just call them to repentance? Im not really sure to be honest (maybe He doesnt decide to have mercy on them). But to me as of right now the context seems to lean toward the believers IMO. I could be wrong.

If God loved/didn't sent Jesus to condemn the world and he died to take away the law for the sins of the whole world that the whole world "MIGHT BE" saved,

How many do you think God would like to see repenting, "ALL"???

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, (saved) but also for the sins of the whole world. (lost)

God blame Adam/Eve for "trangressing the law", if predestine, they didn't have a "CHOICE",

Predestination takes away all accountability/responsibility from Man for obedience/disobedience, and blames God for the existence of sin.

 

[Allan]

Another thing to note is that if God wills for everyone to come to repentance then nobody would go to hell. There are translations that use the word wishes rather than wills. So if God wishes for all to repent then why doesnt he just call them to repentance? Im not really sure to be honest (maybe He doesnt decide to have mercy on them). But to me as of right now the context seems to lean toward the believers IMO. I could be wrong.

I your last sentence let me state that with respect to 2 Peter 3:9 you are correct, in that the context is about those believers (those who will be) because it is those whom He is patiently waiting upon. However with respect with 1 Tim 2:4 you are not.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

In any case I was wondering why you automatically 'assume' they will not becuase God "doesn't decide to have mercy on them". This was interesting to me because here we have scripture stating that God desires them to repent/be saved and you place - but wont allow them to.. into the context. Does that make any logical sense? :saint:

Now.. what if God -was- merciful toward them. Would this not logically explain His desire toward them to repent/be saved?? Can God state that He desires something for them to have that He does not desire for them to have?? Isn't that a complete contradiction? To say I want you to have what I will not give you, or, even I desire you to be saved but will not allow you to be?

Also just a note - the 'all' in that passage does have a qualifier which is 'men'. Look up that word. (hint - it means mankind or human race)

 

[Allan]

Predestination takes away all accountability/responsibility from Man for obedience/disobedience, and blames God for the existence of sin.

Actually it doesn't. Predestination is a biblical term with doctrinal singnificance. However I beleive that the mainline Reformed view of predestination has taken it in another direction.


I'm not going to argue what or why that is, but have addressed your comment to state that predestination is a biblical concept in scripture and is even used there to prove it's point.

 

[RAdam]

I'm really tired of discussing this with you Me4Him. You constantly grossly misrepresent the doctrine of predestination even though I have repeatedly corrected you on it. You refuse to debate me on what I actually believe concerning predestination, electing instead to keep harping on that straw man you've constructed showing once and for all that you have no idea what predestination means nor what it entails.

The last thing I will say in this attempted debate is this. If all means every single, then Paul just told us in Romans 5:18 that the free gift came upon all men unto justification in like manner that the judgement came upon all men to condemnation. In other words, if all means every single person in humanity without exception, then every single person in humanity without exception is justified. In Adam all men were made guilty, in Christ all men have been made righteous. Wait a minute, the bible says some are unjust and shall be cast into hell. Yep. What's under consideration in Romans 5 at that point? A comparison between the representation of Adam and Christ. All men represented in Adam were made guilty in Adam, all men represented in Christ were made righteous in Christ. You see, the context provides the necessary information to rightly divide scripture. Anyone can take a verse and make it say what they want it to. The tough thing to do, and it is tough to every single person that has ever sincerely tried to understand scripture, is to try to find out what the text actually says in context.

 

[Allan]

The last thing I will say in this attempted debate is this. If all means every single, then Paul just told us in Romans 5:18 that the free gift came upon all men unto justification in like manner that the judgement came upon all men to condemnation. In other words, if all means every single person in humanity without exception, then every single person in humanity without exception is justified.

I would suggest you go back and read that again.
It states that the 'free gift' came upon all men (mankind). That gift is what 'brings justification'. Scripture states that the propitiation is recieved 'by faith' (Rom 3:25). Thus it is not just imparted as a done deal but must in fact be recieved in order that the benifit of that action be employee upon the recipient.

The 'all' in both cases in the same sentence reflect that these to events encompass the all mankind and not all mankind in the first instance and some of all in the other.

Please keep the to context and you will not go wandering like that to often.

 

[zrs6v4]

If God loved/didn't sent Jesus to condemn the world and he died to take away the law for the sins of the whole world that the whole world "MIGHT BE" saved,

How many do you think God would like to see repenting, "ALL"???.

I agree but also lets add Romans 3:10-18. God wants everyone to come to repentance but nobody chooses Him as they are completely blind in sin. And if they do come to Him outside of God's calling then its in vain. Again thats my understanding

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

I dont disagree that Christs blood is sufficient for all.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, (saved) but also for the sins of the whole world. (lost).

If Christ already payed for everyones sins (the entirety of the human race) then why are they going to hell?

God blame Adam/Eve for "trangressing the law", if predestine, they didn't have a "CHOICE",

Predestination takes away all accountability/responsibility from Man for obedience/disobedience, and blames God for the existence of sin.

Although I agree that the grace doctrine can be very dangerous in that we think we may easily think we arent responsible, I disagree with your statement. Yes I believe Adam and Eve had an actual choice to do right or wrong. Now because of sin, we are always making the wrong choice apart from the work of the Holy Spirit inside of us. Then when we die and are glorified we will not be able to make a wrong choice again-Sin. I think your looking at my view from the wrong direction. I think if understood correctly then it would be the reverse somewhat. I am 100% responsible and doomed unless I have Gods grace and forgiveness which He promises if we believe. My utter helplessness of doing right leads me to faith in Him. Im not saying thats the only aspect of faith. So I believe that God is the author of all that is good including salvation which includes faith. Now I am the author of all that is bad so I am responsible and totally in need of Him. Its not like "oops I messed up, well its God will so I couldnt help it" That is a depraved mindset if thats how I thought. I focus on what God commands and His secret work can only be seen and given glory for what I look back on in my life. He even used my wickedness for good.

 

[Me4Him]

I'm really tired of discussing this with you Me4Him. You constantly grossly misrepresent the doctrine of predestination even though I have repeatedly corrected you on it. You refuse to debate me on what I actually believe concerning predestination, electing instead to keep harping on that straw man you've constructed showing once and for all that you have no idea what predestination means nor what it entails.

The last thing I will say in this attempted debate is this. If all means every single, then Paul just told us in Romans 5:18 that the free gift came upon all men unto justification in like manner that the judgement came upon all men to condemnation. In other words, if all means every single person in humanity without exception, then every single person in humanity without exception is justified.

What part of "MIGHT BE" saved is it that you don't understand???

Jesus "blotted out" the law (wages of sin/death) that was against "ALL MANKIND" that we "MIGHT BE", not "WOULD BE" saved.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

God/Jesus left a part out in the plan of salvation that man must fill in before it's complete,

Do you know what part is missing??

You're misrepresenting the plan of salvation, you don't understand it.

 

[zrs6v4]

In any case I was wondering why you automatically 'assume' they will not becuase God "doesn't decide to have mercy on them". This was interesting to me because here we have scripture stating that God desires them to repent/be saved and you place - but wont allow them to.. into the context. Does that make any logical sense?

Its ok . I believe that God longs for everyone to come but nobody comes freely for the true heart of God unless drawn by God. So with that said I say that God doesnt draw everyone although there is a sense of longing. Romans 9, hehe, yes, I pulled the big one, tells me that God does have grace on those He chooses and that others He gives them a righteous payment. So I believe grace is a free give that leads us to faith and that God doesnt have mercy on everyone obviously or all would be saved. I am not going to pull all the verses that lead me to this conclusion (as you know there are many) but maybe that clears it up.

Now.. what if God -was- merciful toward them. Would this not logically explain His desire toward them to repent/be saved?? Can God state that He desires something for them to have that He does not desire for them to have?? Isn't that a complete contradiction? To say I want you to have what I will not give you, or, even I desire you to be saved but will not allow you to be?

Well from the way I understand it, God can be longsuffering not sending people to hell and not have grace on them, but yes in a sense it would be a kind of mercy but not everlasting. So yes His patience may entail waiting for them to repent, which they never do on there own strength, but they are used as vessels of wrath to glorify his vessels of mercy. Well as I said Romans 9:22 says God desires to give wrath on people and others not. If the Timothy verse you quoted says He longs for everyone then yes it may be a paradox. I guess God can desire for someone to come to Him and also desire to give them wrath in some infinite way. I did not say He wasnt stopping them from being saved. IOW- if God waited for someone to repent in a true godly heart He would wait forever when man is left alone. So He isnt stopping them, rather there sin is or themselves.

Also just a note - the 'all' in that passage does have a qualifier which is 'men'. Look up that word. (hint - it means mankind or human race)

I will look into the verse as I am not familiar with it. I agree the contexts of all vary especially with the whole world... which I am yet to grasp...

 

[Allan]

I agree but also lets add Romans 3:10-18. God wants everyone to come to repentance but nobody chooses Him as they are completely blind in sin. And if they do come to Him outside of God's calling then its in vain. Again thats my understanding

The declaration there is that no one (without God) will seek after Him, know anything about Him, nor believe in Him. Man left to himself is doomed. That is the context there, it is a reflection of their sinfulness outside the working of God.

If Christ already payed for everyones sins (the entirety of the human race) then why are they going to hell?

Simple - that propitiation made must be received by faith that his justification might be applied to all those who will believe. WHich is actaully toward the end of Romans 3 that brings this into clarity;

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Not all are justified because not all believe even though that grace is extended toward them all.

The context here is simple and involves 3 points -
1. The Jews were not righteous before God because the Law and neither were the Gentiles who did not hve it because even their own laws condemn them.

...a. And as such both are disqualified from a relationship with God on the grounds of sin. Thus the scripture illistrates that man apart from God's intervention neither seeks to nor understands anything about God.

2. The secondl is righeousness. Since all have sinned none can be righteous and only the righteous have fellowship thus salvation with God.

3. Obtaining true righteousness that brings us into union with God.

 

[zrs6v4]

The declaration there is that no one (without God) will seek after Him, know anything about Him, nor believe in Him. Man left to himself is doomed. That is the context there, it is a reflection of their sinfulness outside the working of God.

I agree- nobody seeks God apart from the work of the Spirit of God.

Simple - that propitiation made must be received by faith that his justification might be applied to all those who will believe. WHich is actaully toward the end of Romans 3 that brings this into clarity;.

Do you at least think that Jesus took on the wrath only for those he forknew (not in calvinist sense) would believe? or did Jesus take a bunch of extra wrath for no reason just in case? I think it is sufficient(from our view) and specific(from God's) He only took on the wrath of the chosen/believers at this point in my understanding.

Not all are justified because not all believe even though that grace is extended toward them all.

The context here is simple and involves 3 points -
1. The Jews were not righteous before God because the Law and neither were the Gentiles who did not hve it because even their own laws condemn them.

...a. And as such both are disqualified from a relationship with God on the grounds of sin. Thus the scripture illistrates that man apart from God's intervention neither seeks to nor understands anything about God.

2. The secondl is righeousness. Since all have sinned none can be righteous and only the righteous have fellowship thus salvation with God.

3. Obtaining true righteousness that brings us into union with God.

I guess I need your explanation for Romans 9. yes man is totally depraved in sin all the way. I agree with all of your points.

 

[BaptistBob]

To say there is no debate on the issue of manuscripts is ridiculous at best. It's subjective. Either you believe that the physically oldest manuscripts represent the more faithful rendering of scripture, or you believe the strain from which the TR was formed is older (though the manuscripts themselves are not, due to use and inferior materials) and thus represent the more faithful line. Really, it's an issue of faith more than anything else. No single person living today has seen the original manuscripts. We have these manuscripts and each person has to judge for themselves which to trust. Again, it's an issue of preference, not scholarship.

Ok, I really think you are wrong. The TR is good, but I don't know anyone (and I DO get around) that teaches at a major seminary that thinks there is a debate that the collection of documents used are the most reliable. This is something that can easily be be found and studied on the Internet, to I won't pursue it now. Besides, I need a breather.

I think there's a disconnect between you and what I am trying to say on 2 Peter 3:9 because you keep talking about the "firmly established", and that's probably my fault due to bad wording. When I say God is longsuffering to the elect, not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all should come to repetence, we are talking about some who are not "firmly established". I believe Peter is talking about those elect who've yet to be born of God. Here are some who are yet in their sins, yet to be born of God and thus yet to come to repentence, and if Christ came back before this took place they would be condemned. Thus, God is longsuffering toward us, allowing this old sinful world to continue until the day He hath appointed for His Son Jesus Christ to judge the secrets of men, because by that day every heir of promise shall be secure in the everlasting arms.

I agree that it would help your case if the term "beloved" were somehow being directed at unbelievers. That's an argument that I would have a hard time swallowing.

 

[Me4Him]

If Christ already payed for everyones sins (the entirety of the human race) then why are they going to hell?

Jesus took away the "LAW" of death for sin, for everybody in the world, he didn't take away "YOUR SIN".

Since Jesus took away the law, he made it "POSSIBLE" that you "MIGHT BE" saved without having to fulfill the law by paying the wages of sin (death) yourself.

How are your sins taken away, remitted, same way Jesus took away the law, "DYING", "crucifying the "body of sin", only for us it's a spiritual death, not literal as Jesus was crucified.

Jesus asked, Can you drink of the cup I drink,

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of (your) blood is no remission.(of your sin) (spiritual death of flesh)

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

The flesh lust after the things of the world, the spirit after the spirit, which ever one we "CHOICE" to follow, flesh/spirit, is the God we serve.

Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The "Day of Atonement", two goats had to be sacrificed, the "Scapegoat" (Jesus) and the "Goat for the people", (body of sin) before atonement was "complete".

The scapegoat has been sacrificed but not many people are willing to sacrifice the "life of the flesh" for the "Spirit".

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,

During the Trib, people will literally sacrifice the flesh to be saved, the AC will kill those who worship Jesus and refuse to worship the image,

But this is God's "chastisement" and "stripe" in their "FLESH" for rejecting Jesus waiting until the trib.

The plan of salvation doesn't change, from "Genesis to Revelation".

 

[Allan]

Its ok . I believe that God longs for everyone to come but nobody comes freely for the true heart of God unless drawn by God.

Ok, for a moment I wish to focus on this because to me it make no sense, so bear with me.

God longs to see the non-elect saved but has done nothing to accomadate that longing. Now let us just clarify here. Why the longing for them to be saved is God does not intend for them to be saved? Why did God opt only to satisify part of His desire in the saving of people and not do what He chooses?

However - IF -God did everything that is necessary to draw all men unto Himself, and repent, and know truth, would this not then depict accurately God's desire all men to be saved and [thus] come to the knowledge of truth (believe)? - this in respect to man.

The above does not negate an effecual calling but actually establishes that principle. The calling is the same to all men but only some will recieve it and those are the people who will do so by faith. Thus it is a call is effectual yet it is only so toward those whom God knows will receive it by faith, while still reaching in earnest and honest sincerity for all men to believe it and be saved.

Thus God can desire all to be saved and reach out them all in the same manner even while knowing not all will but still not be in contradiction to His own desire because it fits His plan to offer salvation to all men everywhere.

Romans 9, hehe, yes, I pulled the big one,

Many do not consider it 'the big one' because the context does not lend itself to this interpretation. So let us just agree to disagree on THIS issue.

Well from the way I understand it, God can be longsuffering not sending people to hell and not have grace on them,

by this I assume you mean saving grace and not just 'common grace'

Well as I said Romans 9:22 says God desires to give wrath on people and others not.

The context is nations being used by God not individuals. Romans 9 is about the Nation of Israel from beginning to end. Each of the people in it are representives of those nations whom God is speaking of. Just look at the twins and what it says about them and then go look back in the OT what it is refering to. Jacob was representivie of Israel as the prophesy specifically addresses. Moses and Pharoah the exact same thing. The chapter is NOT about being chosen to salvation but to a 'purpose' The very context of the chapter preceding and suseding it illistrate exactly this - it is about the nation of Israel not specifically individuals. See - we disagree

If the Timothy verse you quoted says He longs for everyone then yes it may be a paradox. I guess God can desire for someone to come to Him and also desire to give them wrath in some infinite way.

True. Which reveals there is much more to God and scripture than us mere men can really come to grips with on everything

I will look into the verse as I am not familiar with it. I agree the contexts of all vary especially with the whole world... which I am yet to grasp...

These are difficult issues and I understand what goes into it when trying wrap our brains around them. God bless you as you search Him out brother.