God's View of Unbelievers

How can it be sufficient? It has no effect on the unelect. Sufficient for what?

I don't need to read the Cannons of Dort. Why do I care what it says? Is it inspired?

 

How is it sufficient if it has no effect on the unbelievers?

Never said it was. Don't twist what I said around. You said, "Not according to Calvinism." but yet you haven't even read the basic document where the 5 points come from. "While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."

 

I haven't misrepresented your view so I'm hardly using a straw man argument. I don't do that, at least not intentionally.

It's been addressed many times. We don't believe we are robots. to say such is to be untruthful.

 

So you're now a Bible only and don't read other works because they're not inspired?

 

I never said you believe men are robots. It was an analogy and you know it.

That does not make my analogy inaccurate. In your view men are born with a nature that cannot be willing to believe. We did not choose this, we were created this way.

So, who's fault is it that we cannot be willing?

 

I understood that...

Men don't act like robots. We don't believe men act like robots. So it is an inaccurate and a dishonest analogy of Calvinism. Men don't come to Christ because they don't want to. It's man's fault, not God's.

 

You ignore the cause of this unwillingness. Isn't it true you believe men are born with a sinful nature that is unable to be willing? Do you agree we did not choose to be born with this sinful nature? Then how can man's unwillingness be his fault?

 

Briefly, as I have a lot to do and get home for my refrigerator delivery.

We know that the term "all" doesn't always mean every single person that has ever lived. "All" is determined by the context. If I tell my church that "All are invited to my house after church tonight" I'm not inviting every person in the whole world to my house. The "all" here is in the context of my local church. In the John 12 passage, I see a contextual use of the term "all" to refer to both Jews and Gentiles. It can be interpreted to all kinds of people both the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul addressed this as the Jews didn't want to include the gentiles, but Jesus said all would be drawn, not just the Jews.

That's how I interpret the passage. We have the John 6 passage that says that all those drawn(by the Father) will be raised up in the last day. If John 12 means every person is drawn(by Jesus) then all would be saved. But neither of us believes that of course.

 

So I guess when Jesus said He would draw all men unto Him, He was only talking about the people who were standing around Him at the time He said this? Is that what you mean? That leaves you and me out doesn't it?

 

Did I say that? The only ones interested in Calvinist creeds are Calvinists. The important question is what does the bible say, not what does the Cannon of Dort say. If you want to read that for entertainment purposes, be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend getting your theology from it.

 

Yes you said it by implication and you know it.

Certainly you don't (hopefully) aplly this flawed reason to all of your reading. Rather, you do apply it automatically by protocol to anything that will possibly challenge and in turn dismantle your presuppositions.

Certainly you read other works by Christian authors? Theology? Do you learn theology from them? Why do you? They're not inspired.

So basically it's a convenient excuse and a copout.

Also, you haven't gotten all of your theology from Scriptures only. You also get it from others insight, from theological works & c.

 

I agree. I understand context.

But where does it say Jesus excludes anyone?

 

I haven't copped out of anything. Loosen your shoe laces. I do not get my theology from authors. I get opinions from them & compare their opinions to scripture. Scripture is the authority, not authors.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

You've copped out. Of course Scripture is the authority. Who's arguing that? Stay on track.

You haven't got all of your theology from the Scriptures only. Nor all of your doctrine either. You've gotten it from others as well.

Or, have you written a Systematic Theology on your own? If so, I apologize.

My point is you make pretense that it's not worthy to be read unless it is inspired. You also make pretense that all you know and embrace theologically came only from Scripture. That's ridiculous and inaccurate.

 

If the Holy Spirit wanted to say all sorts of men or from any tribe He would of said that, but He said all men.

When Jesus is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself, but we know only those who listen and learn from the Father will come and the words of Jesus is not His own but the Father who sent Him and all authority has been given to Jesus.

 

1. She SAID she has not copped out.
2. She SAID she gets her theology from scripture but reads opinions of others and compares that to scripture


The "have you written a systematic theology" so uncalled for

3. She makes no pretense, she tells you EXACTLY what she thinks

You are the one who acts ridiculous in your comments.

 

No, unless you are a Jew, you are a Gentile. Jesus will not just draw Jews to himself, but will also draw Gentiles like you and me.

 

Thank you! And I don't recall being rude about it like some others.