Featured Doctrines of Calvinism denying the offer of salvation to the world

The answers I receive are broad. I am trying to get down to specifics. The answers run in a broad circle.

 

Ok while his wording may not have been the best your answers misses the crux of His question.

 

No, the answers are clear. But, humans have a tendency to look for a loophole when they don't like the answer being provided. I observe that this is the case in this present thread.

 

TC's answer was right on target with the statement made by Reynolds.

 

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 A.V.). "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call an draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace; as it is written "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Eph 1:4-6). And elsewhere: "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Rom 8:30).





Makes me want to invite homeless people over for thanksgiving and just eat my dinner in front of them making sure I say grace before and after.

 

You are confusing the issue with your unbiblical statements suggesting the will is free. It is not but when you are careless in what wording you use it is not helpful.

 

It was on your point not his.

 

The will of all sinners are still free to choose, but the options able to choose from has been restricted due to the sin nature. No longer have full free will available.

 

No it wasn't his point was that God determined some would go to hell without an offer of grace.

 

No double predestination, as predestination refers to those whom are the elect in Christ.

 

The question I am asking that everyone runs circles around instead of answering is as follows: Does every person born have the opportunity to choose whether or not they want salvation? Does God invite all to repentance? Doess He fervent my call all to repentance? Can man reject that call? Simple answers would be greatly appreciated.

 

What is the implication of not being "elect in Christ"?

 

It would be more helpful to offer instruction than to civilly call me stupid.

 

Not sure where I am going wrong in communicating with you on this? He was asking for clarification on a previous discussion. You chimed in with your own take on things and treated it as if your is the same as the other. Nothing about what I have said should have told you anything about my position on this. I was just simply recomunicating his question.