John 3:16

I tend to agree,
However, doesn’t “soter” hold to “savior, sustainer, preserver?”

That the sustaining is given to all and especially to believers?

I suggest that “malista” being taken as the level of rather then taken as an alternative too.

 

IF such were the context of 1 Timothy 4, then it might be a done deal.

But context isn’t salvation, rather it is the preservation and work of discipline and discernment.

God preserves and sustains all, but particularly the believers.

 

Ah, freedom of the will has again raised from the ashes.

Because you seem to desire to understand and would perhaps enjoy some extremely challenging reading that put those who are lesser in comprehension skills to exhaustion before completion, I suggest that you take a week and process the information at this link:

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/edwards1754.pdf

It is only 144 pages long, and be careful not to attempt to skim read.

I am a speed reader, and can vouch that even with all my ability, the material was so thorough that comprehension was challenged.

When you have taken this work in hand, and can present some level of disagreement with it, then we can visit about what freedom is granted to become a believer.

I rarely recommend reading materials on the B.B.

This one is the rare exception, because it is worthy and foundational study in this area.

 

Until you spend time in this extremely in-depth study that I suggested, the thoughts of freedom of the will remain mere opinion.

Spend time with the link, and examine each facet in the Scripture presentation.

The writer uses all views of each facet, so it seems as though the arguements are endless, but the aim was to examine every known proponent of freedom of the will in the first hand statements and compare those to the Scriptures.

The writer was perhaps the greatest theologian to date in the U.S. and gave his life in the service of others. He was not some stuffed shirt but a man who lived as he taught and thought.

 

I agree particular redemption, as related to some limit of blood for a certain few, is not found in Scripture.

However, particular redemption as related to the Father active as both the author and finisher of all pertaining to faith and salvation is clearly Scriptural.

 

Young man, you are welcome to contend with Scriptures with me, however, I thought you were actually seriously desiring to pursue the truth of the matter so you would discern the foundation of each argument.

That said, I will frame the argument in this manner.

The Scriptures do not contend against the free will, BUT place such a freedom with the constraints or bonds of ungodly compared to godly.

The ungodly are free to make choices from that set of which the ungodly are given, that is, only that which is fallen and characterized by ultimate frailty and doom.

For example: John 5 gives repeated testimony of the Christ and Christ states a lack of belief.

Why didn’t those who knew the Scriptures the best not convert?

The answer is found (in part) in John 6:

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”​

Fallen humankind may only choose from the subset assigned as fallen.

This is why the believer is a New Creature (including a new will).

Not that the old has been discarded, but is to be crucified, daily.

 

Well actually, those who assign names did.

Which more often happens.

Who would you ascribe this statement?

"God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons.”
​

Sure, it is a trick question! Here is the rest of the quote:

“This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing [going before] grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere." - The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 248, italics in original.

​

Arminian thinking comes from James Arminus, but frankly, he probably would dispute those that puff out the present thinking that bears his name.

The point being that unless one spends time, they may jump on just anything that “sounds right” but may not be accurate.

Others more often take foundational work and damage it in attempts to conform it to political/social prejudices and pressures.

What I have encouraged you to do is be less reactionary and actually attend to a more edification approach.

Learn discernment, and practice discernment so that you build the resources to help others.