Featured Biblical vs Reformed Salvation

It's evidence, my friend.
If they were requirements that we as men could meet ( outside of the new birth, anyway ), then that would make it all of works,
and God would be dependent upon us as men doing those things, not because of His work of grace in us, but in order to choose who to bestow His work of grace upon.

 

I have, my friend, and for many years now.

George, God's children do not persecute and mock people.

I respect that you have a different opinion than I do...
But if you're going to express it, why not do so in accordance with the Lord commands pertaining to Christian conduct?

 

George, if you like, we can go through Romans 8:29-30 again,
and I would be happy to show you how I see it revealing how and why God saves someone.

In fact, I think an even better passage to look at, is Psalms 65:4;
To me, that one is even more simplistic, and does an even better job of showing just how salvation is completely of God's grace outside and totally apart from, the efforts of men.

 

No.

Rather, in 2 Peter 3:9 ( if that is what you are referring to in the underlined ), the context that I see for the "us-ward" is not all of mankind, but the beloved from verse 8.
He is longsuffering for the elect's sake.
Take a look at the entire passage from 2 Peter 3:1 to 2 Peter 3:10.

I'm also reminded of this:

" Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain." ( James 5:7 ).

The precious fruit of the earth are God's children, who bear spiritual fruit...30, 60 and 100-fold.
He is very patient and loving toward them, and waits.
Paul emphasized this in 2 Timothy 2:10 by stating how he endured all things for the sake of God's elect.

In addition, see Matthew 13:30,
where the angels bind the "tares" into bundles and casts them into the furnace, but He has them gather the "wheat" into His barn.

The "wheat" are the ones the Lord Jesus is referring to when He says, "...behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest." ( John 4:35 )...
For truly, when He went to the cross, the vast number of people who were to be called, had not yet been called.

 

No, I do not believe that we as human beings possess a will that is completely free.
The way I see the Scriptures presenting, our will is bound by our nature;

If unregenerate ( not born again ), we sin and love it.
Our will is enslaved to that which we love ( Romans 1:18-32 ).
If regenerate ( born again ), that love of sin is broken and we are now become willing servants to Christ and His commands ( Romans 6 ).

Again, our will is enslaved that that which we love...
God, or us.

It takes the power of God to break the connection... we will not do it ourselves ( John 3:19-20, John 5:40 ).

 

These two posts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are clueless regarding the covenants God has made. Please study the covenants and perhaps then you will grasp what Jesus is saying in his sermon.on the mount. It is obvious to me that your ignorance of the covenants is a major reason for your struggles in interpreting scripture.

The title of this thread should really be: "Why sbg's interpretation is correct while everyone else can suck it." That is really what you have been attempting in the roughly dozen threads you have created on the same subject where no one agrees with you.

 

He simply is giving the Gospel that those who have ears to hear may be saved. It says nothing about that being for each one of them. That is something you have added into the text.

 

The Lord Jesus came to do the will of the Father;
His Father's will is and was that He save all the ones ( and raise them up ) that He was given:

" All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." ( John 6:37-40 ).

Whether or not it is or was Christ's will to save anyone, He came to do His Father's will...not His own.

While He has power over all flesh, He only gives eternal life to as many as were given to Him by the Father ( John 17:2 ).
Jesus preached to them anyway, but it was still His Father's will that He save only those that believed;
And why did they believe?

Because they were "of God" ( John 8:47 ), heard His voice and followed Him ( John 10:27 ), had ears to hear ( Matthew 11:15 ) and had had it revealed to them by the Father who He is ( Matthew 11:27 ).

Question:
Why did Peter believe on Christ?

" And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ( Matthew 16:17 ).

 

This from the man who believes men who reject Calvinism are probably lost!



It's therefore a little rich on your part to play the persecuted part.
And slapping "sir" at the end of your opinions doesn't elevate them to nobility, it's nothing but a white glove on a slapping hand.
Some of us have learned to smell a sanctimonious brother (yes, I consider you a brother) when we come across one and to cut through the veneer of soberness. That's what ruffled your...feathers...sir.

 

Probably, but I never said definitely.
After all, the only one who has the absolute authority to tell someone that they are not saved is the Lord Himself, and that will happen on Judgment Day.

George,

I'm not sanctimonious, neither do I try to come off as such.
If you're taking it that way, I'm sorry about that... but how you read my posts ( and what you read into them ) is beyond my control.
Also, my using "sir" is a sign of respect that I learned long before I enlisted in the U.S. Navy 35 years ago, and I genuinely mean it when I type it.

I hold no ill will towards you or anyone else on this forum.

The truth is, I'm doing my best to remain as respectful as possible towards you, all the while disagreeing with what you teach and preach.
I will always show those who disagree with me as much respect as I'm able to, and as much as lies within me, to be at peace with all men.


If I've offended you by calling you out on a comment that I believe was intended to ridicule me ( and you didn't intend to ), then I offer my apologies.
But if you did indeed intend to ridicule me, do you think that's a Christian thing to do, even to one's enemies?
I hope not.

That said, having my feathers ruffled doesn't bother me near as much as it used to;
What bothers me more, is seeing all the people that throw insults around on Christian forums, and don't seem to think there's anything wrong with it.
I do, and I'd much prefer that we were all more mindful of our actions, and that we all do our best to remain civil in our discussions...
No matter which "side" we are on.


I wish you a good evening, sir.

 

Why do you think Calvinists disagree with repentance? We don't.

 

No, what is clear is that you are taking things out of context. And it says may be, not will be. And you are reading things into the passage that simply are not there.