Featured Biblical vs Reformed Salvation

I don't deal on implication.
I like it when God's word declares something.

For example, Christ point-blank tells me He won't lose any of His sheep:

" 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." ( John 6:39 ).

Again, "should not " / "should" = past tense form of "shall not" and "shall".
Here I see that God the Father told Jesus that He shall lose none, at some point in the past...most probably in context with 1 Peter 1:20.
He already knew His Father's will on the matter.

In the Greek ( nice to look at, but if the translators did a faithful job with the Greek, then the English is all I need ), it's rendered into English as, " No I-should-be-destroying" or " nothing I-should-be-losing" / "none I-should-lose of it".

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh6.pdf
John 6 Interlinear Bible

 

I don't like what you write because what you write is incorrect. That's why I comment.

 

In your opinion. You have no interest in actually discussing the matter. You just want to say you are wrong then ignore it when it is pointed out that you are actually wrong on the issue.

 

I was going to ask you the same thing.

 

In your opinion. But you have such a high view of your opinion that nothing will be able to prove it wrong. You are here to argue and with an attacking spirit by calling those who oppose you clowns and a joke. You should really examine your heart motives here.

 

Yes

 

It's not a Greek only issue, that's the problem. It's a context issue, it's a Biblical Theology issue, it is a systematic issue. Language alone doesn't mean anything without all other pieces of interpretation.

 

It's also the fact that you don't present Reformed Theology, but rather a caricature of it.

 

You don't even understand the Reformed Position so how can you say this?

 

Gentlemen...?

 

Race, yes. Every individual? No. Of course that depends on what you mean by the question.

 

I have a question relative to this part of the OP.

Rev 1:5 YLT and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood, ----- I assume that is the, blood bath?

However the verse from Titus 3 states, through bath (that is, blood bath just like in Rev 1:5) of (because of the genitive tense) regeneration (that is, again becoming or as you put it again birth)

Titus 3:5 YLT (not by works that are in righteousness that we did but according to His kindness,) He did save us, through a bathing of regeneration, and a renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Let's talk a little about renewing of Holy Spirit.
Jesus said in John 16:7 'But I tell you the truth; it is better for you that I go away, for if I may not go away, the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) will not come unto you, and if I go on, I will send Him unto you; ----Let's compare to John 7:39 YLT and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

There will not even be the Holy Spirit to receive without bath blood (Going away in the obedient shedding of blood) (resulting in being glorified) (again becoming or as you put it again birth) through regeneration. Then and only then can the Holy Spirit be shed forth on us. Jesus then received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father Acts 2:33 renewal of Holy Spirit Titus 3:5 to be shed forth. See Titus 3:6

Acts 2:32,33 states the exactly same thing. Rev 1:5 actually says the same thing, The first born out of the dead (again birth) bathes our sins away is his blood.

If we get that part of the OP correct then we can go to the rest, thereof. It will change things.

Show me where the word of God does not state what is written above, from the word of God.