"All"

[Alan Dale Gross]

If a boat has lifejackets in good working order for all in the boat and some do not use the lifejackets, is it the fault of the lifejacket that some who reject wearing one may drown if the boat capsizes? Obviously not. That the lifejacket was not efficacious for the drowned person doesn't mean it wasn't sufficient to save them had they worn it. There is nothing at all inconsistent about this. In the same way, God's salvation is extended to the world, sufficient to save any and all who believe on the Son. Some refuse this great gift and die unrepentant in their sins and go to hell, but this is no reflection upon the sufficiency of the Atonement to save whosoever chooses to be saved.

God's salvation is extended to the world, sufficient to save any and all who believe on the Son.

Your strict restriction is strictly restricting, strictly speaking.

That part is true; the rest is not.

It's amazing the rhetorical sliminess employed in this one sentence.

Why the pejorative language?

What purpose is it supposed to serve except to "vent a bitter spleen"and promote a partisan, contentious attitude?

This is only a question if one assumes

This sort of silliness demonstrates either a purposeful desire to misrepresent

At this point, the writer has established he is not a good source of "common sense."

Instead, he's shown himself to be a propagandist rather than a careful thinker.

See? Just more ad hominem to add to his Strawman arguing, false dichotomies, and Begging the Question - all of which are fallacious forms of reasoning and the stock-in-trade of the propagandist.

to play fast-and-loose with Scripture, as the writer (wrongly) asserts, it is wrong for him, as well. Obviously.

winsome way

How do you know this?

Are you doing with Arminians as the racist does with those he hates, painting them all with the same brush?

??? Uh huh

I've thought very carefully about what the consequences of Calvinist doctrine are.

I didn't call anyone slimy

those who reject Calvinism do so because of "carnal flesh and reasonings of sin-cursed lost sinners," or "weakness,"

And my remarks weren't "name-calling stupidity"

Well, obviously, I disagree and simply contradicting my view doesn't defeat it, or justify yours

Do you often tell yourself these kinds of stories about others?

Whew. It's impressive how fertile your imaginations about others is.

??? Do you know what projection is, psychologically speaking?

See above concerning psychological projection

??? A mere assertion, by itself, is not a successful argument for itself. You don't seem to understand this...

See? Just more imagined stories about another person. Again, how do actually see those you constantly psycho-analyze this way? You trap yourself in your own imaginings about them, keeping yourself from ever really knowing them behind a wall of these odd stories that you tell yourself about them.

Don't you want to actually know others, rather than just the weird caricatures of them that you imagine?

Perhaps, though, that's giving to others more freedom than you feel secure in them having...

Ah, yes. The rhetoric of the propagandist: Extreme. Pejorative. False. But very declarative

Goodness! You don't say!

Well, I'm convinced

Goodness! You don't say! Well, I'm convinced. Your frantic, ugly rhetoric has persuaded me

There's just nothing quite like the sort of obnoxious stuff you've put forward to bring others 'round to your own viewpoint, eh?

I certainly don't want some bloviating stranger online to think I'm wild-eyed denier of God's word, scooping up very random heresy Google offers to me! Horrible!

What would I have done without your unpleasant, propagandist posts? It hardly bears thinking on!

This is the making of a distinction in service to Calvinist doctrine

This quotation needs, of course, better qualification:

Which contortion of God's word

I don't believe or teach that Man, by himself, can determine his eternal destiny, so this quotation is irrelevant to my posts.

Why do you read this stuff? Yikes! What pompous, propagandist foolishness.

Do you know what this is? It seems not...

Do you know what "Throwing the Elephant" is?

No one has ever construed Paul's words to Timothy above as beginning with an injunction to pray through the Ephesus phone-book

This rhetorical Strawman is just a slippery ploy used to set up a false dichotomy. It chases the reader with an obviously ridiculous interpretation

It's not a reasonable alternative, however, but perverts the plain import of Paul's words just as much as the Ephesus phone-book silliness does.

Conjecture. Also, an unnecessary multiplication of explanation.

None of this actually does anything to dissolve the plain meaning

As far as I can tell, this is just an irrelevant explanation meant to obscure the natural meaning

, none of this proliferation of explanation here justifies reading the passage

this blathering on irrelevantly just signals a contortion of Paul's meaning.

And here, eisegesis begins

some ad hominem and Strawmanning

Both fallacious tactics of argument.

No, this is a glaring non sequitur, and Question Begging.

I reject your rejection and if it helps you any, you can go fly a kite for all I care.

 

[Tenchi]

I don't mean to be categorically devastatingly rude,
but you got a thumbs up from Silverhair.

And, not only that, but the Bible idea we see and read
that says, "not of him that willeth", is where God tells us
not that Salvation is "of him that willeth",
rather that Salvation is "not of him that willeth".

Get it?

Either one of you?

Romans 9:12-18
12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger."
13 Just as it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

What is Paul meaning to assert in verse 16? Is he saying that God arbitrarily and literally hates some people from the womb, keeping them out of His family and kingdom, creating them only for eternal hell, while loving others, making them His own for no apparent reason? No, of course not. Paul is only indicating that our salvation is accomplished by God, not Man; it is a gift only to be received, not earned by law-keeping, in the manner of OT Israel, or by the sacrificial shedding of an animal's blood (John 1:11-13). God's mercy is extended to Man because He is a loving God, not because Man deserves His mercy.

I'm not arguing that God doesn't act unilaterally in some things. Like Paul, I acknowledge that God decided, without conference with, or agreement from, anyone else, to make of Abraham's descendants His Chosen People. God did so also with gravity, and the blue color of the sky above, and the size of the planet, and the physical form, generally, of human beings, ordaining these things to be by divine fiat. Does this mean that He does so in all things? Obviously not. But this is how Calvinists want to construe Paul's words in the Romans 9:16. But this neither stands to reason, nor coincides with Scripture. Here's one example:

Jeremiah 32:32-35
32 because of all the evil of the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah which they have done to provoke Me to anger—they, their kings, their leaders, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
33 "They have turned their back to Me and not their face; though I taught them, teaching again and again, they would not listen and receive instruction.
34 "But they put their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it.
35 "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.


And another:

Acts 7:51
51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

And another:

Matthew 23:37
37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Anyway, in light of these things, from my viewpoint, you are the one yet to "get it."

 

[Tenchi]

For anyone who The Bible being quoted causes them to be stifled, I see now,
but I had not anticipated for that to become so apparent a hang-up
as well as God showed us that it is for you.. God always has the best illustrations.

This is all a deflection - and something of a Strawman, too. Does this fallacious arguing actually help you feel confident in your views?

Now, "being rescued from the kingdom of darkness",
is exactly different from ever having been a goat.

I'm not arguing for them being goats, I'm saying that
when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats,
the goats had previously been and continued until their death to be goats and then, Jesus will separate them from those who had been designated sheep
and Judges the goats as goats, just like they'd always been.

Yes, I've already indicated that I understand that this is what you meant. And I showed from Scripture that your thinking in this regard is in error.

Where in this couplet of verses does Jesus say anything like "goats become sheep"? Nowhere. Nor does he do so in the entire chapter.

Mr. Gratuitive Assertion Fallacy. Back at yah.

Just more deflection - of a rather nonsensical sort, in this instance.

"Everyone" that the entire context is referring to. It's an English Language thing.

Your posts don't inspire confidence in me, anyway, that you're adept with the English language...

Yep, those are who Jesus refers to as "everyone".

In CONTEXT. NOT ANYONE ELSE.

AND none of this has anything to do with the metaphor used of the word, "goat",
except that you are guessing that somewhere something actually teaches
that "sheep used to be goats" AND IT DOESN'T,
BECAUSE THAT WOULD NEGATE THE WHOLE USE OF THE SYMBOLIC DESIGNATION.

You are just wrongly guessing that is the way you want it to be,
but it not in there that way; for a reason.

Hebrews 2:9
9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

It made me laugh when you qualified "everyone" with "not anyone else." Who is left outside of "everyone"? No one. This is what "everyone" means.

So, in what way does the immediate context of the above verse limit "everyone" to "only some"? You haven't said, except to protest that not reading the verse as you do ruins your strange sheep and goats statement.

The ones who God says that He is not willing, etc., is the "us-ward",
not anyone everywhere or anywhere.

The "us-ward" is God's Restriction, isn't it.

That's a statement.

2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 (NASB)
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


There is no restriction in Peter's words of the sort you're trying to propose.

Who does Peter mean by "us-ward"? Just the Calvinist version of the elect? He doesn't indicate this in the immediate context of the verse above (and wouldn't, of course, knowing nothing of John Calvin and his doctrines). Does Peter mean solely his original readers? They would, of course be included in "us-ward" - and in "any" and in "all," as everyone else is - but why would God be longsuffering to the already saved readers of Peter's epistle? They are in no danger of perishing, having already "come to repentance" and been saved. It makes little sense, then, to make out that by "us-ward" Peter meant "just the elect" (to whom he was writing) and not everyone else indicated by "any" and "all." No, a more natural, straightforward reading of "us-ward" is "we human beings" toward all of whom God is longsuffering, delaying His promised return 'til any human beings who would be saved are saved. Nothing whatsover in 2 Peter 3:9 or its immediate context forbids this reading, only Calvinist presuppositions.

You call God's Revelation of How God Saves souls, "Calvinism",
but The Eternal Doctrines of Grace in every book of the Bible
is simply the One Way God Saves souls,

Saying so doesn't make it so. And nothing you've put forward so far properly secures your assertions here.

And, since,, as you know THE BIBLE says elsewhere that Jesus Gave Himself a Ransome for "many" that SINCE THE BIBLE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ITSELF,
the "many" RESTRICTS the " all",

This is a convenient but facile form or reasoning. Does the qualification of verses work in reverse, I wonder? I suspect not.