Cured

Yes. But the verse says that their sins send them to hell. That is the part you ignore.

But again, the text says they are there for their sins.

Rev 20:11-15 is the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, not believers. And it says that they are judged according to their works and sent to hell for them. 1 Cor 3:12-15 is about building a church, not about individual rewards.

No it doesn’t. The passage makes clear that the works—the things written in the books—are the basis for condemnation.

This too. Unbelief is a sin. Belief is the only way that sins can be forgiven. But the sins are the ground of condemnation.

Do you really not understand this? Unbelief is a sin. When you say that “sin cannot send you to hell. Unbelief does” you are making no sense. Think about it, Helen. Don’t just keep putting the same stuff up here. When a person fails to believe in Christ for salvation, they are guilty of sin. And if no other sin sends them to hell, the sin of unbelief does.

Yes, and their sins are the ground of their punishment in hell.



Helen, you are relying way too much on philosophy and man's mind to sort through these things when Scripture is sufficient for them.

 

Then perhaps you should look again. There is nothing deviant or slick about it. The distinction between sufficient and efficient is not a word game at all.

Do you know what the word malista means? Do you know which word is translated for malista?

For everyone who? And what does it mean to “taste death”?

What does it mean to be bought? What OT passage is being referred to here?

What does it mean to “propitiate? Who is “the whole world?”

Yes, I think a lot of it has to do with words. I think you simply have not studied enough on these verses to understand what the controversies are. I am fine if you disagree with my interpretation on these verses. But it is incorrect to pretend like these are nails in the coffin that Calvinists have never dealt with. They have.

For instance, 1 Tim 4:10 has four options for interpretation. But it clearly sets God’s work for believers apart from what he did for others. Malista is a key word here. It means that all men enjoy to some degree what believers enjoy to a full degree. It is probably talking about a temporal-eternal distinction. Unbelievers are preserved and delivered from some of the evils and trials of this life that come because of sin. They have many blessings from God. But their salvation ends in this life. Believers are saved from evil and trial of sin not only in this but in the next also. That is the context of 1 Tim 4.

Hebrews 2:9 in context is about bringing many sons to glory, and those who he sanctifies, and it teaches that Jesus tasted death for “everyone” of those people. It may not say anything at all about those whom he does not bring to glory.

2 Peter 2:1 is probably an allusion to an OT prophecy in Deut 32.6 where God bought Israel. It does not refer to redemption from sin there but deliverance from Egypt. It is not clear who the despotes is there, whether Christ or the Father. But the word “bought” (agorazo) is never used in a soteriological context, as I recall.

1 John 2:2 tells us that whatever Christ did for us, he also did for the whole world. So that has to be considered.

Now again, feel free to differ with me on these verses. I am not bothered by that. But understand that these verses are not the lynchpin. Calvinists have long given explanations of these verses.

The first is true; the second is not in some cases.

Then on what basis does God send people to hell? How can God send someone to hell for sin that was paid for? Is the wages of sin death plus something else?

Having said that, I do believe Christ died for the world. There is no conflict there with Calvinism.

 

That is too small of a nutshell, but nonetheless a pretty decent summation.

I like Hegel! It is a "dialectical" process. IOW, there is no clear-cut answer to the "which came first" question because there is no chicken or egg. The whole question is wrong.

 

Y'all are making salvation too complicated.

Jesus did not say that whosoever has already been called, shall call upon the name of the Lord and be saved.

Jesus said that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. PERIOD...

God gave us a free will and He will never violate that. He could have forced us to love Him, but He didn't. He gave us a free will so we would choose to love Him.

Why would He create man in His own image and then deny half of them the chance to love Him?

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

That cuts to the chase about as well as any argument I have read on this board. Thanks!

 

No, not PERIOD. There are too many other things said on this subject to focus on just one scripture to the exclusion of all else and say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Plus, you are really missing the forest for the trees! If not for Christ's sacrifice, we would all go to hell. Christ's finished work means that some, and in fact "many", will go to heaven. He did NOT deny half of them the chance to love Him! Where did that come from?

Personally I believe the vast majority of people who ever lived will spend eternity with Christ. If not for election, the overwhelming majority would be going to hell, since so very few ever have even the remotest chance to hear the tiniest sliver of the gospel and believe! God can save them without relying on us to do X, Y, or Z to make it "possible."

 

God doesn't deal out chances . Again , He is not an equal-opportunity God . He deliberately has withheld saving truths from many . Some of those have heard and will hear those truths but He hides the "impact" from them . Many others He has willed that they never hear those truths at all .

The Lord calls only those He has chosen from eternity past . Those who were ordained ( predestined , appointed ) to belive will call on Him because He gives them the desire to call on Him . The call is not forced on them . He melts their hard hearts and they willingly embrace Him .

 

Salvation is not complicated. Here it is: "God saves sinners". People make it complicated by adding to that.

"Now say this prayer"
"Now go to the altar"
"Now get baptized"
"Now surrender your life"

All this is based on the idea that something must be added by man to the work of God. When we take a scripture "whosoever shall call..." and warp into a Baptist sacrament "repeat this prayer after me..." we are complicating the Gospel. We are too impatient, too eager for results, too unwilling to let God have the power. We don't think God can do the saving. It's gotta be "God has already done his part, now we must do ours". Now THAT'S COMPLICATED.

 

Actually, it is "God said it, that settles it." It matters not if you believe it...

Really? Hmmmm. I've been noted for getting to the bottom line by cutting down the forest and finding the tree with the problem. It's usually the one camouflaged with 'extra conditions'.

No one will ever convince me that God has a chosen few that will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and refuse entrance to others whom He has chosen already. That goes against every Scripture I have read.

What part of "whosoever" don't you understand?

 

So what you're saying is that if people are going to hell of their own free will, God would never violate that, step in, and do anything to change their minds. After all, man's free will is by far more sacred to God than man's eternal destiny.

 

Did you read this one:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV) But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

And what about this one?

Mark 13:20 (KJV) And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

John 15 ..If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

There's some more but I don't have time to look them up right now. Rippon is better than me at posting "snippets", right Rip?

 

I did not say He would not do anything to change their minds. Those are your words, not mine.

I believe the Holy Spirit will woo men. I believe that God will put someone in a man's path to try and lead him to the Lord.

Will he violate that man's free will and force him to accept the sacrifice Jesus made for him? No! He will not!

I don't believe I negate anything those Scriptures say by my belief that God has chosen all to inherit the Kingdom of God.

God created Hell for the devil and his angels - not for human beings made in His image. He never meant for us to go there, but He will not force us to accept His Son.

I have 'chosen' everyone to love my children, but I will not force them to do so. My prayer is that they will 'choose' to love them of their own free will...

It is up to man to choose now. God has done His part.

 

And did you see the rest of the verse:

['through' = by or with. 'and' = in addition to] Gods choosing to salvation 'was by' or was based upon His work and (in addition to) mans reception.
Notice I didn't put a particualar flavor there because it must always be a work of God first to the believing of the truth from the one who will be saved. And God knows them all, even by name. And it is for this cause they are chosen as the scripture just stated almost word for word.

Yep, the elects sake. Those who (as shown above) have not YET believed His truth.

Still no problem.

Actually your both about the same.

 

You will also notice, you always stop at verse 9. Wonder why? Not sure you know this or not, but John has a few more verses and even chapters past verse 9. Care to read them without outside opinion?