Calvinism

[Ask Mr. Religion]

None of those verses say anything about being made able to believe before one can believe. None. You are reading your theology into the plain meaning of those verses. I ask anyone with an open mind to read those verses and see for themselves.

The verses note the total inability to choose the righteousness of God for the lost. The logical conclusion is inescapable unless you argue for prevenient grace...the stuff that originated with Romanism and appropriated by well-meaning, but confused Protestants seeking to reserve some humanistic notions of man's freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty.

No, the Lazarus analogy fails. The story of Lazarus is not a parable for Jesus quickening the "dead in trespasses and sins" the Lazarus story is a literal picture of the bodily resurrection.

I did not say anything along these lines. Read carefully. I never implied the Lazarus account was bore exegetical relation to soteriology. Rather, I noted the Lazarus account as an example of the sense of the spiritual death of the lost. The lost are literally dead as was Lazarus. Like Lazarus who was physically dead, the spiritually dead must be quickened to life. The use of Lazarus as a parallel for effect to drive home the spiritual state of the lost is within the bounds of normal discourse, especially for those like yourself who think your state when lost was but merely one of being wounded, not really dead, dead, dead, spiritually. I could have just as easily stated the spiritually dead are at the bottom of the ocean with rocks atop them, not floating about waiting for a life preserver to be grabbed. Using the Lazarus account simply resonates with the typical believer as a mental and visual device to support the points I am making. If anyone is putting words into another's mouth, it is most certainly not me. :AMR:

Again, you are reading the plain meaning of the verse through the lenses of your theology. Anyone can see the plain meaning.

...And once again you inject your slant onto the text. This verse shows clearly the steps of salvation and the chronological order, just as the verse in John does.

You were given the answer, yet you refuse to see it, replying with but the wave off that you are right and I am wrong. Then move on to something else to quibble about since you think we that disagree with you have no answers worth your careful consideration. You have no new insights or special revelation that can overturn the many who have come before you that have already considered the objections you raise under the rubric of having found a defeater for those that disagree. It is as if the saints of old were not indwelled by the same Spirit that indwells you and you have some newfound illumination denied the saints of the past. Your username is appropriate as it appears your only purpose is to mock others outside your camp. Sigh.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How can they be? you see them at the judgement...but we are passed from judgement to life.

The general resurrection and judgement takes place after the gathering of God's elect does it not? we shall meet the Lord in the clouds "so shall we ever be with the Lord"

But these we see being judged are judged according to works

Let me try once more. You seem to be claiming that their are two classes of believers, the elect and then some other believers who are not the elect. Is this correct?

AMR

 

[Mocking You]

The verses note the total inability to choose the righteousness of God for the lost.

No, they say that man is a sinner. You insist on reading your theology into the text.

The logical conclusion is inescapable unless you argue for prevenient grace...the stuff that originated with Romanism and appropriated by well-meaning, but confused Protestants seeking to reserve some humanistic notions of man's freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty.

I've already outlined my beliefs on this issue a few posts upstream. Here is yet another attempt to put words in my mouth.

I did not say anything along these lines. Read carefully. I never implied the Lazarus account was bore exegetical relation to soteriology.

Oh, so you don't like it when others attribute things to you that you haven't said?

Rather, I noted the Lazarus account as an example of the sense of the spiritual death of the lost. The lost are literally dead as was Lazarus. Like Lazarus who was physically dead, the spiritually dead must be quickened to life. The use of Lazarus as a parallel for effect to drive home the spiritual state of the lost is within the bounds of normal discourse,

No, you are reading into the text. Jesus deliberately tarried for two extra days so Lazarus could literally die, because he wanted to demonstrate that he, as Son of God, had power over death.

Jesus used a metaphor:
11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.”
(i.e. according to Calvinism, "make him spiritually awake".)

But the disciples didn't understand:
Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.

So Jesus explains:
Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead."

Then Thomas, who is called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.”

Calvinism by contending that this account is an illustration of man being spiritually dead would have you believe that Thomas wanted to be spiritually dead, like Lazarus. Silliness.

especially for those like yourself who think your state when lost was but merely one of being wounded, not really dead, dead, dead, spiritually.

There you go again. It's a nasty habit you have of putting words into people's mouths.

I could have just as easily stated the spiritually dead are at the bottom of the ocean with rocks atop them, not floating about waiting for a life preserver to be grabbed.

You could easily say a lot of things that aren't in the Bible, AND YOU DO!

Using the Lazarus account simply resonates with the typical believer as a mental and visual device to support the points I am making. If anyone is putting words into another's mouth, it is most certainly not me. :AMR:

Misusing the Lazarus story to inject your theology is dishonest. Jesus himself did not point out that Lazarus was spiritually dead, he said he was DEAD. Period.

You were given the answer, yet you refuse to see it, replying with but the wave off that you are right and I am wrong. Then move on to something else to quibble about since you think we that disagree with you have no answers worth your careful consideration. You have no new insights or special revelation that can overturn the many who have come before you that have already considered the objections you raise under the rubric of having found a defeater for those that disagree. It is as if the saints of old were not indwelled by the same Spirit that indwells you and you have some newfound illumination denied the saints of the past.

That last paragraph was you talking into a mirror.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have not misunderstood you at all.

This non-Cal believes that the Holy Spirit convinces and convicts a person that they are a sinner, that they are condemned to Hell by God because of their sin, that they need a savior, that salvation is by repentance and faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Every step of the way the Holy Spirit is drawing the sinner.

At some point there is a moment where it all clicks into place, all things become clear, the TRUTH is revealed and saving faith results in the sinner. At this moment God regenerates the sinner. Man does not "flip the switch", God does it.

I am but pointing out the logical conclusion of your own words. You assume you possess the ability to be convinced and convicted before you are quickened to spiritual life. Hence, you assume you are not quite spiritually dead, only wounded, retaining some moral ability to be convinced, be convicted, such that you have faith and are then born anew (regenerated).

“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The word again (anothen) literally means “from above.” Unlike our first birth, which is horizontal, divine rebirth is vertical—it comes “from above.” The origin of regeneration is supernatural, not the natural work of our volition (being convinced, being convicted, etc.). “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17).

Like Nicodemus some argue from a process perspective, as in the birthing labor and delivery process. But note that Jesus uses the word, gennao (born), that refers to the concept of generational descent. He focuses not on the birth process or experience that one may assume, but on the fact that the father’s nature is passed to the child. What kind of birth is Jesus referring to? A birth in which the Divine nature is imparted to the soul.

Our Lord states that our first birth reproduced in us the nature of our parents: “...that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” But, then He concludes that our new birth implants within us the Divine nature: “...and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The thrust of the argument should be clear: regeneration is supernatural. Only the Holy Spirit can effect a change of nature of the heart, not our “volitional will”.

As Jesus states, without the new birth, no one will be saved. He uses a strong term, dei (must), indicating a logical necessity, that regeneration is essential, absolutely necessary for salvation. Some will argue that Nicodemus should take personal responsibility for his own new birth. But nowhere do we find Christ instructing Nicodemus to take personal responsibility and make a decision using his volitional will. “You must be born again” is a declarative statement of fact, not an imperative command to be obeyed. Christ, instead of suggesting Nicodemus take ownership of his situation and do something about it, is teaching exactly the opposite. Christ is teaching that new birth is a necessity, but no man can cause it to happen, even if a man could figure out how to return to the womb. Only God can perform this work.

One may complain that Christ telling someone about the necessity to be born again, then also telling them that they have no ability to produce such a work is self-defeating and contradictory. On the contrary, Christ’s objective was to expose the fallacies of trusting in one’s own efforts and works for salvation. If only being religious and devoted to keeping the law could save a person, Nicodemus was safe, but Christ clearly states that no one is safe, regardless of their works, religious fervor, etc. Because of universal sin, a new birth is a necessity and the debilitating effects of universal sin means no one has the ability to rescue himself. John 3:7 teaches a sinner’s only hope for eternal bliss is through the sovereign grace of God.

The “new birth” is no more or less than the sovereign and direct work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration (re-birth, quickening) is immediate. Faith is the gracious gift of God in regeneration (Ephesians 2:8), the first fruit of regeneration.

The sinner responds to the life-giving voice of the Jesus Christ (John 5:25) just as Lazarus immediately responded to the command of Jesus in John 11. It is an involuntary response, a perfect obedience to the divine imperative of Christ. God is the active cause; the sinner is the passive recipient.

This is the grace that is irresistible. God’s gift of faith enables the newborn soul of a person to function spiritually, an ability the person did not have prior to his quickening (John 3:3b; John 3:5b; I Corinthians 2:14). The gift also gives the person the ability to believe, that is "ears to hear" (Revelations 2:7; Revelations 2:11; Proverbs 20:12; Matthew 11:15). The gospel good news is, subsequently, addressed to the regenerated (Acts 2:39; Acts 13:16; Acts 13:26), for the unregenerate cannot believe (John. 8:43; John 10:26; Romans 3:10-18).

Accordingly, we see that regeneration is a birth (John. 3:3-8; John 1:13; I Peter 1:23-25; I John 3:9; I John 5:1), a creation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24), the Divine creative act of speaking into existence that which previously did not exist, a resurrection (Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:14; John 5:24), the Divine act of giving life to one who is dead in their trespasses and in their sins. All the images, birth, creation, resurrection, speak to the immediacy of God’s work of grace in the soul. Did the baby play an active role in his own birth, or what the baby a passive party in the work of external factors bringing about his birth? Did man help God create the universe or was that creation the sole work of God? Can man raise the dead to life or the corpse of Lazarus play an active role in his own resurrection? No, for God and only God is the active party, the only Creator, and life-giver.

Jesus says in John 5:25, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” He teaches here that God’s effectual calling is always successful when He calls the dead in sin to spiritual life, that the dead will hear His voice (not the preacher, or the parent, or the personal witness), that there will be life, and that it is an irresistible certainty.

AMR

 

[Totton Linnet]

Let me try once more. You seem to be claiming that their are two classes of believers, the elect and then some other believers who are not the elect. Is this correct?

AMR

I am saying blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of God

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Let me also try again, were those righteous ones blest of the Father by grace alone through faith? or were they blest for their righteous deeds?

Look at that

He says "come ye blest of My Father" strange that He doesn't say "your Father" or even "the Father"

"Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these MY brethren...." there it is again, He does not say "your brethren" or even "the brethren"

Nor did they understand that to minister to the saints is to minister to Christ...no understanding of the indwelling Christ.

But why would He say that at all if they themselves were the Lord's brethren?....when the Lord said "inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these My brethren".....He was speaking about a group of people separate from the righteous sheep who He was judging.

Paul rightly says that when Christ comes to judge the world God will bring us with Him.

 

[Totton Linnet]

John says we do not know what He will be like when He appears but we shall be like Him
Paul says in the twink of an eye we shall be changed at the trump of God
Paul also says we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There is no judgement....I am sure there is a judgement seat of Christ for rewards and punishments for the saints, but it is not this final judgement of the sheep and goats...we will not be judged with the world.

Therefore those righteous sheep cannot be the church.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I am saying blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of God

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Let me also try again, were those righteous ones blest of the Father by grace alone through faith? or were they blest for their righteous deeds?

Look at that

He says "come ye blest of My Father" strange that He doesn't say "your Father" or even "the Father"

"Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these MY brethren...." there it is again, He does not say "your brethren" or even "the brethren"

Nor did they understand that to minister to the saints is to minister to Christ...no understanding of the indwelling Christ.

But why would He say that at all if they themselves were the Lord's brethren?....when the Lord said "inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these My brethren".....He was speaking about a group of people separate from the righteous sheep who He was judging.

Paul rightly says that when Christ comes to judge the world God will bring us with Him.

Can you answer my question with a yes or no:

You seem to be claiming that their are two classes of believers, the elect and then some other believers who are not the elect. Is this correct?

I cannot tease out your answer from what you have posted so I am needing to start with the basics.

So is it 'yes' or 'no'?

And if there is someone else that holds to your position that has written something about this view of yours, I would appreciate a pointer or two.

AMR

 

[Totton Linnet]

Dear AMR why should I conform to your straight jacket?, fall into your groove so to speak. I am not saying anything about believers, I am saying God saves who He will, you and I are agreed that salvation is nothing of man and everything of God, the "wider mercy" so called sits VERY well with grace theology and not at all with freewill theology.

I answered you with astonishing clarity....no Jesus answers you, hear ye Him

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

You do believe there is to be a new heavens and a new earth

Are you not able to answer my argument concerning the last judgement?

I am not aware that anybody else believes as I do, no...but I haven't looked....people seem to go all one way with univeralism or all the other way supposing that just a few shrivelled souls will be saved.

I do believe john w holds something of the view that predestiny and election is unto the body of Christ and not unto salvation. As indeed the doctrine is presented in the scripture.

 

[musterion]

By "on their own" I assume you mean the person possesses the moral ability to choose to call upon the name of the Lord. If so, I believe the answer is a decidedly "no".

Odd, then, that a God who cannot lie would condemn those who don't specifically for not doing so.

 

[Nanja]

Odd, then, that a God who cannot lie would condemn those who don't specifically for not doing so.

All men are sinful liars. But the ones the Father had given to the Son John 17:2,
the same were Chosen in Him, in Love, before the foundation of the world to the
Adoption of Sons Eph. 1:4-5, to have remission of all their sins Eph. 1:7.
They are the only sinners God saves through Christ, who Himself bore their iniquity Is. 53:5:
The Sheep He gave His Life for Is. 53:6; John 10:11,15.

~~~~~

 

[intojoy]

John says we do not know what He will be like when He appears but we shall be like Him
Paul says in the twink of an eye we shall be changed at the trump of God
Paul also says we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the clouds so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There is no judgement....I am sure there is a judgement seat of Christ for rewards and punishments for the saints, but it is not this final judgement of the sheep and goats...we will not be judged with the world.

Therefore those righteous sheep cannot be the church.

Bema Seat then sheep/goat Gentiles, then Great White Throne
In that order

NO PUNISHMENT AT BEMA

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Is it heretical in saying that only a specific sect of people will be saved?

Calvinism is lunacy. God is love and desires for us to share in love. If Calvinist think we should suspend any rationality and think control is love, well ok, but sorry we can't!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Dear AMR why should I conform to your straight jacket?, fall into your groove so to speak. I am not saying anything about believers, I am saying God saves who He will, you and I are agreed that salvation is nothing of man and everything of God, the "wider mercy" so called sits VERY well with grace theology and not at all with freewill theology.

I answered you with astonishing clarity....no Jesus answers you, hear ye Him

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

You do believe there is to be a new heavens and a new earth

Are you not able to answer my argument concerning the last judgement?

I am not aware that anybody else believes as I do, no...but I haven't looked....people seem to go all one way with univeralism or all the other way supposing that just a few shrivelled souls will be saved.

I do believe john w holds something of the view that predestiny and election is unto the body of Christ and not unto salvation. As indeed the doctrine is presented in the scripture.

It was a simple question, TL. I do not understand the animosity here.

Please explain why you think my question is some sort of straight jacket?

Your post content is not making clear sense at all and I would rather not try to parse it into something not intended. From what I can determine, your words come down to the simple declaration that you think there is an elect (the church) and some other group also on their way to eternal glory. This is patently incorrect. Our Lord has one and only one Bride. He is not a polygamist.

A new heaven and earth is not even relevant here to the matter of who are the elect. All elect, the Bride of Christ, will be in the presence of the Lord on the new earth after second coming of Our Lord. The poor and the meek in spirit are exactly the ones who have been, are, and will be regenerated...the elect of God. You are taking the sermon on the Mount and trying to craft something else than what is intended.

I asked you for references to anyone who would argue this position. I would like to understand such an odd view better. As it is, it appears your view is something you have crafted by your own devices. That alone should send up a warning signal that you have wandered off the old paths of those that have come before you.

We are admonished by Scripture to interpret it in a community of saints, not as isolated individuals. When we think we have come up with the meaning of this or that we are to check in with those that have come before us as a touchstone to check our work, as it were. When you find yourself a voice crying in the wilderness, that does not mean you are a prophet, but rather, you are beyond the bounds.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Odd, then, that a God who cannot lie would condemn those who don't specifically for not doing so.

No, what is odd is those that think being held responsible implies ability. Rather, being responsible simply means there is Another that can hold one to account.

What we "ought" do does not mean we "can" do what we ought to do.

AMR

 

[Totton Linnet]

It was a simple question, TL. I do not understand the animosity here.

Please explain why you think my question is some sort of straight jacket?

Your post content is not making clear sense at all and I would rather not try to parse it into something not intended. From what I can determine, your words come down to the simple declaration that you think there is an elect (the church) and some other group also on their way to eternal glory. This is patently incorrect. Our Lord has one and only one Bride. He is not a polygamist.

A new heaven and earth is not even relevant here to the matter of who are the elect. All elect, the Bride of Christ, will be in the presence of the Lord on the new earth after second coming of Our Lord. The poor and the meek in spirit are exactly the ones who have been, are, and will be regenerated...the elect of God. You are taking the sermon on the Mount and trying to craft something else than what is intended.

I asked you for references to anyone who would argue this position. I would like to understand such an odd view better. As it is, it appears your view is something you have crafted by your own devices. That alone should send up a warning signal that you have wandered off the old paths of those that have come before you.

We are admonished by Scripture to interpret it in a community of saints, not as isolated individuals. When we think we have come up with the meaning of this or that we are to check in with those that have come before us as a touchstone to check our work, as it were. When you find yourself a voice crying in the wilderness, that does not mean you are a prophet, but rather, you are beyond the bounds.

AMR

My dear brother there is no animosity, perish the thought, never the less you want to debate on your terms. You are taking my argument and trying to fit it into your doctrinal understanding, which I do admit is the common evangelical understanding..just as it was the Catholic understanding of the fathers [so called]

I say this understanding is wrong.

Headed for glory? they [the righteous sheep] are certainly rewarded, they have an inheritance for the Lord says "Come ye blest of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the founding of the world"

Is that heaven? no it is not. Heaven was not prepared for man when the world was founded but Eden, or Paradise. Their's is the earthly inheritance.

Now the MADianites will say these are Jews and certainly Christ will rule with His saints [the elect] through the Jews. But what is certain and is the main thrust of my argument is

They can by no means be the church.

I have presented my argument many times and so far have not seen it satisfactorily challenged...nor have YOU challenged it. It is not good enough to say "nay, this is wrong, this disagrees with tradition"

You must meet the points my argument raises by which I set out to PROVE that the righteous sheep cannot be the church.

I would remind you dear brother that in the matter of eschatology Amillenialism is the relative "modern" doctrine and not the first doctrine held by the church.

It is the belief in the Mill which gives the heads up to my understanding of the wider mercy.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Bema Seat then sheep/goat Gentiles, then Great White Throne
In that order

NO PUNISHMENT AT BEMA

I agree, perhaps I would say that the GWT and the sheep and goats are the same but certainly there is a separate judgement for the saints.

But James seems to suggest that those who are leaders will be judged with greater severity....Paul also says "we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ to receive what we have done in the body...whether good or bad" But our eternal home [heaven] is settled.

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh_6:39 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.

 

[nikolai_42]

I'm afraid I share AMR's confusion here. While not all may be of equal spiritual stature or have the same rewards, those who are in Christ are His and those who are not....are not. That, I read it, is why there is a division of sheep and goats in Matthew 25 - not sheep, goats and some other group.

The only scriptures that come to mind that hint that there could be those who are elected and then those who are let in on some less active basis are these :

A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Matthew 12:20

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:37

They are only that - hints. And the second is only if you read them that the Father gives as being separate from those that come to Him (implied that the Father didn't give them).

I am saying blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of God

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Let me also try again, were those righteous ones blest of the Father by grace alone through faith? or were they blest for their righteous deeds?

Look at that

He says "come ye blest of My Father" strange that He doesn't say "your Father" or even "the Father"

"Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these MY brethren...." there it is again, He does not say "your brethren" or even "the brethren"

They are still sheep...separated as a shepherd separates HIS sheep from the goats (v32). And should we even entertain the possibility that there are some that will make it in based on their works? Did their works make them sheep or did their works follow them...follow their "sheephood".

As to the "my brethren" quote, note that it can be read (in the English) more than one way. It could easily be read as Jesus calling the sheep His own brethren....for He fails to use the term when addressing the goats (v45).

Nor did they understand that to minister to the saints is to minister to Christ...no understanding of the indwelling Christ.

I don't think they didn't understand that - rather, when brought before the throne, it is revealed instead that their works came out of love for those that they served - directly coming from the love they had in Christ. As such, when they work, they are not working to find entrance into heaven, but as a result of what has been done in them. So when told they ministered to Christ, all they see is what Christ has done in (and through) them - and so it brings a complete fulfillment to the statement that men will see the works believers do and glorify their Father in heaven. Those are the only character of works that could produce glory for the Father and a sincere "surprise" (poor word, I know) at being credited for those works that are not originally theirs to begin with.

So it is not lack of understanding but mere fruit of the work of Christ (as opposed to fruit of the work of man).

But why would He say that at all if they themselves were the Lord's brethren?....when the Lord said "inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of these My brethren".....He was speaking about a group of people separate from the righteous sheep who He was judging.

Note something in comparing the two groups. The one group (the sheep) is judged by those works that ministered to "the least of these" and the other group is judged by the works that didn't. Should we venture to say that anyone who goes overseas and feeds the masses should be assumed to be sheep simply because of an excessive natural generosity of spirit? Selfless giving is certainly a characteristic more natural to a people who have been blessed by the gospel for centuries (Europe and America...the Reformation), but is that what is being said here or is it being noted the true character of the works themselves?

Again....should we assume that the only goats are those who NEVER did anything selfless and giving to the poor or needy in their lives? That is the ONLY way I can see even beginning to allow the possibility of gaining heaven by works. And even then, it's a stretch (all our righteousness is as filthy rags).

Paul rightly says that when Christ comes to judge the world God will bring us with Him.

What about those who are alive and remain...? How is it not possible that this is a gathering of all those resurrected as well as those who are alive and remain?

 

[Clete]

No, what is odd is those that think being held responsible implies ability. Rather, being responsible simply means there is Another that can hold one to account.

JUSTLY!

Any bully can hold someone to account for not paying protection money even if the bully knew in advance that his victim had no ability to pay whatsoever!

So it's JUSTLY being held responsible that implies ability. It's the concept of justice that you can't get around.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[musterion]

JUSTLY!

Any bully can hold someone to account for not paying protection money even if the bully knew in advance that his victim had no ability to pay whatsoever!

So it's JUSTLY being held responsible that implies ability. It's the concept of justice that you can't get around.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Exactly. God does nothing that is not just. But if He holds unbelievers morally responsible for their unbelief - which the Bible says He does - while in fact intended they be unbelievers and made it impossible for them to be anything BUT unbelievers - which Calvinistic election says He does - then the Gospel of grace is a fraud and He is a hypocrite, an unjust judge and a liar. This is been pointed out many times here on TOL but it never gets an honest response. Because there isn't one.