ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Lon]

For whom did Christ die?

Either by your will or His, only for those who are affected by it, true?

We are just talking about who to blame. We know from scripture and God all those without Christ are responsible for their own lives.

Don't make the walls between Calvinism and Arminian theology so stark that you lose the universality of some conclusions where we are all in the same truth. IOW, don't lose truth for a spat over details. Important details? Yes, but not to the tossing of the whole. Are you more concerned for men and women that do not desire Him, than for Him? Set your eyes on Him. Hebrews 12:2 Colossians 3:2

 

[Sonnet]

None of those verses put the ball in man's court.

Synergism doesn't put the ball in man's court.

But those verses absolutely teach that no one was excluded in Christ's provision. Good news?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Since you don't tend to respond to posts you perhaps are struggling with, then perhaps there is no point continuing. You made a claim about articular / anarthrous 'all' and I responded.

You seem very irritable today PPS.

I'm not irritable. More than anyone on TOL, I address subject matter rather than ping-ponging or other antics. You don't and can't understand anarthrous Greek nouns and the Greek article, including when applied to "all" (pas). And I've done nothing but contend for Unlimited Atonement, but in a very specific context.

I'm not struggling at all with a response. I've spent plenty of time on this thread. Much of it has been futile, and I'm not one to throw good money after bad at some point, so to speak.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's all been distilled to basically one simple question, but you want to engage in endless run-around. This seems to be your intent rather than getting to the point. I'd think you'd want as simple and straight-forward a process as possible.

What is it within man that is uncreated and gives him an ability for Synergism that didn't come from the original Monergistic creation by God?

And with that you've met him more than half way.

Glad you showed up, he's beginnin' to get on my nerves.

 

[Sonnet]

Either by your will or His, only for those who are affected by it, true?

We are just talking about who to blame. We know from scripture and God all those without Christ are responsible for their own lives.

Don't make the walls between Calvinism and Arminian theology so stark that you lose the universality of some conclusions where we are all in the same truth. IOW, don't lose truth for a spat over details. Important details? Yes, but not to the tossing of the whole. Are you more concerned for men and women that do not desire Him, than for Him? Set your eyes on Him. Hebrews 12:2 Colossians 3:2

The denial of the fact that Christ died for all is an assault on the very essence of the Gospel. If substantiated then I am presented with a bizarre contradiction. Christ's lifting up is supposed to draw one and not, rather, repulse one.

 

[Sonnet]

I'm not irritable. More than anyone on TOL, I address subject matter rather than ping-ponging or other antics. You don't and can't understand anarthrous Greek nouns and the Greek article, including when applied to "all" (pas). And I've done nothing but contend for Unlimited Atonement, but in a very specific context.

I'm not struggling at all with a response. I've spent plenty of time on this thread. Much of it has been futile, and I'm not one to throw good money after bad at some point, so to speak.

Ok, don't respond - but don't expect me to believe your claim. Not one translation of Romans 5 reflects your nuance.

 

[Sonnet]

And with that you've met him more than half way.

Glad you showed up, he's beginnin' to get on my nerves.

It's not about me. Others - believers - have all made the same arguments.

I note you didn't respond to the simple question about who Christ died for. Should be easy.

 

[Sonnet]

Much of it has been futile, and I'm not one to throw good money after bad at some point, so to speak.

I feel the same mate.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The denial of the fact that Christ died for all is an assault on the very essence of the Gospel. If substantiated then I am presented with a bizarre contradiction. Christ's lifting up is supposed to draw one and not, rather, repulse one.

Like PPS said, give yourself to Christ, what's the hold up?

But if you can find the time please explain to me how you did it without God.

 

[Sonnet]

Like PPS said, give yourself to Christ, what's the hold up.

Doubts hold one up. But this thread isn't about my faith or otherwise.

But if you can find the time please explain to me how you did it without God.

Best to address that to someone who thinks that is possible.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I didn't actually ignore you. I responded. So I am not ignoring your claim. I am testing it.

It certainly doesn't seem so.

Romans 10:9 has verbs.

Yes. Aorist subjunctive active verbs for confess AND believe.

And how would one believe (verb) without belief (noun) as the thing believed? How would one take action without having that thing that is necessary to take action?

Confess is homoleggeo (homo- is same; -leggeo is speaking), which is "same-speaking". There would have to be a thing heard for someone to speak that same thing. And hearing is not a verb that man accomplishes. God's Rhema accomplishes it as the means of the thing believed (pistis) coming out of the thing heard (akoe).

It's the latent dysfunctionality of man that is resurrected unto functionality by God via His Rhema. That functionality of the original creation was dys-/mal-functionalized by spiritual death and the onset of sin (that is the condition preceding the act/s).

God resurrects man's functionality from the original creation. The original creation was Monergistic. The resurrection by His Rhema is Monergistic. Just because man SEEMS to cooperate, it's not a contingency as Synergism.

The worth in us is that we are in His image, so we can never be beyond His reach. The worth in us is that which God put within us in the original creation. And the whole of creation cannot be redeemed without man. Creation groans for the manifestation of the sons of God.

There is nothing in all of creation more precious and valuable to God than mankind. That's not a worthless creation.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's not about me. Others - believers - have all made the same arguments.

I note you didn't respond to the simple question about who Christ died for. Should be easy.

I already told you I believe Christ died for all.

It's you who runs from my questions.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The denial of the fact that Christ died for all is an assault on the very essence of the Gospel. If substantiated then I am presented with a bizarre contradiction. Christ's lifting up is supposed to draw one and not, rather, repulse one.

I've affirmed that Christ died for all. He was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous). He died for and AS singular anarthrous hamartia for every man in human history.

It doesn't get more unlimited than that.

 

[Sonnet]

I already told you I believe Christ died for all.

It's you who runs from my questions.

Then why this then?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Ok, don't respond - but don't expect me to believe your claim. Not one translation of Romans 5 reflects your nuance.

Sure they do. English isn't the means of determining Greek in arrears, especially without any command of noun constructs.

(BTW... There's a local Pastor who is an exegete, and is far my superior as a linguist. After several brief conversations with him, he has now determined that he really has no clue about Greek nouns and has determined that it is possibly the most important and overlooked aspect of linguistics and translation. We're scheduling to meet with several at the seminary level to address these concerns for how it might be corrected on a large scale. So maybe it's because no one has a grid for some things I've focued upon and introduced from a different perspective.)

It's not about me. Others - believers - have all made the same arguments.

And they are predominantly reasoning from English false foundations, including presuming many nouns are verbs. And none are truly considering that anything within man is NOT uncreated, but is latent from the original Monergistic creation FOR the new creation. Resurrection, not re-creation. Re-functionalizing that which was dys-functionalized.

I note you didn't respond to the simple question about who Christ died for. Should be easy.

Christ died for sin. I told you that pages and pages ago and you ignored it. Yes, it was easy.

In the context of considering both the original creation and the new creation, there is no such thing as Synergism. God Monergistically created originally, and God resurrects man unto the (qualitatively) new creation. All seeming cooperation is Monergistic. Man is not uncreated. Nothing in man is apart from God creating it. That's Monergism, even if it looks like Synergism.

It should actually leave everyone in awe to consider that God created man SO functional in His own image originally, that man could never be dysfunctionalized by spiritual death and sin to the point that God cannot resurrect any man to new life in Christ because He was made (poieo) singular anarthrous hamartia.

 

[Sonnet]

I've affirmed that Christ died for all. He was made (poieo) sin (singular anarthrous). He died for and AS singular anarthrous hamartia for every man in human history.

It doesn't get more unlimited than that.

Lon mentioned Calvinists.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Lon mentioned Calvinists.

Okay. Well... Lon is a Calvinist. I'm not a Calvinist.

I reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism to the truth. And Calvinism has many degrees from "mild" to "wild", just as Arminianism does.

The bottom line is still the same, and always will be. Man is not uncreated. So there is nothing within man that isn't created, whether in the original creation or in the new creation. So even any apparent and presumed or alleged cooperation by man regarding salvation is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Doubts hold one up.

You should doubt you can do it.

Jesus said God does it.

But this thread isn't about my faith or otherwise.

Every thread in this section of TOL has to do with faith.

Best to address that to someone who thinks that is possible.

I am.

You think it's possible but by your own admission you're not sure.

But why should I believe you're not sure when you keep trying to proof text?

 

[Sonnet]

Okay. Well... Lon is a Calvinist. I'm not a Calvinist.

I reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism to the truth. And Calvinism has many degrees from "mild" to "wild", just as Arminianism does.

The bottom line is still the same, and always will be. Man is not uncreated. So there is nothing within man that isn't created, whether in the original creation or in the new creation. So even any apparent and presumed or alleged cooperation by man regarding salvation is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

So this presumably applies to man's non-cooperation? Thus:

So even any apparent and presumed or alleged rebellion by man is, at its core cause and functionality, Monergism; even if it looks like Synergism.

Still waiting.

 

[Sonnet]

You should doubt you can do it.

Jesus said God does it.






Every thread in this section of TOL has to do with faith.




I am.

You think it's possible but by your own admission you're not sure.

But why should I believe you're not sure when you keep trying to proof text?

Synergism is not pelagianism.