That doesn't help your argument.
Oh, but it does and you don't have any idea that it does. That's your problem.
Please define Reconciliationist.
One who puts at rest or peace that which is divided or separated, like the false binaries of so many Christian doctrinal extremes in the later centuries of Denominationalism.
Your interpretation of scripture is in conflict with the translations we have.
No. You mistake exegesis for interpretation because you are consistently doing the latter and not the former to recognize the former.
I represent the Greek text. You falsely presuppose upon and into the Greek text from your English misconceptualizations that you are willfully blind to.
To whom was Jesus speaking when said:
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
?
It wouldn't help. You reject anything that is beyond your own definitions and private interpretation that you presume to be exegesis for some reason.
Your preclusion of anything of man to do that which scripture invites of him is astonishing.
Your preclusion of God as the source for all things by supplanting Him with man is astonishing.
Your interpretation is a done deal and man just robotically follows.
Nope. You haven't a clue and prescribe that to me based on your illiteracy of the Greek text because of bumbling English preconceptions of a carnal mind as a self-labeled agnostic.
I meant in terms of electing unto salvation!
That was the lexicography for election unto salvation. Sad you couldn't recognize it.
Since you have provided no reconciliation of compatibilism, then you are in the same boat as the rest of us.
LOL. Not even close. I've never even addressed Compatibilism.
I presuppose that we may make a choice to believe else we casnnot be held responsible.
Yes, you certainly presuppose.
How God remains sovereign I do not know.
Of course you don't. There's a reason for that.
Your interpretation of scripture leads to Calvinistic election and reprobation.
No. You presume a false binary.
See above. A worthless creation.
No, you make the Creator worthless and man sovereign.
You can't even determine that. You have no clue what Greek anarthrous language constructs even ARE.
I have. Indeed, I vehemently have.
I'll go with what the words actually say.
No. You most certainly don't. You go with what you presume they mean in English concepts superimposed upon the Greek text in arrears.
Nothing you have said renders 'all' to mean something else that fits your theology.
Right. It's not what I have said, but what scripture has said... Via the Greek anarthrous noun/adjective/predicate "all".
At some point, you should see the prevailing theme of you and an overwhelming majority of Moderns who don't know what Greek anarthrous language constructs mean compared to articular constructs and English attempts to translate them.
No, all the verses from 1-13.
Well, you did indicate 1-4, but it's still all the same. Anarthrous. And did I mention anarthrous? How
'bout anarthrous? Consider the anarthrous. Yeah, take a look at the anarthrous. ANARTHROUS!!!!
Now you are getting angry.
No. It's maddening in the manner of dealing with a beligerent toddler or preschooler. Exasperating.
Yeah, that's pro, too. Same/same. Precendence and preeminence.
You THINK you agree, and do lip service to it. Sadly, you don't have a clue.
Remember Paul's curse on those that preach a different Gospel?
Yeah, so you might wanna stop. Go learn what scripture actually says from the Greek text in English.
By all means prove what you are asserting...you haven't so far.
You can't even know that yet, if ever.
Your definition of how a man comes to faith in God allows you to accuse me of Pelagianism.
No, you're a Pelagian. You can't even consider anything but your false conceptualization from English presuppositional eisegetic nonsense.
It's like talking to an elementary school kid who read A through F in the encyclopedia and is challenging someone who has lived a life of truly experiencing what is beyond the pages and their info.
