ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Nang]

Do you believe, as does B57 that God creates ALL of our sins? B57 is one of you guys, basically.

God is not the author of sin.

 

[Nang]

Christ died for the sins of ALL of humanity. However, only those who hear the "Grace Gospel" and place their faith in Christ as their Savior will reap the benefits.

Are you reading all the posts in this thread? If so, you have managed to miss the central points of the discussion.

No sinner can "hear" the gospel message and comprehend it, without first being spiritually regenerated and given a new heart, new ears, new eyes, by the Holy Spirit of God.

Unless a man is born again from above, and abides in knowledge of Jesus Christ, there is no inherent faith to exercise.

 

[Sonnet]

That phrase is just one expression of the Gospel message, which I would only use within a Christian context when communicating with confessing brethren. It is not the words I would use out in the world in general, for I do not believe in assuming God loves all men, and would never tell someone God loved them and forgives them their sins, when I do not know the condition of their hearts . . let alone having no knowledge of their eventual fate.

I specifically asked you this:
Is the Gospel you preach to believers different to that which you preach to unbelievers? Yes or no?

You said:
No. There is only one Gospel.

So you preach 1 Corinthians 15:3 to believers (but not to unbelievers) and the gospel you preach to believers is the same as that preached to unbelievers.

I'd say your theology is forcing you into a contradiction. Asked for clarification, you'd be forced to tell unbelievers that Christ did not die for everyone. That's a different gospel from telling believers 'Christ died for our sins'.

Galatians 1:8-9.

 

[Nang]

I specifically asked you this:
Is the Gospel you preach to believers different to that which you preach to unbelievers? Yes or no?

You said:
No. There is only one Gospel.

So you preach 1 Corinthians 15:3 to believers (but not to unbelievers) and the gospel you preach to believers is the same as that preached to unbelievers.

I'd say your theology is forcing you into a contradiction. Asked for clarification, you'd be forced to tell unbelievers that Christ did not die for everyone. That's a different gospel from telling believers 'Christ died for our sins'.

Galatians 1:8-9.

If you think careful use of language, depending upon context and audience, constitutes a contradiction or a different message, then you have reduced the gospel to nothing more than a mystical mantra that must be repetitively chanted. That is superstition . . .

 

[patrick jane]

If you think careful use of language, depending upon context and audience, constitutes a contradiction or a different message, then you have reduced the gospel to nothing more than a mystical mantra that must be repetitively chanted. That is superstition . . .

John 3:16 KJV is not superstition

 

[Sonnet]

If you think careful use of language, depending upon context and audience, constitutes a contradiction or a different message, then you have reduced the gospel to nothing more than a mystical mantra that must be repetitively chanted. That is superstition . . .

But you explicitly said that the gospel for believers and unbelievers is the same - so, therefore, you will preach the equivalent of 'Christ died for our sins' to unbelievers or you will contradict yourself and, more worryingly, satisfy the condition for Paul's curse.

You think, 'Christ did not die for everyone,' is the same gospel as, 'Christ died for our sins'?

 

[Sonnet]

If you think careful use of language, depending upon context and audience, constitutes a contradiction or a different message, then you have reduced the gospel to nothing more than a mystical mantra that must be repetitively chanted. That is superstition . . .

What did Paul preach to the Corinthians when he first came to them?

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

But you wont do as Paul and the Apostles did will you Nang?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Are you reading all the posts in this thread? If so, you have managed to miss the central points of the discussion.

No sinner can "hear" the gospel message and comprehend it, without first being spiritually regenerated and given a new heart, new ears, new eyes, by the Holy Spirit of God.

Unless a man is born again from above, and abides in knowledge of Jesus Christ, there is no inherent faith to exercise.

You Calvinists have a strange way of putting the horse before the cart? You believe that one must first be regenerated then receive saving faith. That's part of your "false belief system." Don't you see? Oh, that's right, you don't see.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinism is a plague on the Spiritual landscape.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

How you Calvinists suddenly realize you're one of the "Elect" is suspect. I doubt if any of you false doctrine adherents can explain how you went from being non-saved to being among the so-called elect?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Nang attempts to sound more intelligent than she actually is. :rotfl:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

God is not the author of sin.

Well, your fellow Calvinist B57 would disagree with you. So would Nanja. B57 is Nanja's mentor.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What did Paul preach to the Corinthians when he first came to them?

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

But you wont do as Paul and the Apostles did will you Nang?

Would you specifically delineate the distinction between all noun cases for sins (plural articular hamartiai) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartiai) and sins (plural articular hamartemata) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartemata) and all their singular counterparts and the verb (hamartano) in its various moods, tenses, and voices, please?

This is always a futile digression in conceptual perception based on over-simplified English semantic glosses.

Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS) who knew no sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS). That means He was the scapegoat for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

That does NOT equate to the same thing for each individual's sin (hamartia singular ARTICULAR) and/or all that comes forth from it, both internally in the heart and externally in action.

If one can't begin there (and no one can or does) and know how and why that differs from singular articular hamartia (sin) or plural hamartia (sin) as articular OR anarthrous (which are NOT hamartemata), then this will be a round-robin of presuppositional misperception between false binaries focused on the wrong underlying understanding.

 

[patrick jane]

Would you specifically delineate the distinction between all noun cases for sins (plural articular hamartiai) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartiai) and sins (plural articular hamartemata) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartemata) and all their singular counterparts and the verb (hamartano) in its various moods, tenses, and voices, please?

This is always a futile digression in conceptual perception based on over-simplified English semantic glosses.

Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS) who knew no sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS). That means He was the scapegoat for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

That does NOT equate to the same thing for each individual's sin (hamartia singular ARTICULAR) and/or all that comes forth from it, both internally in the heart and externally in action.

If one can't begin there (and no one can or does) and know how and why that differs from singular articular hamartia (sin) or plural hamartia (sin) as articular OR anarthrous (which are NOT hamartemata), then this will be a round-robin of presuppositional misperception between false binaries focused on the wrong underlying understanding.

I see now that you are fool on a fool's errand

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well, your fellow Calvinist B57 would disagree with you. So would Nanja. B57 is Nanja's mentor.

In all fairness, B57 is way out there beyond mainstream Calvinism.

 

[Sonnet]

Would you specifically delineate the distinction between all noun cases for sins (plural articular hamartiai) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartiai) and sins (plural articular hamartemata) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartemata) and all their singular counterparts and the verb (hamartano) in its various moods, tenses, and voices, please?

This is always a futile digression in conceptual perception based on over-simplified English semantic glosses.

Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS) who knew no sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS). That means He was the scapegoat for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

That does NOT equate to the same thing for each individual's sin (hamartia singular ARTICULAR) and/or all that comes forth from it, both internally in the heart and externally in action.

If one can't begin there (and no one can or does) and know how and why that differs from singular articular hamartia (sin) or plural hamartia (sin) as articular OR anarthrous (which are NOT hamartemata), then this will be a round-robin of presuppositional misperception between false binaries focused on the wrong underlying understanding.

Perhaps you should just tell us what you think it means.

Christ died for the sins of us.

Seems pretty straight forward.

 

[Nang]

Would you specifically delineate the distinction between all noun cases for sins (plural articular hamartiai) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartiai) and sins (plural articular hamartemata) and sins (plural anarthrous hamartemata) and all their singular counterparts and the verb (hamartano) in its various moods, tenses, and voices, please?

This is always a futile digression in conceptual perception based on over-simplified English semantic glosses.

Jesus Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS) who knew no sin (hamartia singular ANARTHROUS). That means He was the scapegoat for every internal qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of sin as the internal condition for all mankind for all ages.

That does NOT equate to the same thing for each individual's sin (hamartia singular ARTICULAR) and/or all that comes forth from it, both internally in the heart and externally in action.

If one can't begin there (and no one can or does) and know how and why that differs from singular articular hamartia (sin) or plural hamartia (sin) as articular OR anarthrous (which are NOT hamartemata), then this will be a round-robin of presuppositional misperception between false binaries focused on the wrong underlying understanding.

I believe the scriptural passage of Hebrews 2:9-11 makes such distinction by describing Jesus tasting death for every man, while bringing "many sons unto glory."

The purpose of His being made sin unto death, was not for the purpose of universal atonement, but rather, to make the "captain of their (the ~many sons~)salvation perfect through sufferings."

???

 

[Nang]

Perhaps you should just tell us what you think it means.

Christ died for the sins of us.

Seems pretty straight forward.

Who is "us?"

 

[Danoh]

"Deciding to believe" the Gospel message is an action.

I believe faith is first and foremost, a capacity.

A new capacity of spirit, given to sinners by God the Holy Spirit.

The capacity to believe the Gospel requires a new heart (affection, love) for God, that is not inherent in the unbelieving hearts of any sinner. And the capacity to believe the Gospel requires a new mind; new ears to hear; new eyes to see . . all of which change comes from without the sinner.

The capacity of faith is gifted to sinners by the grace of God, when He wills, and to whom He wills to bestow it. Romans 9:15-16

This is the miracle of regeneration (John 3:1-8) that raises dead sinners to new life, enabling them to live and serve God in new accordance with the Spirit, Will, and Mind of God, as never before. This regeneration gives men the capacity to have faith in God's promises, and results in faithful actions of obedience and service to righteousness.

Placing all emphasis on human choice, robs God of His glory as manifested in His power to resurrect. Regeneration is a resurrection from death to life; from darkness to light; to enjoy the capacity of living faith that contrasts with the condemnation of unbelief and sure death.

Regeneration/resurrection precedes the acts of repentance and faithfulness.

This is the teaching of John Chapter 3 and John 15:1-8; John 16:8-15

Nonsense - it is an agreement with both the hopeless condition of man and the solution that Scripture relates through the following process:

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Verse 17 is not some magic zapped by the Spirit into believing formula. Rather, it is a summary of the steps laid out in the previous verses.

Also, note again, the free will choice just described in verse 16, in the following...

Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Perhaps you should just tell us what you think it means.

It's almost impossible to directly do so in this venue, since so few have any grid in their English-sculpted hearts and minds for Greek anarthrous nouns.

And it's not about what I "think" it means; it's about what it "does" mean by specific linguistic understanding.

Christ died for the sins of us.

This isn't acting or actions. It's a plural noun, and it's referring to internal and/or externalized results of various qualities of the sin condition that is a noun.

Christ didn't die for the resulting outer acts (hamartemata). They're included because of their internal source within the nature (physis) of our being (ousia) as the internal functionalities of our hypostasis (underlying reality of existence).

Everyone is arguing over misrepresented crumbs of half-truths.

Seems pretty straight forward.

It only "seems so" when English thinkers/speakers presume Greek nouns are English verbs or the nouns resulting FROM verbs.

Just because Jesus was made every inward qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of every man's sin (the articular noun as the condition of lack, for sin is not a "something" but a "somethinglessness" as a void), it has nothing to do with that death being applied to anyone for their actual sin.

You're thinking of individuals' actings and resulting actions as sins. That's not what hamartiai plural articular is referring to. So it's an invalid question from and erroneous perspective of presupposition.

The English-sculpted mind is a theological prison of tangential conceptualization. That's why I asked you (or anyone else) to clearly define sins, sins, sins, sins, and their singular counterparts. They're not the same, and the subtleties escape English minds.