ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Any Calvinist wish to debate this Gospel?

 

[Cross Reference]

Exactly.

Calvinism is not Determinism; so part of the issue is all the dancing around the flaming strawman that Arminians have set ablaze (assisted by "Piperites" and other modern Neo-Calvinist "7-point" bunglers, etc.).

When man is empowered to become sons of God, he is then to "prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God". It's never about man's will anyway.

Never about man's freewill, you say? Then it was pointless for God to have subjected him to vanity to prove him, correct? Why not look it up, . . . maybe while resting inbetween snorts?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

God's Grace is available to a world of lost sinners, universally. However, those who will hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ as Savior will reap the benefits. Faith is the ONLY prerequisite Nang. Those who reject God's free gift await judgement and eternal damnation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Never about man's freewill, you say? Then it was pointless for God to have subjected him to vanity to prove him, correct? Why not look it up, . . . maybe while resting inbetween snorts?

Meanwhile... Non-heretics see that man did not subject himself to vanity.

You're still an egregious heretical schismatic, whatever you try to say.

 

[Cross Reference]

Meanwhile... Non-heretics see that man did not subject himself to vanity.

You're still an egregious heretical schismatic, whatever you try to say.

People of Truth know it was God who did, just as I stated it so you wouldn't twist my words! Get it? I guess not because that didn't prevent you from doing so. So look it up, coward. I am not going to help you find information in the scriptures that you already claim to know. Call on your Greek olive pickers if you need help.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I see PPS is still on the attack. :kookoo: At least he hasn't brought up nouns and verbs for awhile. Perhaps he's making some progress? Nah, there must be some other reason?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

are you doing any differently?

Yes.

I met a Person.

LA

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The "in Whom ye also trusted" is the Lord Jesus Christ.

If that's who you trust you would believe what he said.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[Nang]

If that's who you trust you would believe what he said.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Absolute truth. See John 15:5 which corresponds . . .

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Which becomes your Gospel - so what, if any, Good News do you have for those left out? Please tell me Nang since I, as a non-believer, might be one of them.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You might wanna rethink what yer doin' here.

Were you drawn?

 

[Nang]

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You might wanna rethink what yer doin' here.

Those drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit do not remain contentious or rebellious against the Gospel message.

Time will tell with this poster . . .

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Absolute truth. See John 15:5 which corresponds . . .

Better watch out they'll be askin' for your fruit inspector's license. :crackup:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Those drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit do not remain contentious or rebellious against the Gospel message.

Time will tell with this poster . . .

True.

But just because they only believe some of the things Paul said does not mean that Father has not given them to Christ.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Heir believes some things Paul said about Christ,so she is securely in his hands.

She has also misunderstood many more things that Paul said and to who.

Glory stealin' aint cool.

Damn good thing Father gave the judging job to his son.

Not to be confused with fruit inspection.

Which is reserved for the spiritually mature.

 

[Sonnet]

A
Most certainly. It's the distinction between inward and outward, and God has always been more concerned with the inner because the outer is merely the manifestation of the inner coming forth.

It's about the heart, and what is or is not in the heart. Is it the void and somethinglessness of sin that cannot be the righteousness of God? Or is it the imputed righteousness of God.

Inward character and outward conduct IS righteousness, whether of oneself's own standard or of God's standard. It's about the source, not the acts. Actions are left to the interpretation and accusation of man by outer appearances. This is about inner reality.

But why can't the noun Hamartia include the actual sin acts? Surely translators, if they were aware of that which you claim, would have rendered 1 Cor 15:3 differently wouldn't they? They would have 'qualitative characteristics' surely:

'Christ died for the inner qualitative characteristics of the sin condition of us.'


Still not clear why you also further distinguish the anarthrous and articular of hamartia thus:\

Innner:
Hamartia articular (singular) - Inner Condition (sin in the nature and members)
Hamartia anarthrous (singular) - Every inner qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the condition
Hamartiai anarthrous (plural) - All inner qualitative characteristics and functional activities of the condition

Inward to Outward:
Hamartiai articular (plural) - All individual anarthrous facets as inner demonstration
Hamartano (verb) - Bringing forth the noun into action as the verb
Hamartiai articular (plural) - All individual anarthrous facets as outer demonstration

But only in regard to their source, which is always in view as the governing principle or power(lessness).

Sin is personified within man. Man personifies sin by sinning. Man's acting and actions are the inevitable result. Hamartema/ta refers strictly to the resulting acts and their consequences. Hamartiai refers to the plurality of that which comes forth from the source; manpersonifying himself as a sinner.

This is why I presented the noun forms in a sort of order from inward to outward.

Sin (singular articular) is the inner condition.
Sin (singular anarthrous) is the inner qualitative characteristic and dysfunctional activity of the condition.
Sins (plural anarthrous) are the individual inner qualitative characteristics and dysfunctional activities of the condition.
Sins (plural articular) are the anarthrous coming forth from internal to external as acting by the verb to produce action/s as the noun/s.

The last one "straddles" the verb, with all the foregoing being manifested from the source. Referring to plural articular hamartia is calling attention to "that/those" sin/s and their source, and can never be divorced from their source.

With singular aritcular hamartia in our physis (nature) and our members, it is the very essence of our being and existence to bring it forth.

But, with respect, I keep asking for the reasoning behind these distinctions. The subtlties you delineate are quite baffling.

Because ALL Greek nouns are anarthrous. Articular nouns are specifically designated by the article being included.

?

The article was originally a weak demonstrative pronoun, and became more and more unique as the language developed; to the point that there are hundreds of books written just about the Greek article and the three-layered significance of having the article added to anarthrous nouns.

It's a specificity that exudes divine expression, for it is as close to infinite as any linguistic construct could be, just as the anarthrous nouns already are to a great extent.

I can sit for hours and worship and glorify God just for the majesty of Himself that is in Greek noun constructs. It's amazing. English thinkers/speakers have no idea why the inspired text was given to us in Greek. They can't. And it's all been replaced by glossed nebulous nothingness, very similar to hamartia itself. English is the linguistic equivalent of sin, but it's also the most viable and vibrant means of resurrecting life out of the death of the letter.

That's quite a claim.

Because scripture clearly and explicitly says he was made sin (singular anarthrous) who knew no sin (singular anarthrous). He wasn't made certain or all men. He was made sin.

Poieo takes some time to understand as well. From it come the words poietes (poet) and poiema (poem). By His own Logos made flesh, God is the poet of our salvation; and we are His poem, written by the very Word of God Himself.

Again, the -ma suffix in Greek indicates "the result of". Poiema is the result of God being the poietes.

The verse and cadence of that poem is according to His own sovereignty. We don't get to write the poem with Him or for Him. And it's a poem of love, which He is.

I'm not following you here.

Certainly, your claims make the translators in error since 'sins' (hamartiōn) for the English may include the actual actions. Not one of the versions (of 1 Cor 15:3) I have read thus far reflects your nuanced distinction.

 

[Sonnet]

Arminianism is just Pelagianism "Lite". I'm not sure I even like the terms Monergism and Synergism, ultimately. It's part of the false binary.

It would all seem to depend on one's definition of faith. Romans 4 has faith distinguished from things like 'faithfulness', 'mercy', 'justice' (see Mat 23:23)

It seems so, and that's because Monergism more closely aligns with truth in certain distinct ways. And Synergism is really a misnomer, trying to refer to the latent functionality of man that was dysfunctionalized in spiritual death and sin.

Hamartia (sin) is a form of ameros [a- (no/not) and -meros (share/part)]; the missing share or part. There's no "part" or "share" within man that can functionally participate in Synergism initially. And the original functionality was given by God and then dyfunctionalized.

What's up for "grabs" is the degree of depravity for Synergism or lack thereof; and that's why it's a misnomer that has devolved into a false binary. Man was created to function Synergistically, but in a creation that is Monergistic. That functionality was abrogated in spiritual death (thanatos), which is a term that needs MUCH attention (it's not annihilation or eradication).

Paul, repeatedly, distinguishes faith from works of the law. Your claim makes Paul totally disingenuous. If you are right then what on earth is Paul doing in Romans 10:1ff - for he would be giving a false hope in his desire for the salvation of his kimsmen.

Because most equate Calvinism to Determinism. And Calvinists attempt to project time upon a timeless God. They also don't understand the mechanics of functionality and dysfunctionality; so in making their appropriate appeals to Monergism, they neglect that which is enabled within man that could not initially co-operate for Synergism.

Synergism has always been Monergistically driven, in the original creation and in the new creation.

? Are all men 'enabled'?

This is where I have to disagree with so many terms employed by both "sides" of this false binary. Irresistable grace, for instance. That's not a lexical term, just like so many others. Unlimited versus Limited also implies an initiative by God that is pre-emptive in reprobation or election. And the arguments have take the form of many "isms" that have sculpted man's hearts and minds through language and culture, so the conflicts aren't the same as they were several hundred years ago; they've morphed to take on a life of their own.

The real issue revolves around the will of man, and whether "free" is a term aptly applied to it in the positive or negative. Again, it's a misnomer. The will is the application of the mind toward object/s as subject/s. An unrenewed mind in spiritual death is not "free". And a renewed mind is "free" in the sense of being free from the power of sin, though not the presence of sin.

I think ALL the arguments need to be reframed apart from such extreme false binaries, and with much more lexical expression from exegesis instead of concepts. It's quite apparent that the proponents of the extreme binaries are never going to agree, since each considers the other to be lost without Christ.

Right - as humans we don't and probably cannot resolve what appears to be the contradiction in compatibilism.

I thought you had the answer?

 

[Sonnet]

Those drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit do not remain contentious or rebellious against the Gospel message.

Time will tell with this poster . . .

1 Cor 15:3 is part of the Gospel but you hesitate to preach it - so who is rebelling against the Gospel message?

#79

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 do not believe a "free will offer of the gospel" is truthful.

How many times does it have to be said:
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

So you would preach about Christ's resurrection and the sightings of him but for some odd reason leave out the bit about His crucifixion for 'our sins'.

Gospel rebellion you say? Quite evidently, your Gospel is: God does not love all men, but God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:14-15 proves that God loves all since ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION of the bitten Israelites were provided for. And you can't refute it.

When your theology leads to arrant contradiction then something's got to be wrong with your doctrine.

 

[Sonnet]

Have said it before - Paul preached belief in Christ's resurrection - so what's he playing at if Christ did not die nor resurrect for all (Romans 10:1ff)? The context is his unbelieving brethren (Israelites)and he urges (them) to:
'...believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead...'

Calvinists would have us understand that Paul played the Gospel equivalent of fast and loose - Paul would have told reprobates (per the Calvinist's definition) to do that which they COULD NOT DO.

 

[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 do not believe a "free will offer of the gospel" is truthful.

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

 

[Cross Reference]

Yes.

I met a Person.

LA

And? Sounds like you met a person who led you astray by an incomplete truth of Christ Jesus.

 

[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 do not believe a "free will offer of the gospel" is truthful.

Jesus loved those whom he described as 'not my sheep' - indeed those who attempted to stone him - continuing to enjoin them to believe in him. Your suggestion damages the reputation of God.

John 10:22-39
Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.