ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[Cross Reference]

Yes, but they're inter-related.

Sin:evil::grace:faith.

 

[Cross Reference]

This is where you and I cannot find common ground.

God created sinners.(get over it)

God didn't create sinners. God created two innocent people who brought on the penalty of sin sealing man to the bondage of "vanity", the venue/open door to the soul for sin to reak havoc by the law of his flesh by wilfully transgressing God's command, whose principles by which he was purposed live. Wilfully I say because Adam was given an option and made the choice to disobey by an act of his God given freewill; freewill needed for revealing whose law he would obey.

 

[Cross Reference]

My theodicy is simple:

God created knowing His creatures would fall short of His glory and manifest sin, but manifestation of sin was the means and way to forever eliminate sin and all its ramifications (sorrows and death) forever.

Man was created good, but made in the image of God, was gifted with moral agency to obey God's commands, giving man secondary cause and effect over his existence.

This "Law" shifted moral responsibility onto the creature to submit and obey the Creator; which would, if obeyed, have honored the Creator as Sovereign . . but man loved his self more than he love his Creator, and tried to be like God . . thereby horribly breaching his creaturely responsibilities; abusing his moral agency, and thereby offending his Maker, and corrupting his being altogether unto death . . which God willed to remedy in the fullness of time (Incarnation), with the intent to bequeath His Christ a redeemed (perfected) and inhabited Kingdom.

In other words, God created evil for the purpose of sorting out sons for Himself.

 

[TulipBee]

In other words, God created evil for the purpose of sorting out sons for Himself.

In other words your questions shows you don't know God.

 

[Cross Reference]

In other words your questions shows you don't know God.

And your replies scream you don't understand why God created mankind. In other words you don't understand what you read whenevr you read your Bible.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (Romans 5:18)

[b/This verse should be enough to silence those who claim Jesus did not did for all.[/b]

v.17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Obvious, 'abundant' is a reference to the universality of provision (all men without exception) and not the degree of the atonement itself (since such atonement is a binary - an either or).

But Jesus didn't die for all/certain people... He died for the (singular anarthrous) sin OF all people.

So there's a great degree to which the entire Calvinism v Arminianism debate (debacle?) is superfluous and invalid as a mutual strawman consumed on each others' bonfires.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So an example of quantitative 'all' would be?

The significance that most (including many scholars) miss is the LACK of the article, which not only particularizes, but also nominalizes and/or conceptualizes (HUGELY important things, BTW); so the anarthrous is not "THE" all, but a qualitative all, respectively of sinners and righteous.

The quantitative "all" would be the more stand-alone concept of humanity as a whole (like adding the articular to the adjective "poor" to indicate "THE poor" as an entire nominalized category).

These subtleties are not known or readily recognized and understood without divesting oneself of language-induced passive bias and perspective.

You should not (and don't) already know the difference between Greek anarthrous and articular substantives/nouns. That's the point. But you MUST now know them, and that will take some time and back-tracking to at least neutrality.

You're reasonable and rational, unlike most on TOL, but you're nowhere near neutral. Presuppositions are undermining you being able to understand.

If, AFTER you understand, you reject all I've said - then fine. But you won't.

 

[TulipBee]

And your replies scream you don't understand why God created mankind. In other words you don't understand what you read whenevr you read your Bible.

You'll need to know God first through being born again first before you understand. We didnt see that happen first so therefore you don't understand. You never understood the first place. You ended up, based off what you say in your posts, not knowing God and still don't. All this is based off the bible alone, not yours

 

[Cross Reference]

You'll need to know God first through being born again first before you understand. We didnt see that happen first so therefore you don't understand. You never understood the first place. You ended up, based off what you say in your posts, not knowing God and still don't. All this is based off the bible alone, not yours

Put up or shut up. Show me where I violate the scriptures? Of course you can't because you don't "know" them, nor do you "know" God that you make the most stupid remarks you do. So show me my posts upon which you base your untoward claims, you midget man of valor.

 

[Sonnet]

But Jesus didn't die for all/certain people... He died for the (singular anarthrous) sin OF all people.

So there's a great degree to which the entire Calvinism v Arminianism debate (debacle?) is superfluous and invalid as a mutual strawman consumed on each others' bonfires.

I remain unclear as to how, if true, this makes a difference.

 

[Cross Reference]

Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post

But Jesus didn't die for all/certain people... He died for the (singular anarthrous) sin OF all people.

So there's a great degree to which the entire Calvinism v Arminianism debate (debacle?) is superfluous and invalid as a mutual strawman consumed on each others' bonfires.

Jesus died to redeem mankind from the power of sin, the power that persuades towards vanity and away from God. For this to be made effective Jesus had to first cancel out the penalty for Adam's transgression followed by the adminstering of the enablement for one to secure to himself the Mind and Will of God for the overcoming the law of his flesh, the law that now wars against the LAW of God for his eternal life. One's will, of necessity, must be totally surrendered to the Mind and Will of God in the afterwards of his new birth from above. Salvation is but the beginning of this understanding when understood by the hearer of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All of this by, the man Jesus, who made it possible. Therefore, teaching of the scriptures is universal redemption NOT universal salvation, redemption being the enablement for it. Enablement is by faith in the result of redemption which is fact, i.e., Jesus Christ becoming man's advocater before God.

 

[Sonnet]

The significance that most (including many scholars) miss is the LACK of the article, which not only particularizes, but also nominalizes and/or conceptualizes (HUGELY important things, BTW); so the anarthrous is not "THE" all, but a qualitative all, respectively of sinners and righteous.

The quantitative "all" would be the more stand-alone concept of humanity as a whole (like adding the articular to the adjective "poor" to indicate "THE poor" as an entire nominalized category).

These subtleties are not known or readily recognized and understood without divesting oneself of language-induced passive bias and perspective.

You should not (and don't) already know the difference between Greek anarthrous and articular substantives/nouns. That's the point. But you MUST now know them, and that will take some time and back-tracking to at least neutrality.

You're reasonable and rational, unlike most on TOL, but you're nowhere near neutral. Presuppositions are undermining you being able to understand.

If, AFTER you understand, you reject all I've said - then fine. But you won't.

Thanks - I'm taking note of your reasoning - still would like to see a particular example of articular 'all' from scripture with the context being people.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course.

How 'bout a reply to my post #1772, Nang. I'd like one.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

God didn't create sinners. God created two innocent people who brought on the penalty of sin sealing man to the bondage of "vanity", the venue/open door to the soul for sin to reak havoc by the law of his flesh by wilfully transgressing God's command, whose principles by which he was purposed live. Wilfully I say because Adam was given an option and made the choice to disobey by an act of his God given freewill; freewill needed for revealing whose law he would obey.

Not they.

By one man sin entered the world.

Who created that man?

 

[Cross Reference]

Not they.

By one man sin entered the world.

Who created that man?

No foolin' Dick Tracey. What is it now, time to pick fly crap outta pepper?

Adam wasn't created either. He was "formed" as in, God formed him out of the dust of the ground. Now where? Righteousness? Depravity? or innocence?

Kindly address my post.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No foolin' Dick Tracey. What is it now, time to pick fly crap outta pepper?

That would be you.

Adam wasn't created either.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

He was "formed" as in, God formed him out of the dust of the ground. Now where?

Where to? He was placed in the Garden.

Righteousness? Depravity? or innocence?

Kindly address my post.

Vanity, which is what Adam was subject to.

 

[Cross Reference]

That would be you.

How so?

Genesis 1:27

Yes? And?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

True, And? Ever try "forming" man out of the dirt? What would you call it except creating him out of dirt? Dirt was that which was created out of NOTHING.

Where to? He was placed in the Garden.

And? So what?

Vanity, which is what Adam was subject to.

I've saying that for years. Where you been?

Point is: Adam was innocent, right? Without sin, correct? What changed all that and why? What was the full result?

Now, since you are on a roll in agreement with me perhaps you might like to explain WHY Adam was subjected to Vanity?? Do you know?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Point is: Adam was innocent, right?

For awhile.

Without sin, correct?

For awhile.

What changed all that and why?

He acted out of his vanity.

What was the full result?

He became aware of his nakedness.

Now, since you are on a roll in agreement with me perhaps you might like to explain WHY Adam was subjected to Vanity?? Do you know?

That's a question we don't get to ask.

A better question would be why do you think Adam wasn't vain from jump street, and why do you reckon the condition came by man's will?

In light of this....

Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

So far I've seen you deny Adam was created and also somehow try to link turning believers in God over to a reprobate mind as the when and why they were vain.

 

[TulipBee]

Put up or shut up. Show me where I violate the scriptures? Of course you can't because you don't "know" them, nor do you "know" God that you make the most stupid remarks you do. So show me my posts upon which you base your untoward claims, you midget man of valor.

You don't have sound theology cause your beliefs causes you anger and vengeance . This is the evidence.

 

[TulipBee]

Thanks - I'm taking note of your reasoning - still would like to see a particular example of articular 'all' from scripture with the context being people.

Can we see the "ifs" as well?