Jengo, I answered you. Once again it seems you are incapable of understanding. Perhaps English is your second language?
My question was "Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"
Your answer to it was that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect or elect. I already acknowledged, in my most recent post, that you answered it.
You didn't read my recent post, obviously, or you would not have reacted to it the way you just have, since you would have seen that I acknowledged that you
finally answered a question I asked you. I specifically said, in that post, #39, "Congratulations, and thank you! That's the first question I've ever asked you that you've actually (sort of) answered." But, you can't even read my screen name, evidently, so why should I expect you to be able to read a whole sentence, let alone a whole post?
Anyway, that's your answer: that you do not know whether Greg Boyd is non-elect, or elect. It, of course, is a lousy answer, inasmuch as you already admitted that you consider Greg Boyd to be a
false teacher.
Observe what you are saying:
'Greg Boyd is a false teacher, but I do not know whether he is non-elect or elect.'
You are saying that Greg Boyd
might be non-elect, but that, on the other hand, he
might be elect. And so, you are saying that some false teachers may be elect. So, it is necessarily the case that you are dividing
the class of all false teachers into two sub-classes:
1. False teachers who are elect,
2. False teachers who are non-elect.
See, if you could bring yourself to affirm, instead, that ALL false teachers are
non-elect, then you wouldn't have any trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is non-elect, since you already have no trouble about declaring that Greg Boyd is a false teacher. But, since you are saying that some false teachers are elect, the only option you leave yourself is to respond to my question--"Is Greg Boyd non-elect?"--in as cautious and politic a way as you think you can, which is to say to me, "Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"
So, it is
because you think that some false prophets are elect that you refuse to come out and declare that Greg Boyd (whom you consider to be a false prophet) is
non-elect.
And so, what's really interesting about all this--all you've given me (whether or not you even realized just how much you were actually giving away, inadvertently)--is how it reflects on your Calvinist way of dealing with 2 Peter 2. See, since you obviously think that some false prophets are elect, it leaves you with no basis, whatsoever, upon which to claim, as you do, that the false prophets spoken of in 2 Peter 2 MUST be non-elect.
Do you now wish to change your mind, and deny, rather than affirm, that some false prophets are elect? That is, do you now wish to affirm, instead, that ALL false prophets are non-elect, and that NO false prophets are elect? If so, then nothing bars you from coming out, forthrightly, and declaring, "Yes, Greg Boyd is non-elect, since he is a false teacher." Your fake piety ploy--"Am I God? Do I know if God has chosen Boyd?"--is utterly worthless, since you believe that Greg Boyd is a false teacher, and that ALL false teachers are elect.
