ECT Who was not ransomed?

[Sonnet]

The bolded above reflects the Pelagian view, that sinful men retain inner virtue, and are able to save themselves. This is the humanistic worship of man and free-willism which is error.

Sinful man is not able to believe and respond to the Gospel because they are not willing. Their hearts are hard as rocks, and there is no faith nor love of God in them. They must first be given new hearts and be raised to new spiritual life before they will respond in faith unto justification. John Chapter 3

Ezekiel 36:37-38
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

 

[john w]

For 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.

One does not say one loves the 'world' (kosmon) if one only predetermines provision for less than all.

John 3 KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Clavinist/Calvinist version:

16 For God so loved the world of the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever of the world of the elect believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


So, according to the Clavinist/Calvinists, there are some amongst the world of the elect, who will not believe, and, the LORD God is an idiot/moron, for even including John 3:16 KJV in His book-no other option.

 

[Sonnet]

John 3 KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Clavinist/Calvinist version:

16 For God so loved the world of the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever of the world of the elect believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


So, according to the Clavinist/Calvinists, there are some amongst the world of the elect, who will not believe, and, the LORD God is an idiot/moron, for even including John 3:16 KJV in His book-no other option.

Coupled with the clear analogy Jesus uses in John 3:14-15, the OP and many other explicit verses then the Calvinist is in denial. Even Spurgeon acknowledged that 'all' means 'all'.

 

[Sonnet]

[FONT=&]“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time” (I Timothy 2:5-6).[/FONT]

'All' indeed means 'all': Luke 22:20-21

 

[Sonnet]

In other words, Timothy was going to be dealing with ALL KINDS of persons within his ministry. Paul's teaching in I Timothy 2:1-7 is directed to ALL the CHURCH under Timothy's care and who would be directed to the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ.

All kinds in Timothy's ministry?

This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

The limitation you impose on these scriptures is without warrant. Paul's language is universal with repeated usage of 'all' and 'men'.

Paul is bold in his assertion that:

And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle

Paul's purpose was to herald that God wants to save 'all kinds of persons within Timothy's ministry'?

 

[Nang]

Paul's purpose was to herald that God wants to save 'all kinds of persons within Timothy's ministry'?

Absolutely, yes!

It was God's WILL to save all kinds of persons through Timothy's Gospel ministry.

Jew as well as Gentile, male as well as female, rich as well as poor, royal as well as common, slave as well as free, etc. etc.

Of such does the Kingdom of Jesus Christ consist . . . can you deny this truth?

 

[Nang]

Even Spurgeon acknowledged that 'all' means 'all'.

You prove to be more of a "Spurgeonist" than you can prove me to be a "Calvinist."

The answer to this debate about the meaning of "all" surely does not lie solely in the views of the one man or the other, IMO.

 

[Sonnet]

Absolutely, yes!

It was God's WILL to save all kinds of persons through Timothy's Gospel ministry.

Jew as well as Gentile, male as well as female, rich as well as poor, royal as well as common, slave as well as free, etc. etc.

Of such does the Kingdom of Jesus Christ consist . . . can you deny this truth?

Your theology makes Paul's words just about as hollow as it is possible to be - 'God wants to save all kinds but, by the way, He chose those whom salvation would be withheld from'?

Under your theology all of a certain kind may have been excluded from salvific provision because they might all happen to be reprobates.

 

[Sonnet]

You prove to be more of a "Spurgeonist" than you can prove me to be a "Calvinist."

The answer to this debate about the meaning of "all" surely does not lie solely in the views of the one man or the other, IMO.

Indeed.

Still haven't had a reply to the relevant point regarding Romans 5:19. What must Paul have meant by the first occurrence of 'many' there?

 

[Nang]

He chose those whom salvation would be withheld from'?

No, it is more that sinners do not seek to be saved, due to unbelief and lack of love of God. God simply passes by them, and leaves them in their fallen condition.

For the righteousness of God is not contingent nor obligated to do otherwise.

Romans 9:15-18

 

[Sonnet]

No, it is more that sinners do not seek to be saved, due to unbelief and lack of love of God. God simply passes by them, and leaves them in their fallen condition.

Then, per your theology, all would be passed by so the charge remains: He chose those whom salvation would be withheld from.

For the righteousness of God is not contingent nor obligated to do otherwise.

Romans 9:15-18

Why does Paul's 'summary' in verses 30-32 not agree with you interpretation of those verses (15-19)? Your theology makes Paul's words disingenuous. Why would he keep banging on about faith and not works of righteousness if faith ONLY comes to the so called 'elect'? It makes no sense.

 

[Nang]

Indeed.

Still haven't had a reply to the relevant point regarding Romans 5:19. What must Paul have meant by the first occurrence of 'many' there?

It is not the first occurrence . . There is the pervasive Doctrine of Remnant soteriology revealed and upheld throughout all of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Sonnet]

Romans 9:15-18

Essentially, Paul is rebuking his kinsman's belief that they could attain righteousness through birthright and works of righteousness. Paul tells them, rather, that God chose to have mercy through Christ. Paul's specific example of Pharaoh is not a singling out as an example of reprobation; Paul might have cited any one of us.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

[Sonnet]

It is not the first occurrence . . There is the pervasive Doctrine of Remnant soteriology revealed and upheld throughout all of the Holy Scriptures.

I meant: what must Paul have meant by the first occurrence of 'many' in verse 19 (there being two occurrences in that verse)?

 

[Nang]

Then, per your theology, all would be passed by so the charge remains: He chose those whom salvation would be withheld from.

Yes. Sorry this is problematic for you . . .

Why does Paul's 'summary' in verses 30-32 not agree with you interpretation of those verses (15-19)?

The summary is in Romans 9:27

 

[Sonnet]

It is not the first occurrence . . There is the pervasive Doctrine of Remnant soteriology revealed and upheld throughout all of the Holy Scriptures.

The remnant, as in Romans 11, would be those who had faith - and in that example those who, through that faith, 'refused to bow the knee to Baal'.

 

[Nang]

I meant: what must Paul have meant by the first occurrence of 'many' in verse 19 (there being two occurrences in that verse)?

All it means is that Universalism is not Gospel Truth.

 

[Nang]

The remnant, as in Romans 11, would be those who had faith - and in that example those who, through that faith, 'refused to bow the knee to Baal'.

Yes . . "according to the election of grace." Romans 11:5

So?

 

[Sonnet]

Yes. Sorry this is problematic for you . . .

That you believe this is tragic - the promotion of which is the same for Christianity itself.

The summary is in Romans 9:27

And?

 

[Sonnet]

All it means is that Universalism is not Gospel Truth.

No, that's your interpretation on Romans 5.

I ask again:

What must Paul have meant by the first occurrence of the word 'many' in verse 19 (there being two occurrences in that verse)?