10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

you started by listing what the giver should have done

Quote:

---

The giver should have mailed a check to the mortgage company and credited his account directly.

---

Quote:

---

You are assuming this completely strung out person who apparently has no ability to manage money is given a gift and somehow all the sudden has new revelation on how to live his life?

---

but then you say

Quote:

---

The generous man is not to blame. The recipient is.

---

this is objectively false. if (as you say) the recipient is incapable, then the responsibility is entirely on the generous man. you say even a truly good gift is not good if the recipient is incapable of receiving it - the gift giver should do more until the gift is received.

but this puts the responsibility on the generous man, and no responsibility on the troubled man.

even more! it shows clearly that the generous man is not only responsible for the troubled man he gave a gift too, but even more responsible for the ones who he did not give anything to.

This makes God sole cause of salvation, and damnation. A person who has no agency can have no responsibility.

---

I reject the idea that the giver is responsible for the recipient's condition. The troubled man's own actions had put him in a situation in which he cannot accept that gift. The giver didn't contribute to the troubled man's downfall.

For the ones he did not give a gift to, that would no longer even make it a gift. It would be more of a debt, if it was something that was required to be given to everyone.

Yes, God is the sole cause of salvation, but no, God did not cause man to sin so that they could not receive his gift. So yes, man is still responsible.

---

Why can he not accept or refuse the gift? That makes no sense.

And can you show me Scripture that states that Christ did not die for all?

you are avoiding the point. the generous man doesn't need to be responsible for the person's condition for being to blame for doing too little.

if he is to blame for doing too little for one man, he is to blame for doing too little for anyone.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

If hell is only a rehab facility, what's the point of trying to live the best life possible to get into heaven? You'd just be getting there ultimately anyways…. Now purgatory on the other hand is the rehab facility

---

Because as Scripture says, Jesus came to give us the most abundant, joy filled life possible. In my experience, people who chase carnal stuff are not very happy and are never satisfied. The kingdom is here. Now. And that is Scriptural also.

Zobel said:

---

you are avoiding the point. the generous man doesn't need to be responsible for the person's condition for being to blame for doing too little.

if he is to blame for doing too little for one man, he is to blame for doing too little for anyone.

---

This is exactly what William Lane Craig was saying in the link I gave. Calvinism contradicts Scripture and is non sensical.

I'm not sure the analogy really works as salvation is a free gift you either accept or reject. It isn't something you can accept and then throw away. But that's just the P in me talking. Is it time to move to that letter?

dermdoc said:

---

And can you show me Scripture that states that Christ did not die for all?

---

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

Hebrews 9:27-28
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

the scriptures talk about apostasy, so yes, you can accept and reject.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

you are avoiding the point. the generous man doesn't need to be responsible for the person's condition for being to blame for doing too little.

if he is to blame for doing too little for one man, he is to blame for doing too little for anyone.

---

This is exactly what William Lane Craig was saying in the link I gave. Calvinism contradicts Scripture and is non sensical.

---

This would be quite the indictment on the Reformers since the sole driving basis was scripture alone.

I agree, our purpose here on earth is to glorify God. And then like you said, the more that happens, the better our life is here. But if you choose not to glorify him and chase those carnal desires, there's punishment in this life and the next. As Jesus says, the only way to the Father (both in heaven and earth) is through him

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I'm not sure the analogy really works as salvation is a free gift you either accept or reject. It isn't something you can accept and then throw away. But that's just the P in me talking. Is it time to move to that letter?

---

You do understand that contradicts Reformed/Calvinist theology? The person has no choice to accept or reject salvation. Unconditional election and irresistible grace.

I agree with you but you are not expressing Reformed/Calvinist theology.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And can you show me Scripture that states that Christ did not die for all?

---

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

Hebrews 9:27-28
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

---

That's easily understood to be a reference to those who have accepted the free gift. It's not a statement of limited number who WILL accept it.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

I agree, our purpose here on earth is to glorify God. And then like you said, the more that happens, the better our life is here. But if you choose not to glorify him and chase those carnal desires, there's punishment in this life and the next. As Jesus says, the only way to the Father (both in heaven and earth) is through him

---

Agree. But I do not believe God creates people who have no chance for salvation.

Zobel said:

---

the scriptures talk about apostasy, so yes, you can accept and reject.

---

In simplistic terms, yes anyone either accepts or rejects the gift Christ gives. By not accepting it, you are rejecting it. By not using the gifted money on your mortgage, you are rejecting the gift.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And can you show me Scripture that states that Christ did not die for all?

---

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

Hebrews 9:27-28
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

---

But those do not say God excludes anyone by His volition. In fact, those seem to infer free will and a choice.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

the scriptures talk about apostasy, so yes, you can accept and reject.

---

In simplistic terms, yes anyone either accepts or rejects the gift Christ gives. By not accepting it, you are rejecting it. By not using the gifted money on your mortgage, you are rejecting the gift.

---

So it is your choice, correct?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And can you show me Scripture that states that Christ did not die for all?

---

Matthew 20:28
even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many

Hebrews 9:27-28
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

---

That's easily understood to be a reference to those who have accepted the free gift. It's not a statement of limited number who WILL accept it.

---

Exactly. And that is why Craig says Calvinism contradicts Scripture.

Zobel said:

---

the scriptures talk about apostasy, so yes, you can accept and reject.

---

True, but we probably have different views of apostasy. I view it in light of 1 John 2:19

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

I agree. There may be someone born that never has a chance to learn who Jesus is. In that case, we cannot judge that person because they didn't even have a choice in the first place to choose to know him. Therefore his soul is at the mercy of God. I apologize, I'm probably wording this very poorly. My general point is that it's not right to damn someone to hell because they never had a chance to know Jesus. There are extenuating circumstances where what is ideal can't be applied.

I would say that is heresy, not apostasy.

Apostasy is explicitly taught in Hebrews 6: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt."

That is definitely the toughest passage for those who believe in perseverance of the saints. But I'm not sure "shared in the Spirit" means indwelt by the Spirit.

What else could it mean? This is describing people who have been baptized, received the eucharist, received the Spirit, and therefore tasted the goodness of God and the powers of the coming age. They repented once, otherwise you would not be able to restore them "again" to repentance. They were a part of the church, otherwise they could not fall away from it. Christ Jesus was crucified for them once, otherwise it would not be impossible to crucify Him once again.

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

This would be in violation of the "I" in TULIP.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

Touche.

By the way, just want to thank you again (mainly your wife) for all the tips. I think we're homeschoolers for life now. It has really been a blessing.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

---

I prefer effectual grace. TULEP

[ducks]

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

This would be in violation of the "I" in TULIP.

---

Hey, we agreed on something. And it seems like another (of many) where plain Scripture contradicts Calvinism.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

---

I prefer effectual grace. TULEP

[ducks]

---

Is that like prevenient grace? Are you sure you are Reformed/Calvinist?

And I agree with what you are saying.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

---

I prefer effectual grace. TULEP

[ducks]

---

Well if it is effectual it means it would have its intended effect, IMO anyway.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

---

I prefer effectual grace. TULEP

[ducks]

---

Is that like prevenient grace? Are you sure you are Reformed/Calvinist?

And I agree with what you are saying.

---

No, it isn't prevenient grace. It is still the same basic concept as irresistible grace. I don't go to a reformed church but I do agree with much of the theology. I try not to be too dogmatic about it though.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I believe these are the same people in the parable of the soils, who receive the Word with joy and later fall away. I would say that those who endure for a while share in these gifts for a time simply by being in the presence of believers. But they resist the Spirit.

---

Doesn't Reformed/Calvinist theology state the Spirit can not be resisted?

Irresistible Grace is the "I" in TULIP.

---

I prefer effectual grace. TULEP

[ducks]

---

Is that like prevenient grace? Are you sure you are Reformed/Calvinist?

And I agree with what you are saying.

---

No, it isn't prevenient grace. It is still the same basic concept as irresistible grace. I don't go to a reformed church but I do agree with much of the theology. I try not to be too dogmatic about it though.

---

I see what you are saying. Thanks.

Sure. Same people. But you're saying they resist the Spirit - does not say that. Unless we're going to invent a category of false repentance (which is also doesn't say) and false baptism etc.

In the end this ends up being completely fruitless, because its a tautology. Those who are saved don't fall away because they are saved. Those who fall away were never saved. It teaches nothing, even to those who think they're saved because they might have false assurance. Empty teaching.

So what about Phil 1:6, Eph. 1:13-14, John 10:27-39? I understand your argument, but eternal security is all over the New Testament.

And are you referring to 'washings' in Heb. 6:3 when you talk about baptism? I'm a little lost there.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

So what about Phil 1:6, Eph. 1:13-14, John 10:27-39? I understand your argument, but eternal security is all over the New Testament.

And are you referring to 'washings' in Heb. 6:3 when you talk about baptism? I'm a little lost there.

---

Phil1:6 - "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

• I don't see how that supports eternal security. It supports having justified confidence and a firm and trustworthy hope founded in faith that God will give you the grace necessary to persevere, but I don't see how you get certainty out of that. If anything, that verse supports the idea of salvation being a PROCESS and not a one time event.

Ephesians 1:13-14 - "In him also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

• I understand how one can read this as being some sort of "guarantee" since the word is right there, but the bolded phrase indicates it is not yet ours. Moreover, when read with the other passages of scripture that indicate salvation is not something that is assured until we die in God's friendship, the better reading is that those of us who have faith and are in friendship with God can be confident of our eternal destination provided that we don't presume or stop living a life of loving God and neighbor.

John 10:37-39 - not going to type all of it, but the key verse is presumably verse 28 "... and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

• Definitely the strongest scripture passage you shared, but I still don't think it seals the deal. It doesn't say that the sheep can't of their own volition remove themselves from Jesus' or the Father's hands. This ultimately goes back to free will and all the other things that have been discussed elsewhere, but we know there are real examples in scripture of believers who apostatized. See Zobel's example above.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

So what about Phil 1:6, Eph. 1:13-14, John 10:27-39? I understand your argument, but eternal security is all over the New Testament.

And are you referring to 'washings' in Heb. 6:3 when you talk about baptism? I'm a little lost there.

---

Phil1:6 - "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

• I don't see how that supports eternal security. It supports having justified confidence and a firm and trustworthy hope founded in faith that God will give you the grace necessary to persevere, but I don't see how you get certainty out of that. If anything, that verse supports the idea of salvation being a PROCESS and not a one time event.

Ephesians 1:13-14 - "In him also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

• I understand how one can read this as being some sort of "guarantee" since the word is right there, but the bolded phrase indicates it is not yet ours. Moreover, when read with the other passages of scripture that indicate salvation is not something that is assured until we die in God's friendship, the better reading is that those of us who have faith and are in friendship with God can be confident of our eternal destination provided that we don't presume or stop living a life of loving God and neighbor.

John 10:37-39 - not going to type all of it, but the key verse is presumably verse 28 "... and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

• Definitely the strongest scripture passage you shared, but I still don't think it seals the deal. It doesn't say that the sheep can't of their own volition remove themselves from Jesus' or the Father's hands. This ultimately goes back to free will and all the other things that have been discussed elsewhere, but we know there are real examples in scripture of believers who apostatized. See Zobel's example above.

---

So basically you understand how those verses, and there are certainly more (1 Pet. 1:4-5, Rom. 8:38-39), can be interpreted as support for eternal security, you just see it differently. I'd say the same in regard to Heb. 6.