The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[Wrangler]

No, Jesus died for all; but not all avail themselves of what He did for them, appropriating it by faith.

This is the kind of double speak people hate.

Compare normal language usage using the Titanic as an example. 'Charlie died to save everyone on the Titanic' is taken to mean no one died because of his heroics. To add the qualifier is to destroy the purpose for which he died. Effective use of language would simply be to say something like 'Charlie offered to save everyone but not everyone took his offer.' Then subsequent would be the qualifier, 'Charlie died attempting to save everyone,' which implies the truth that not everyone was saved by Charlie's actions. Thus, Charlie offered to save everyone but not everyone took his offer. He died in the attempt.

Obviously, this casts a shadow that Charlie was not entirely successful and that his efforts (or sacrifice) reduce to a mere offer. Because this shadow of failure is unacceptable to those who hold the man-is-God thesis, doublespeak is invoked. It's not Charlie's fault; it's the fault of those who did not avail themselves to his efforts.

Alternatively, one could start with the basic fact not everyone is saved. Not everyone was saved despite Charlie's sacrifice, which only applied - in practice - to those who availed themselves of his offer. The figurative 'save the whole world' (in theory) is too attractive to let go. So, doublespeak. Charlies saved everyone on the Titanic (except those who he didn't save). And it is their own fault Charlie did not save them.

 

[CharismaticLady]

This is the kind of double speak people hate.

Compare normal language usage using the Titanic as an example. 'Charlie died to save everyone on the Titanic' is taken to mean no one died because of his heroics. To add the qualifier is to destroy the purpose for which he died. Effective use of language would simply be to say something like 'Charlie offered to save everyone but not everyone took his offer.' Then subsequent would be the qualifier, 'Charlie died attempting to save everyone,' which implies the truth that not everyone was saved by Charlie's actions. Thus, Charlie offered to save everyone but not everyone took his offer. He died in the attempt.

Obviously, this casts a shadow that Charlie was not entirely successful and that his efforts (or sacrifice) reduce to a mere offer. Because this shadow of failure is unacceptable to those who hold the man-is-God thesis, doublespeak is invoked. It's not Charlie's fault; it's the fault of those who did not avail themselves to his efforts.

Alternatively, one could start with the basic fact not everyone is saved. Not everyone was saved despite Charlie's sacrifice, which only applied - in practice - to those who availed themselves of his offer. The figurative 'save the whole world' (in theory) is too attractive to let go. So, doublespeak. Charlies saved everyone on the Titanic (except those who he didn't save). And it is their own fault Charlie did not save them.

Charlie is not a good example because only one person could be saved, and only if he had a seat in a lifeboat to offer to another.

 

[BarneyFife]

Conviction of the Holy Spirit is the halfway point in which a person is shown their need of a Saviour and is enabled to make a decision to either receive or reject Christ.

In that, God, by His Holy Spirit, is able to help a person come to Christ where he or she was previously unable because of their lost condition.



Sure it does. Totally depraved persons cannot do anything pleasing to God on their own so they need the help (succouring) of God in order to come to Christ.

So what condition are these folks in while they are thus being led--lost or born again? And how long is this "short period of time" that encapsulates the "middle ground?"

 

[justbyfaith]

So what condition are these folks in while they are thus being led--lost or born again? And how long is this "short period of time" that encapsulates the "middle ground?"

They are still lost while being drawn....until their positive response becomes concrete.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So what condition are these folks in while they are thus being led--lost or born again? And how long is this "short period of time" that encapsulates the "middle ground?"

For me it was 30 years. LOL

Sorry, I haven't been following the train of thought, but if it is about being drawn by the Father to Christ, that is what I meant.

 

[BarneyFife]

This is the kind of double speak people hate.

I sure do. A regular make-believe Paradox. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[BarneyFife]

They are still lost while being drawn....until their positive response becomes concrete.

Hence no "middle ground" or "halfway point."

 

[Renniks]

I'm not sure I got an answer to those who advocate in the affirmative. IF Jesus died for the world with no exceptions, then universalism is correct, right?

No.

 

[Renniks]

Okay, you still don't seem to understand the points.

How can I understand what isn't logical?

 

[Nancy]

No.

It's just too simple @Renniks
The gift of God is Christ, how do we receive a "gift" unless we have our hands and hearts open to accept it. If the Creator of the universe hands me such a gift, far be it from me to not accept it! We know He died for all or any any who call on His Name and put their total faith in Him amen.

 

[CadyandZoe]

More Calvinistic nonsense.

Did I say I was a Calvinist? I'm not. Try to avoid the "we/they" mindset because we are just two believers looking at the Bible together, which I very much appreciate.

Yes, God can further harden a hard heart (meaning strengthen its resolve)

I don't see how. Really. I don't. I think you are adding a qualification that isn't found in the narrative of Exodus and it confuses Paul's argument in Romans 9.

God clearly takes credit for hardening Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 4:21 And, this is critical, he isn't predicting that Pharaoh will harden his own heart. God has a divine purpose for the hardening. Why does God harden Pharaoh's heart? Exodus 7:3 "that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." God isn't reacting to Pharaoh; God is proactively hardening Pharaoh's heart.

God speaks everything into existence. He never says he manipulates all events in our lives however, that's a false idea that comes from secular philosophy, Aristotle's unmoved mover, for example.

Manipulation is simply one form of causation, which I deny.

Think about Roman 8:28. Why does Paul say that God causes all things to work together? Think about how many decisions and events must be orchestrated in order for God to cause all things to work together for our good? Why do we suppose that God is dictating how other free-will agents will make decisions to our good, while allowing us to have total autonomy? If God is working all things to our good, then he is working the free-will decisions of each and every person who has an impact or influence on our lives.

When I write a book, I am playing the part of a god who looks like Aristotle's unmoved mover. I manipulate everything my characters do, down to their thoughts, if I decide to write them in.

Do you actually manipulate your characters? I don't think you do. An author does not manipulate his characters to walk across the street. The author simply writes, "the characters walked across the street." No influence, coercion, force or persuasion is necessary or even possible.

God isn't obligated to speak all events into existence.

There is no alternative. Either God speaks it into existence or it doesn't exist. If God is speaking things into existence, then he doesn't "see" them until they exist. God never foresees something; rather, his knowledge of the future is first hand knowledge, since he knows what he intends for it.

The lump of clay in Romans 9 is Israel. God is using them despite their disobedience. To make your theory make sense, he would have to cause that disobedience, but he says he did everything he did to make Israel produce good fruit.

For my theory to work, God creates them making free-will choices to disobey.

[quote[God didn't create anyone for the specific purpose of damning that person.[/quote] Why not?

 

[justbyfaith]

Hence no "middle ground" or "halfway point."

It is. Because a person who is not being convicted and drawn cannot come to salvation in Jesus Christ; but the person who is being drawn is enabled to come to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ; while they have not yet been born again. The person who has come to salvation through faith in Jesus is born again.

 

[Nancy]

Did I say I was a Calvinist? I'm not. Try to avoid the "we/they" mindset because we are just two believers looking at the Bible together, which I very much appreciate.

I don't see how. Really. I don't. I think you are adding a qualification that isn't found in the narrative of Exodus and it confuses Paul's argument in Romans 9.

God clearly takes credit for hardening Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 4:21 And, this is critical, he isn't predicting that Pharaoh will harden his own heart. God has a divine purpose for the hardening. Why does God harden Pharaoh's heart? Exodus 7:3 "that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." God isn't reacting to Pharaoh; God is proactively hardening Pharaoh's heart.

Manipulation is simply one form of causation, which I deny.

Think about Roman 8:28. Why does Paul say that God causes all things to work together? Think about how many decisions and events must be orchestrated in order for God to cause all things to work together for our good? Why do we suppose that God is dictating how other free-will agents will make decisions to our good, while allowing us to have total autonomy? If God is working all things to our good, then he is working the free-will decisions of each and every person who has an impact or influence on our lives.

Do you actually manipulate your characters? I don't think you do. An author does not manipulate his characters to walk across the street. The author simply writes, "the characters walked across the street." No influence, coercion, force or persuasion is necessary or even possible.

There is no alternative. Either God speaks it into existence or it doesn't exist. If God is speaking things into existence, then he doesn't "see" them until they exist. God never foresees something; rather, his knowledge of the future is first hand knowledge, since he knows what he intends for it.

For my theory to work, God creates them making free-will choices to disobey.

[quote[God didn't create anyone for the specific purpose of damning that person.

Why not?[/QUOTE]


Exodus 8:15
"When Pharaoh saw that there was relief, however, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said."


1 Samuel 6:6
"Why harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened theirs? When He afflicted them, did they not send the people on their way as they departed?"

It seems like a combination of God and Pharaoh here. God knew Pharaoh would harden his own heart so, God gave him up to a hard heart to serve His own purposes perhaps?

 

[BarneyFife]

It is. Because a person who is not being convicted and drawn cannot come to salvation in Jesus Christ; but the person who is being drawn is enabled to come to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ; while they have not yet been born again. The person who has come to salvation through faith in Jesus is born again.

Nothing you say here validates your point. You're arguing with yourself. Saying the same thing over and over again while also agreeing to an opposing reality is either stubborn or deliberately obtuse. You said yourself that a person is lost until they come to Christ for salvation. This leaves no third option ("middle ground"). :)

 

[Renniks]

Why not?

Because he says he desires salvation for all.

 

[Renniks]

I don't see how. Really. I don't. I think you are adding a qualification that isn't found in the narrative of Exodus and it confuses Paul's argument in Romans 9.

Why would it confuse Paul's argument? God knew what pharaoh would do. He didn't have to cause his initial hardening to use pharaohs rebellion for good, same as with Israel.

 

[Renniks]

Do you actually manipulate your characters? I don't think you do. An author does not manipulate his characters to walk across the street. The author simply writes, "the characters walked across the street." No influence, coercion, force or persuasion is necessary or even possible.

Of course I manipulate them. My characters have no real freedom. Everything they do is my doing. God doesn't claim this,... just the opposite when it comes to Israel. He says they did things he never thought of.

 

[Renniks]

There is no alternative. Either God speaks it into existence or it doesn't exist. If God is speaking things into existence, then he doesn't "see" them until they exist. God never foresees something; rather, his knowledge of the future is first hand knowledge, since he knows what he intends for it.

None of us knows how God's foreknowledge works. But events aren't " things." Events have multiple causes. God doesn't claim to cause sin for example. There's things he does say he causes, but he's not the sole cause in a world with free will people and fallen angels.

 

[Renniks]

For my theory to work, God creates them making free-will choices to disobey.

That's impossible in your world where God causes everything.

 

[brightfame52]

Well I read what you posted and your position is that Jesus did not die for all men without exception. But what you say is my position, is not what you can read in my posts.

Tong
R2052

It is not your position for you are inconsistent. You say Christ died for all humanity 1 Jn 2:2